There is no doubt about it! There is an economic advantage to individuals cooperating for business purposes and our founders recognized that fact. What they did not want was the compelled performance of entrapment by the implied contracts under the private Roman civil law operating within and between the states. Theirs was to be civil law based on the principles of the general common law/26 and its full disclosure bilateral contracts. It thus became referred to as: "System of commercial law in the American states."/27 Under our unique type of law, the government was to have no direct contact with the people - unlike the Roman civil law. The federal government was there basically to oversee the economic cooperation between the several states of the union - who were foreign to each other - to provide for their common defense and to work out the commercial business of the several states of the union as they relate to each other and world trade, this being based on public municipal law not private law.
The common law principles that our forefathers brought with them were the basis of public municipal law. This means the laws are bilateral in nature based on a two party agreement where there is a meeting of the minds with full disclosure. Nothing is implied or hidden where one could be entrapped into compelled performance by a third party trust. The public municipal law was law that did not allow the private commercial government to have any relationship with the individual citizen and his right of contract. This was true separation of power.
~Private law, which the Roman civil law thrived on, was conscience law of one "person" (trust) over another without their knowing how it happened. There was no liberty of choice as to its terms. The terms of the contract or agreement (also called an offer) are always based on the personal beliefs of the Roman civil government. The offer is always unilateral where your acceptance is totally signified by your silence. Everything the individual got involved in under Roman civil law had implications that obligated him or her because of benefits being accepted by continued silence. There were always strings attached that were considered a benefit. The agreement never has definite limits. What is agreed on is only implied or constructed upon the circumstances. The implications of a unilateral offer and acceptance would always create a third party constructive or implied trust. This trust, being the third party, was always there to oversee and to exact what it thought it was due through compelled performance to the rules of the private trust that bound the persons who had private business dealings. There is no separation of powers. In other words, there is no way to have a true bilateral general common law contractual relationship because of the government having you in a trust relationship making your position inferior, not superior. You become the trust and therefore part of the government, while at the same time, the government becomes you and part of the trust. You end up being your own enforcer as a volunteer. This is why the IRS keeps telling you that taxes are voluntary. Your identity is lost in the trust relationship due to purely moral ideas developed outside the legal system (because of a movement away from Law) because it finds its chief reliance is on the power of the magistrate.
In order to have a separation of powers, each power must have and keep a separate and distinct identity. That is, the people function as sovereigns. The government operates only by the powers the people, as sovereigns allow, and those powers - Public Law for private use - protects the identity of the people apart from the civil government. Roman civil law does not allow this.
The federal government that was set up in the beginning was public commercial law, but it was based entirely on public municipal law for private use. The federal government had no direct contact with the people because the people had not contracted away their Law and its separation of powers into a constructive trust of private conscience. The state is forbidden to interfere with the peoples lives by the constitutional mandate of Article I, Section 10 which refers to there being no "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The individual owed nothing to the state, thus the state could not interfere with personal and individual contracts between individuals. Federalism, without Roman civil law as its base (public federalism), could not come into Intervene with private contracts between two parties. However, when federalism is based on Roman civil law (private federalism), where both your identity and the government's are confused by the constructive trust arrangement, they are constantly a part of the contracts - they are the administrators of your conscience via the charitable trust. Under the Roman civil law, you are considered an incompetent [unable to handle your private affairs] so the trust is involved as a third party in all your private business affairs.
Under public federalism in the beginning, business and economic associations were formed for various advantages. There was no compelled performance because all relationships were based on bilateral contracts with full disclosure and understanding by the parties involved. When a dispute arose between parties in a state, the courts ruled on the contract pure and simple - no Codes involved, no implications to be explored. Likewise, when disputes arose between parties from different states, then the federal courts were the referees for helping solve the problem and the ruling was upon the contract (with jury assistance if demanded) without Codes, Regulations or revised Statutes drummed up by a third party overseer.
So in contrast today, the substance of private federalism is purely the private law or conscience of a private charitable trust - private Roman civil law of the 14th Amendment with vested interest called "government" - moved into the public arena by voluntary (silent) acceptance of 51% of the population./28 Anytime a civil relationship is established, it is based on implied and indefinite trust principles. The result is a government that has created a third party administrative bureaucracy that spends its time making and readjusting Codes and revised Statutes that dictate public policy. This is in order to continue the compelled performance of the citizen (beneficiary) to service the public debt and thus promote the economic benefits of the government trust. The federal government has become a massive public charitable trust which is using in excess of 2000% of every dollar for administration and the "ship of state" is not staying afloat.
In fact feudalism (private federalism) is apt to appear whenever the strain of preserving a relatively large political unit proves to be beyond the economic and psychic resources of a society./29
"I can ... fight this Frankenstein which the New Deal has created and which is rapidly gobbling up every vestige of right which the people have and enjoy today ... . I feel it necessary that the Congress take some steps against this bureaucratic invasion, not only of the people's rights, but of the right of Congress and of every other legislative and judicial branch of our Government. ... You are reducing them [the American people] to the status of a serf."/30
Take a look at the Titles Of United States Code. The last time we looked, there were at least fifty different Titles. Of the fifty, only twenty-two are public municipal law for private purposes. The rest are simply private law. That's right! Private law that has destroyed individualism and the family unit, creativity and the individual incentive to produce. Private law that has siphoned off all the wealth and natural resources of the wealthiest nation in the world, all for assumed economic benefit. What a shame?
The United States Constitution starts out: "We the people of the United States." This phrase in referring to laws the commercial government of the United States used to assure a "commercial law system in the American states," without operation of Roman civil law, except anywhere the tide ebbed and flowed. That is, the Roman civil law was left to operate where it always had, as a part of the admiralty-maritime law of the sea in the seaports.
Only the individual, as "one people" - declared in the Declaration of Independence - has the power to determine a Republican form of government as stated in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution by calling on Public Law for private purposes. This is why the Declaration of Independence was written first. It was the basis of the "one people" sovereignty which then set up the Constitution.
Before the beginning of the nation and the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Roman civil law was well entrenched in the colonies. This is because it was the basis of the admiralty-maritime laws that governed commerce upon the seas internationally as well as ports of call. When our founding fathers were planning on a new nation, they understood the advantage of public commercial law for the economic benefit of the American states. However, they did not want any of that public commercial law to be adulterated with the private Roman civil law (as referred to previously) with its unilateral contracts. Therefore, they met behind closed doors to develop a dual federalism that would assure that "commercial law in the American states" would prosper without the compelled entrapment of private Roman maritime law that would inevitably continue internationally.
Indeed, the main task was to get those old centers to surrender certain prerogative; and the effect at reassuring them led to lingering ambiguities in our use of the term "federalism." In itself, this has to do with treaties (foedera) or alliances - the neutral use at, e.g. Jefferson Papers, 1:311. But there was an emphasis, in the 1780s, on the ties that connect those under treaty - on union and united force, as in the term "federal [i.e. covenant] theology." Federalists were, therefore, thought to stand for federal power over against the states. But in explaining their position, Madison and Hamilton labored in the Federalist Papers to show the states they had noting to fear from this central (federal) power. Thus federalism has come, in modern parlance, to mean the division or dispersal of central power. Those who opposed a Bill of Rights at the Constitutional Convention - including, at first, Madison himself, who drafted and steered through the final bill - were assuming that the individual was already protected by the states' bills; that the central government could not reach the individual except through the states, which had put impenetrable barriers around individual rights./31
Thus our forefathers clarified the "federalism" confusion by establishing two federalisms that would exist side by side. One would be the private federalism that had come in with the international trade under admiralty-maritime laws based on Roman civil law. The other would be the public federalism of the new "commercial law in the American states." This federalism would be based on the general common law and its sovereignty of the individual citizen being maintained by public laws for the private use of the individual to conduct his business by. [See Table 1. Dual Federalisms Compared]
| DUEL FEDERALISMS COMPARED | |
|---|---|
|
sustained by |
sustaned by |
|
Public Social Security Trust. |
Negotiable Instrument Law /b |
|
All business and trade over-seen. |
No third party intervention. |
|
14th Amendment citizen |
non 14th Amendment citizen |
|
Private Enterprise |
Free Enterprise |
|
"New World Order" actually |
Republican government |
The uniqueness of our Constitution allows this dual federalism. It allows the individual the liberty to function within the public laws and the separation of powers or it allows for the individual to bind himself or herself by unilateral trust contract arrangements.
Thus the word "federal" in the American states refers to the dual federalism as distinguished in, Swift v. Tyson/32 or Erie Railroad v. Thompkins./33 We must remember the state courts handled federal questions in the beginning of the nation. As commerce between the states grew, Swift v. Tyson was designed to protect the people of the several states from the Roman civil law that was operating under admiralty jurisdiction outside the Constitution where the tide of admiralty-maritime law ebbed and flowed with international trade. The dual federalism was termed by our founders as the "New Order For The Ages." Today we hear our leaders using the term: "New World Order," however, it is being used to create the old world order and its inquisitions under Roman civil law [based on the IRS 1040 form properly known under the government title of "Recapture Property" (Postliminy = latin for "bring home the property"]
Remember, there are two kinds of taxes, direct and indirect. Direct taxes are used to produce revenue for a constitutional government - public federalism. Indirect taxes are used for controlling human behavior and wealth.
It is wonderful how preposterously the affairs of the world are managed. We assemble parliaments and councils to have the benefit of collected wisdom, but we necessarily have, at the same time, the convenience of their collected passions, prejudices and private interests: For regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the greatest tool on earth. - Ol' Ben Franklin strikes again
We have reached the point where we must bring in the whys and wherefores of the 14th Amendment for it is the key that has unlocked the destruction of the American economy and your individual liberty. Even so, our government is still bent on exporting its principles to the world as the "New World Order." In reality, the supposed "New World Order" is not new. It is nothing more than old world order of Roman civil law in a new disguise continually making and adjusting public policy.
The 14th Amendment [purportedly] became law - private Roman civil law that is - in 1868, but the stage was set years and in some ways decades before. Of the various factors in the history of the U.S. that built the momentum to bring in the 14th Amendment, probably one of the first was that the Constitution made it plain that every citizen had the right to contract away his personal and absolute rights. That is, anyone could literally bind themselves away from the absolute rights under the "Bill of Rights" any time they wanted to by private contract. They could operate outside the Constitution by contract if they desired, because the law was theirs. However, in the opposite vein, they could walk right back into their constitutional government anytime. This was called the right of expatriation (more on this a little later).
Another factor contributing to the bringing in of the 14th Amendment had to do with both slavery and the corporations before and during the Civil War. In fact, the Civil War figures very prominently in the 14th Amendment because it was used as a cover for control maneuvers going on in the corporate back rooms of our nation - especially in the north. On the other hand, the slave issue was used as a con before, during, and after the war.
In 1851, an Act was passed called the "Limited Liability Act." This Act provided protection for owners of ships whose cargo and/or ship was lost at sea. The ship owner and investors were required to purchase maritime insurance, so if a loss was encountered, it would be easier to deal with if the loss was spread around. From this, the inland corporations saw an opportunity to advance if, some way, they too could have the benefits of maritime limited liability operating in their behalf. They saw limited liability as a way to take more risk to advance their profits making the corporation King. Keep in mind during that time of our nation's history, the north had become the industrial center while the south had remained the agricultural center dependent on slaves as the basis of labor. Because the social issues of slavery had been making more noise, what better time to turn the problem of physical slavery into a tolerated economic slavery by bringing in the law of the sea over the land. And if a war results from the slave issue, what better way to help strengthen industry in the north than to use the stimulus of war.
By pushing the problem of slavery, the real issue of economic control by private corporate structure could be advanced unnoticed - the first phase of a "bait and switch" tactic. So with the culmination of the Civil War and the northern industrial base primed, the slaves were now free of being chattel property. At this point, corporate big brother made a calculated move. Since the freed slaves, as well as the rest of the citizenry, were ignorant of how their freedoms were maintained, it was a perfect time to activate the second part of the bait and switch maneuver. That was to set a law into motion with a lot of Congressional fanfare that appeared to assure the freed slaves that they had all the civil rights of everyone else. Thus came about the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866, which was private or non-positive law. The basic problem with the Act was that it had no jurisdiction over the slave at all, but the lawmakers sure made it look that way. You see, it was private law that only affected those who were in contractual relations with the private corporate structure of the United States government. None of the freed slaves had any type of license with the United States government so it did nothing other than play on their ignorance and made them think that it did something. It also affected few of the rest of the population for the same reason. All it ended up to be was a law that had few citizens in its jurisdiction. However, the Act had more indirect affect on the future freedoms of everyone as we look back. For those it did affect - those holding licenses or under contract (including federal employees) with the United States government - it did two primary things. First, it took away absolute property rights (in personam)./34 Second, it replaced them with personal property rights (in rem)/35 regardless of race. That is, the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866 moved anyone in its jurisdiction away from real property law and established them in personal property law outside the protection of the general common law and the Constitution with its separation of powers.
The only problem with the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866 was that it did not have enough jurisdiction over the majority of the population. Therefore Congress began another maneuver under the influence of private corporate special interest. It began to make the Pubic think the Act was not permanent enough, that there was the potential that another Congress could be impressed to remove the civil rights. Therefore, the only way to assure permanent civil rights was to make an Amendment to the Constitution.
The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise [and perhaps unsafe] to leave so important a Declaration of Rights to depend upon an ordinary Act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent congress, framed the 14th Amendment .../36
What an assumed noble reason. Assure civil rights by adding an Amendment to the Constitution. Who would be against civil rights? After all, isn't that what this country was all about? So we now have the 14th Amendment. It is extremely unfortunate that as we look back at the racial cover that was used to get the Amendment into law, we continue to see, even today, the same use of racial issues to cover an undercurrent of corporate private law being used in the public sector for exploiting the population.
It [the 14th Amendment] is a set-back to proper government. This operation of the 14th Amendment runs counter to the ideals expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution itself. It does any thing but promote domestic tranquility. They [the Republican Party] knew what they intended by the vague terms of section one of the Amendment. They knew that it could be interpreted so as to extend far beyond the negro race question. They desired to nationalize all civil rights; to make the Federal power supreme; and to bring the private life of every citizen directly under the eye of Congress ... . This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks ... . It meant the death knell of the doctrine of State's rights - the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of State control over the private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State, into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred ... . The States of this Union were never sovereign. Neither is the Federal Government sovereign. Sovereignty is now and has always been inherent in the American people ... . This would be a different matter if the Fourteenth Amendment presented to the courts only questions of law, but this is not the case. As a rule, when the Supreme Court declares a State law unconstitutional under the Amendment, what it really does is not to decide a question of law, but a question of governmental policy. ... the primary purpose of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to elevate the negro to a plane of equality with the white people and to protect him in his newly given rights. In its attempt to carry out this ideal, Congress was effectually restrained by the Supreme Court. Consequently, as related to the negro race, the Amendment is negative and non-automatic. It has failed of its purpose because there is no Federal power to enforce it, and because the negroes have not been qualified to gain for themselves the ideals which it seeks to enforce. When they do become so qualified, they will have no need of the 14th Amendment. On of the immediate purposes of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to assist in destroying the power of the Democratic Party in the South and in its place to build up Republicans. This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks ... . It was a nationalization of all civil rights./37
So, in 1868 Congress passed the 14th Amendment which accomplished primarily two things:
First, it made each individual primarily a federal citizen of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia.
Second, it combined the Senate and the House in their function so they are now operating for the benefit of private commercial law. Until the 14th Amendment, the House functioned for private commercial benefit and the Senate functioned for non-commercial public municipal law benefit - the benefit of the individual under republican law.
Third, it made each person responsible for the public debt by making them beneficiaries of the "public trust" the 14th Amendment established.
The 14th Amendment was also private non-positive law (local law) because it was enacted to set up a voluntary trust relationship that any citizen of the states could participate in if desired. Thus, the Amendment was instrumental in shifting citizenship of each American from being primarily a state citizen to being a citizen of the private corporation of government. However, this Amendment was a sleeper, so to speak. That is, it could still only exercise jurisdiction of those who chose voluntarily to participate.
Interestingly, Congress knew that it was making an Amendment that was based on private non-positive law and was therefore conditional. That is, the people had to have a choice whether they wanted to participate or not in what the 14th Amendment was offering, otherwise it would have been totally and completely unconstitutional. Therefore, one day before the 14th Amendment was passed, Congress passed 15 Stat. 249-250. This Statute provided for a person to remove him or herself from the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment public trust if they so desired.
The 14th Amendment set in motion a process of taking private corporate law of a few, namely big business, and moving it into the public sector to control the masses for their assumed benefit. The actual benefit was for the corporations. The assumed benefit lay with being a member of the public trust and, therefore being able to receive benefits from the trust, benefits in the form of whatever care the national government would come up with to provide for you from cradle to grave. Those benefits have come at a severe price since 1868. That price is the loss of our absolute liberty under the Constitution and the general common law. In exchange, we have only received back relative rights with assumed economic benefits. In reality, the benefits have been curses!
When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, it was far simpler to enumerate the few powers that were to be given to the national government than to try and list all the powers the individual citizen would keep. So it was that when the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) was completed, Amendments nine and ten distinctly stated what powers "one people" would reserve.
Amendment IX - "The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people."
Amendment X - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, it was that among all the powers "retained by the people," one of the most important was the power to contract for services or trades with another person or persons without interference from anyone - in or out of the government (see Article I, Section 10) and not have the government interfere in any way. As discussed previously, contracts are also referred to as "private law." This right to contract (use private law) meant that two people could come to a meeting of their minds and agree between themselves for virtually anything they would both settle on and the government could not interfere. For example, let's suppose that person "A" has developed a skill through special professional education or on-the-job training. As a non-14th Amendment citizen, he or she has the liberty to offer their services for sale without the interference of civil licensing authority. In other words, the licensing authority and their policing powers have no jurisdiction over a person who is not a citizen of the 14th Amendment public municipal trust. Here is the secret of the true liberty of choice - as in medicine for example. With this true liberty of the laws of the Republic, therapies that are only available outside the United States could be an option in each state. Remember, you are dealing with a political choice. Making your choice to function in the law of the Republic means the government cannot compel you to be regulated by private law of the democracy.
Yet, there is one very important facet of the power to contract or use private law under the Constitution. That is, if contract/private laws come into dispute in the courts, the contract will be ruled on outside the Constitution. You read correctly! Contracts, or private agreements, will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In other words, specific private agreements (called contracts) governing individual circumstances between two or more persons will always overrule broad general clauses found in the Constitution. This is because it is illogical to allow someone to take a clause out of the Constitution, that was not a part of their original agreement, and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the contractual provisions while retaining the financial gain the private contract may have given him in the first place. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." What he means is that when you go to court to dispute a contract or private law agreement that you had with someone else, the courts are there to enforce the contracts, as brutal as that may be, apart and separate from the Constitution.
With the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the stage was set for private law to be used outside the Constitution to financially enslave the masses and destroy the republican union. The stage was also set to move Roman civil law into operation within the boundaries of the [u]nited States of America contrary to what our founding fathers ever intended. Note the words of concern in George Washington's "Farewell Address" to the American People.
"The unity of government which constitutes you one people ... is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. ... it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now like together the various parts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations (14th Amendment) which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown." [Bracket information added]/38
So now we are seeing the results of "Constitution alterations" in 1868. Alterations that have "covertly and insidiously" removed the "national union", known as the U.S. of A. the Republic, and substituted economic slavery of compelled performance.
Yet the beauty of the our Republic and the constitutional government our forefathers set up can be demonstrated from the way President James Madison responded to a bill that he vetoed on February 21, 1811. It shows how forces of private religious conscience were always trying to force their private law on the public.
"Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which Governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law - a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its Constitution and administration ... as the injunctions and prohibitions, contained in the Regulations, would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law. Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church ... would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."/39
So it was not until the [purported] passage of the 14th Amendment that the continual push of private law into the public sector won out. At that point, private conscience law of the Roman church became the national conscience by way of the 14th Amendment trust of the District of Columbia.
Now notice this: In Wheaton's Elements Of International Law, 6th edition, page 304, the existing rule as to freedom of religious worship is thus laid down:
"A minister resident in a foreign country is entitled to the privilege of religious worship in his own private chapel, according to the particular forms of his national faith, although it may not be generally tolerated by the laws of the state where he resides."
"The laws of Rome do not tolerate any other form of public religious worship than such as conforms to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church; but the right of any foreign minister at the papal court to hold religious services under his own roof, and in accordance with the forms of his national or individual faith, has never been questioned or interfered with. This the Russian, the Prussian, the American, and other representatives of foreign powers in Rome, have always exercised [and still enjoy unmolested] the freedom of religious worship in the several chapels connected with their respective legations. These chapels, of course, are open to all compatriots of the different ministers desirous of joining in their religious services."/40
The national faith, referred to, applies to the 14th Amendment citizenship. It is a citizenship based on the unilateral charitable social security trust of conscience (religion) of the District of Columbia. Because it is based on a unilateral charitable contract, it cannot be tolerated in the laws of the state where one resides - meaning the laws of the Republic of the [u]nited States of America. The Laws of the Republic and its separation of powers is not governed by the law of conscience or religion. That is, the Constitution mandates that the Republic will not recognize the establishment of a religion, the conscious beliefs of one or a thousand individuals, as a basis for Public Law. Here is the prescribed separation of power. It is governed by the public municipal law of the Constitution of the [u]nited States of America. Religious beliefs are a private matter within each person and are not intended to be enforced on anyone else in the Republic. This has been the very downfall of every civilization. Somebody wants to enforce their conscience - religion - upon everyone else - democracy: the exact cause of the American Revolution of 1776 and the mess of the nation today.
The "Statute of Charitable Uses" (charitable trusts) was enforced in the 13 original colonies by courts of the Star Chamber/41 enforcing "Writs of Assistance"/42 (such as demands of the conscience of the IRS) and was the cause of the American Revolution. This is because the Statute was based on the parliamentary democracy which received its law based on the king's conscience - divine right of kings. The "Statute of Charitable Uses" (trusts) never had any force in the (u)nited States until the coming of the 14th Amendment to re-institute the courts of the Star Chamber enforcing "Writs of Assistance."
For an example of the private conscience law of the church being moved into public policy, look at this:
CKQUOTE> "The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, also known as the National Cathedral, seeks to serve the entire nation as a house of prayer for all people. The concept of such a cathedral dates back to 1791 when Pierre L.' Enfant specified "a great church for national purposes" in his plan for the city."/43
So let's take a look at the exact test of the 14th Amendment so we can see what is taking place.
Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."
Section 2. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
Section 3. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as member of any State Legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote to two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellions against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
Section 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
First, let's notice the italicized part of Section 1. Two important facts are derived from this part. One - this Amendment deals with trust law. The phrase "and subject to"/44 is language that is used for trusts which are nothing more than private contractual arrangements.
Two - Section 1 states that your are now to be firstly and primarily a citizen of the United States and secondly a citizen of the State, while outside the 14th Amendment, and under the full rights of the Constitution, it is just the opposite.
Next, notice the italicized part of Section 4. According to this, the "validity of the public debt" and all its facets "shall not be questioned." Whether Amendments to the Federal Constitution have been properly ratified is (usually) a political question./45 A political question means that it is voluntary. The court will never question your choice, but will enforce that choice. This is why Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says "the public debt shall not be questioned." When one is a beneficiary of the public debt when you have volunteered (politically) for it. It is like suing yourself, it is impossible. Another U.S. Supreme Court decision also verifies that you can reject the benefits of a trust (the public debt) if you realize you are not the beneficiary./46 In other words, is it your will to be a part of the economic benefit of the legislature? If not, then what evidence do you have to show that you have declined to be a beneficiary? This is where your "Declaration of Independence" comes in.
The 14th Amendment is private unilateral contract law being used in the public sector to dictate public policy. Everyone born since 1868 has, by accident of birth, become subject to the 14th Amendment. "Subject to" is accomplished through the constructive trust created under the Roman civil law offer and acceptance principles and all its ramifications, including being citizens primarily of the United States government and not of the state in which you live. Plus, you also have the additional benefit of being part of and responsible for the public debt of the trust. The 14th Amendment does not say that all persons are subject to, it says "and subject to" which is the first clue to revealing that each citizen does have a choice as to whether or not they want to be "subject to."
The 14th Amendment citizenship is one which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it and which, once acquired, cannot be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the states, or any other governmental unit.
Allegiance in this country is not due to Congress, but to the people, with whom the sovereign power is found ...
"It was subsequently acknowledged by several members of this Court that a central purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to create an independent basis of federal citizenship, and thus to overturn the doctrine of primary state citizenship."/47