Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

The Constitution - An Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom :
#1
This work is the product of a full Year of research into the Basis of the Constitution , aided by two lifetimes of Personal Experience in Research and Court Playing .

The question was : Just what kind of Document is this thing ? The answer rendered the Key to this entire Government run a muck , and I contend an integral part of restoration on a National as well as Individual level . From the original writings titled The-Legacy .

Please feel free to ask questions , or otherwise comment . Please be aware , I am about the slowest typist this side of the River .
- - - -


What's This All About

What we are dealing with at base is; what sort of document is this "Constitution" and what Law was it constructed in accordance with?

It was constructed in accordance with English Common Law. More specifically those laws established concerning Decent and Distribution The Statute of Uses, Statute Against Perpetuities, Statute on Trusts and others, ALL having to do with Estates and Inheritance matters.

What needed to be addressed is how the new Body Politic divided up the spoils of war. Among those spoils were well recognized "Rights" of Englishmen. From the basic Rights afforded every Free Englishman to the highest exclusive power of the Royal Family, it all needed to be distributed among the victors.

All these Rights were recognized as inheritable property. Personal Property Owned by the individual and passed on to their Heirs at death.

Problem, how to pass the Rights, Titles and Duties of an individual ( King and Nobles ) on to a body politic. The answer is via Trust.

The Constitution established an Estate in trust for the "Posterity". What is lost is Trustworthy Trustees of the Estate. The "elected" office holders are operating exclusively in their capacity of Office of Profit, having long forsaken their Office of Trust.

Yes.

The Constitution is a Trust document, establishing an equitable interest in, and asset management for, specific inheritable Personal Property, comprised of everything the Crown lost in the War for Independence.

The personal property in question included the lands in America and the special Rights and Privileges of the Royal and Noble families. The Body Politic could not, individually own some of the Kings Royal Prerogatives.

Example : It would be foolish for me to declare war on Canada or appoint an Ambassador to Italy.

On the other hand there are certain  Sovereign Privileges which a single Sovereign should exercise.

Example : The Lord must have his Revenue.

Translate : No taxes on personal wages or gains. Period.
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#2
The Legacy Abandoned
Abandonment of the greatest estate bequeathed to mankind in the history of the world.


by Burness Speakmen

    The constitution granted the government the power to administrate and carry on Corporate functions. Under the Common Law, inherent Rights cannot devolve to a “body politic” through a corporation. Rights only devolve to human beings (as a body politic) through and by way of a “Trust”. Under Constitutional law in order to determine the meaning of a written instrument a court must look to the title. In our case it is the Preamble. The Preamble clearly shows a Freehold/ feesimple absolute in it. (Pursuant to the Laws of Real Property that have been in existence since day one.) Freeholds/feesimples were instruments of Trust not corporate. Since it states “our posterity” it cannot be speaking of a corporate entity as posterity only can mean a human being by birth. The posterity or heirs cannot be defined as it would invalidate the meaning of a freehold/feesimple absolute. When the 14th Amendment was invoked in 1868 it was still valid under the laws of Real property. (whether or not it was legally ratified or not) it established a trust of a different nature. (no one can defeat it because the subject has never been brought up). It was still a Freehold but with the ability to be changed and lessened under the laws of Real Property. This is because it defines the heirs as those subject to the jurisdiction of the congress. Now you may say, how can this be. Go back to the fact that Rights cannot devolve to a body politic by way of corporation, but the freehold in the 14th Amendment can be lessened piece by piece because its workings are subject to the Jurisdiction of the congress. After time, it no longer is a Freehold but an estate of Tenancy. All of America has been reduced to this Tenancy and no one can understand what has happened to the Rights they were told they had. Since early on in the 1900s people were told they were receiving “Equality” but never told equal to what. The 14th Amendment Freehold was supposed to be “Equal” to the Preamble Freehold and so it was for approximately 30-40 years. People forgot the civil war, they forgot the 11 southern states that were denied their equal footing and thrown out of the legislature. The United states of America was overthrown in 1868 and a new form of government put in its place. No one ever noticed because they had forgotten that the founding fathers fought for Inherent Rights not taxation without representation. 

    The government states that the Constitution is a grant of power and that is correct, but to perform corporate functions, which is the Office of Profit, everyone misses the Key words in the document like "office of Trust" along with that office of profit. No one seems to see it, as if it is invisible and has no meaning, but IT is the creator. They also miss the words about the jury trial and words of "common law". No one invokes the common law because the laws established under the 14th amendment are not common law, but they cannot be in conflict with it, and they aren't. People do not know who they are and where they came from, why they are here, and where their Rights come from. The Amendments are a restatement of rights but under the 14th amendment they are ONLY a codicil that changes the intentions of the founding fathers. Thus Civil Rights. 

    To invoke the common law one must ask the administrators which office they represent (office of trust or office of profit), inform them they are trustees of the trust you are a beneficiary/legatee/heir of, tell them where the Trust resides, inform them that Rights do not devolve through an office of profit, that they would be in breach of trust if they continue to follow their proceedings as is, and that as an Heir you are invoking the Common Law of England as it stands in this country. 

    Under Constitutional Law a court — ANY court, MUST look toward the Trust first and make determinations.
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#3
The Preamble as a Trust Instrument


I don't think many if any of us have looked upon the Preamble as a writing establishing a trust, and if we have, the full legal meaning has never really struck home. Blacks Law 5th Edition defines "trust" as:

"A right of property real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another. A Confidence reposed in one person, who is termed trustee, for the benefit of another who is called Cestui Que Trust (Beneficiary) respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit of the Cestui Que trust. Any arrangement whereby property is transferred with intention that it be administered by trustee for another's benefit.

The written history of Trusts or Uses go back to Biblical times. Our particular laws regarding them were derived from English Law and the Restatement of Trusts. The "restatement" is simply a restatement of the English "Use" Statutes.

Restatement, Second Trusts Sec. 2 . . is a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, subject in the person by whom title to the property is held to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person which arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it.

Does not our Constitution hold certain rights in trust for us to be used exclusively by us? This is property. Rights are property, Rights are corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments. The Trustees are the Legislators, they were "granted" authority to maintain the Trust. The Trustees were also granted the authority to make money to maintain the Res in proper condition. They were not granted the Authority to Change the Intent of the Original Trust, except by written change. That is what the 14th Amendment did. It created a new trust and trust res. It created a new Estate.

How do I recognize the Preamble and Constitution as a Trust? Let us look first at the requisites of an Express Trust.

1. It must have a competent settlor and trustee.

2. It must have an ascertainable Trust Res.

3. It must show sufficiently certain beneficiaries.

4. A trust comes into being only upon execution of an intention to create it by the parties having legal and equitable control of the subject matter of the trust.

Does the Preamble and Constitution show a competent settlor and define the trustees? Yes it does. The settlor is established as "We the People". And the body of the constitution, (Articles) establishes the trustees and their duties.

Does the Preamble and Constitution ascertain the trust res being passed on?(10) Absolutely. "The Blessings of Liberty". Keep in mind the founding fathers had already defined the meaning of liberty prior to the establishment of the Constitution. If you require someone else to tell you what your liberties are and define them for you, then YOU ARE NOT FREE.(11)

Does the Preamble show sufficient, certain beneficiaries? Absolutely! To "ourselves and our Posterity".

Did the founding fathers have equitable control of the subject matter discussed in the Preamble and Constitution? Absolutely!

Does the Preamble state an intention (12) for which the document was created. It certainly does. "In Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, Insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Does it show an intention to manifest? Yes. "Do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America" In just a few words the Founding Fathers created a document of immense meaning.

An express trust or as they sometimes are called are "direct" trusts and are those trusts INTENTIONALLY created by the direct and positive act of the settlor by some WRITING, deed, OR WILL, or oral declaration.(13)

The Founding Fathers were not ignorant farmers, they were highly educated. They knew about Uses, Trusts, Hereditaments, Conveyances, Fraud, Uses, and Wills. In that day and age it was a requirement to know Latin and Greek to enter a College of higher learning.(14)And they knew these languages at an early age. Their legal knowledge was implemented in the making of the Constitution. Why? Fraud, the founders did not want to commit fraud any more than we would and their writings were legal under the Statute of Frauds.

Can you see the Statutes of Henry VII, Elizabeth I and Charles II in the following American Laws?

"A writing not intended specifically by the parties to be used as an actual memorandum of trust, may never the less, be sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds" Restatement, Trusts 2d sec. 47.

"A typical provision of the Statute of Frauds is that a writing required to create or manifest a trust be signed by the parties creating or declaring the trust."

"A Memorandum is sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, it sets forth with reasonable degree of definiteness the trust property, the beneficiaries and the purposes of the Trust", Restatement 2d section 46.

Do you see that the Preamble qualifies under even the last quotation. Do you think George and the rest of the good ole boys wanted to be caught at FRAUD? Absolutely not! The Constitution was created in the form of a trust so as to stand under the Construction of documents and under the laws of the day. This document was not just thrown together without forethought and without complete knowledge of the then existing laws.

Just because the Preamble is called Preamble and not Trust does not mean it changes the character of the document. "The Test is not what the instrument is called but what the person executing it designed to have it accomplish".(15)
____________________________________________________
Footnotes :

10. Trust res: The property of which the trust consists.
 
11. Freedom does not mean unrestraint, nor lawlessness. To the contrary, with true freedom comes heavy responsibilities, moral and ethical responsibilities. I do not condone blatant injury, disregard or disrespect for someone else or their property.
 
12. The cardinal rule of construction is, of course, to determine the intention of the parties, where such a creation is a bilateral matter. Colton v Colton 127 US 300, 32 L Ed 138, 8 S Ct 1164.

13. 76 American Jurisprudence 2d section 15

14. The AVERAGE reading ability of a normal person, at the time the constitution was created, was equivalent to 17 years of formal education. Today's average reading ability is 7 years of formal education. The founding fathers had a formal education equivalent to a masters degree. They did not sit around the "tube" all night, they read and stimulated their minds with knowledge.

15. 79 American Jurisprudence 2d Wills, Section 24
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#4
[Image: 0gwF7Qm.png]
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#5
Much to read and digest, which I will have to do in steps and doses.

Thanks, Heir, for this information.
  “Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful. And kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created. And you will renew the face of the earth.”  

Heavenly Father, please keep President Donald J. Trump and his family safe and protected, along with all the Patriots who are working with him and for him. Protect and Nurture our Nation and help us through these turbulent times. We ask this in the Name of Christ  Amen
Frigg, ~hannah~  likes this!
Reply Share
#6
You are quite welcome .

There is a lot to comprehend , but this series is about as concise as possible . There are no shortcuts to this explanation .

Suffice to say , implementation is easy enough . Once a grasp is made , dealing with Government Claims of Authority come down to questions in Clarification of Jurisdiction .

Basically , " Mr . IRS Director of Collections , before I can address Your FORM # this n so , I need one thing clarified . Are You operating from an Office of Trust or one of Profit ? If You do not know , or otherwise are unable to answer , please forward to Your Legal Department for response ."

Don't forget to say " Thank You " .
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#7
(02-02-2018, 07:14 PM)Heir Wrote: You are quite welcome .

There is a lot to comprehend , but this series is about as concise as possible . There are no shortcuts to this explanation .

Suffice to say , implementation is easy enough . Once a grasp is made , dealing with Government Claims of Authority come down to questions in Clarification of Jurisdiction .

Basically , " Mr . IRS Director of Collections , before I can address Your FORM # this n so , I need one thing clarified . Are You operating from an Office of Trust or one of Profit ? If You do not know , or otherwise are unable to answer , please forward to Your Legal Department for response ."

Don't forget to say " Thank You " .

I know someone I will pass that along to. Yeah3
  “Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful. And kindle in them the fire of your love. Send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created. And you will renew the face of the earth.”  

Heavenly Father, please keep President Donald J. Trump and his family safe and protected, along with all the Patriots who are working with him and for him. Protect and Nurture our Nation and help us through these turbulent times. We ask this in the Name of Christ  Amen
Frigg, Scent of Cedar  likes this!
Reply Share
#8
One more before Lights Out .

The Constitution is based in Estate and Inheritance law . The Laws of Property and Ownership . My hope is this Basis becomes clear as We progress in explanation .
_ _ _ _ _


Inheritable Property

Rights are Personal Property inheritable by descent. Incorporeal Hereditaments

INCORPO'REAL , a. [L. incorporalis, incorporeus.]

Not consisting of matter; not having a material body; immaterial. Spirits are deemed incorporeal substances.


HEREDIT'AMENT , n. [L. haeres, haeredium. See Heir.]

Any species of property that may be inherited; lands, tenements, any thing corporeal or incorporeal, real, personal or mixed, that may descend to an heir.

A corporeal hereditament is visible and tangible; an incorporeal hereditament is an ideal right, existing in contemplation of law, issuing out of substantial corporeal property.


Personal Property may only devolve to a Body Politic via Trust.

The Framers were dealing with forming a new Body Politic.

The War for Independence won not only the Lands and other Tangible / Corporeal Properties of the Crown in the New World, but also the Intangible / Incorporeal Rights of the Crown and all levels of Nobility under the Crown.

Before we get too far, allow me to address the only two dissenting positions I am aware of.

1 : The Constitution is a Will with Articles in Addendum ( Bill of Rights ) being Codicil.

A Will is by nature a Testamentary Instrument. The Sovereign has no testamentary power at common law. Again this may be found in Corpus Juris Secundum.

The Founders were acting in behalf of the new Sovereign Power, the victors of the war. Sovereigns with out Subjects, and all that. There fore the position the Constitution is a Will fails.

2 : Lysander Spooner in his treatise No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority, makes the argument the Constitution is merely a contract between the signing parties. All deceased and therefore unbinding in any way.

When one understands the Constitution as a Trust Instrument and not a personal contract, this position falls away.

Let's take a look at our contention the Constitution formed an Estate in Trust .

It takes some study to really grasp this , so lets just state the Founders followed the Common Law in their dealings . That's the Common Law of Mother England , by the way . This body of Law stretches back some 1,000 years . We are dealing primarily in Estates and Inheritance .

It is a tenet of Law that in order to determine the intent of a writing one must look to the preamble . ( In Statute that would be the "Empowerment Clause" ) . For our purposes I will note how it established the Constitution as a Trust instrument by fulfilling the requirements to establish a Trust .

Definitions of words from the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language are enlightening. Particularly State ( 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. ) and Estate ( 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ) and States ( n. plu. Nobility.. The ONLY definition )

Numbered items are necessary elements to establish a Trust . See Bogert on Trusts . Earlier the edition the better .

WE THE PEOPLE ( 1 - Grantors ) of the United States ( from or out of the United / Joined Nobility ) , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty ( 2 - Statement of Purpose ) to ourselves and our Posterity ( 3 - Grantees : Heirs unnamed ) , do ordain and establish ( 4 - Statement of Intent . Note : Ordain comes from Cannon Law ) this Constitution ( 5 - Written Indenture ) for the United States of America ( Joined Nobility belonging to America : 6 - The Name of the Entity Created )

The Preamble fulfills the requirements necessary to establish a Trust . Recall that Rights , Privileges and Prerogatives of Commoners to Royalty are considered Personal Property inheritable by decent and Personal Property may only devolve to a Body Politic via Trust. We took all those combined Properties as spoils from the War for Independence . Had to divide up the booty somehow .

Can it get any simpler ?
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share
#9
.

Quote:"Constitution for the United
States of America A
Adopted July 2, 1788
In effect March 4, 1789

The Preamble
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, 1
1 It is important to notice that this is a government of the people, not of the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, in effect as our first form of "national" government, agreed to by the Continental Congress on November 15,1777 and in force after ratification by Maryland on March 1, 1782 until the ratification of the Constitution for the United States in 1788 and George Washington's inauguration as the nation's first President under the Constitution on April 30, 1789, the States as political entities, and not the people, entered into "a firm league of friendship", each State retaining "its sovereignty, freedom and independence." The new Constitution for the United States brought in a new Nation, the United States of America, deriving its "just powers from the consent of the governed."

"The people, the highest authority known to our system," said President Monroe, "from whom all our institutions spring and whom they depend, formed it."

"Its language, 'We the People,' is the institution of one great consolidated National government of the people of all the States, instead of a government by compact with the States for its agents," exclaimed Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying assembly while leading opposition to its adoption, "The people gave the [Constitutional] Convention no power to use their name." Some States restricted the authority of their delegates to revising the Articles of Confederation. It was claimed that the casting aside of the Articles of Confederation (which could be altered or amended only by the concurrence of every State) for a constitution to become effective when adopted by nine of the thirteen States was revolutionary. It was, in fact, a coup d'Etat. Revision only was uppermost in the minds of many. On February 21, 1787, the Congress existing under the Articles called a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." But it was the belief of the Constitutional Convention that as the new instrument was to go to the people for ratification or rejection, the objections stated by Henry and others were really unimportant.


in Order to form a more perfect Union,2
2 Meaning "a more perfect union" than had been achieved by the Articles of Confederation.

"In the efficacy and permanency of your Union," wrote Washington in his Farewell Address, "a government for the whole is indispensable. . . . Sensible of this momentous truth you have improved upon your first essay [the Articles of Confederation] by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns."

The Union, made "more perfect" by the Constitution was nevertheless in later times said to be dissoluble at the pleasure of any State that might wish to secede. In his Farewell Address (1796) Washington had called upon the people "indignantly" to frown "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 link together the various parts." To put the question beyond controversy it required a four year Civil War, after the secession of the southern States, beginning with that of South Carolina in December, 1860, following the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency in the preceding month.

In a great debate in the Senate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the former contended that the National Government through its Supreme Court, is the ultimate expounder of its own powers, while the latter stood for what was known as States' Rights and argued for the right of the individual State, under its reserved sovereignty 163, to determine such questions for itself, as South Carolina had done (1833) by an ordinance declaring null a tariff law of Congress. Secession, he said, was the States remedy of last resort. Of Calhoun's theory, and of the historic facts with which it presumed to deal, President Lincoln said, in a message (July 4, 1861) to a special session of Congress called to prepare for the Civil War:

"The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union [of the original thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation], and not they themselves procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, [other than the original thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation] and in fact, it created them as States."

This is in opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gordon v. United States (1864), 117 U S. 697 (703). 163

The citizen was not, under the theory of States' Rights, in contact with the National Government. He owed allegiance to his State, and the State, in turn, dealt with the Nation. After the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment set that theory aside by declaring: "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." Every citizen now owes allegiance to the Nation as well as to the State. ..."

Continue with Analysis Here
____________________________________________________________________________________

Romans 10:9-10
Frigg, Scent of Cedar  likes this!
Reply Share
#10
(02-02-2018, 10:48 PM)SouthernBelle Wrote: .
"Constitution for the United
States of America A
Adopted July 2, 1788
In effect March 4, 1789

Ah Bob . Bless His Heart . Has been an excellent resource in education for over two decades now .

There is nothing at issue with the Article as posted , save a little further explanation and definition . One most important point in matters Constitutional is Source of Language Authority . Fortunately , that was also a concern of Mr . Noah Webster , who left Us the Key to understanding in His 1828 Dictionary of the language usage of those times . Noah sheds light on intention like no amount of SCOTUS dissertations can .

[Image: WebstersDictionary1828.png]

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/

Quote:"The people, the highest authority known to our system," said President Monroe, "from whom all our institutions spring and whom they depend, formed it."

"Its language, 'We the People,' is the institution of one great consolidated National government of the people of all the States, instead of a government by compact with the States for its agents," exclaimed Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying assembly while leading opposition to its adoption, "The people gave the [Constitutional] Convention no power to use their name."

PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.]

1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.

2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons.

The knowing artist may judge better than the people

3. The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank.

Myself shall mount the rostrum in his favor,

And strive to gain his pardon from the people

More at Link : http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/people

The fine point is use of Upper Case in the word People . Presenting " Capitalized " turns the word into a Proper noun , meaning a specific people . The word " States " further identifies which People .

STATES, noun plural Nobility.

The only Definition : http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/States

The common people of the pre existing Plantation Estates , now States in Perpetual Union , were Claiming Noble Estates / Prerogatives captured in the War for Independence .  

ESTA'TE,noun [Latin status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the Latin sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.

1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; now generally written and pronounced state.

She cast us headlong from our high estate
* * *

6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State.

Quote:In a great debate in the Senate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the former contended that the National Government through its Supreme Court, is the ultimate expounder of its own powers, while the latter stood for what was known as States' Rights and argued for the right of the individual State, under its reserved sovereignty 163, to determine such questions for itself, as South Carolina had done (1833) by an ordinance declaring null a tariff law of Congress. Secession, he said, was the States remedy of last resort. Of Calhoun's theory, and of the historic facts with which it presumed to deal, President Lincoln said, in a message (July 4, 1861) to a special session of Congress called to prepare for the Civil War:

"The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union [of the original thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation], and not they themselves procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, [other than the original thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation] and in fact, it created them as States."

Snips from posthumous publication not intended for general circulation :


A DISCOURSE ON THE 
CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES
John C. Calhoun


 It has for its fundamental principle, the great cardinal maxim, that the people are the source of all power; that the governments of the several States and of the United States were created by them, and for them; that the powers conferred on them are not surrendered, but delegated; and, as such, are held in trust, and not absolutely; and can be rightfully exercised only in furtherance of the objects for which they were delegated.

It is difficult to imagine how a doctrine so perfectly absurd, as that the States are federal as to the reserved, and national as to the delegated powers, could have originated; except through a misconception of the meaning of certain terms, sometimes used to designate the latter. They are sometimes called granted powers; and at others, are said to be powers surrendered by the States. When these expressions are used without reference to the fact, that all powers, under our system of government, are trust powers, they imply that the States have parted with such as are said to be granted or surrendered, absolutely and irrecoverably. The case is different when applied to them as trust powers. They then become identical, in their meaning, with delegated powers; for to grant a power in trust, is what is meant by delegating it. It is not, therefore, surprising, that they who do not bear in mind that all powers of government are, with us, trust powers, should conclude that the powers said to be granted and surrendered by the States, are absolutely transferred from them to the government of the United States — as is sometimes alleged — or to the people as constituting one nation, as is more usually understood — and, thence, to infer that the government is national to the extent of the granted powers. But that such inference and conclusion are utterly unwarrantable — that the powers in the constitution called granted powers, are, in fact, delegated powers — powers granted in trust — and not absolutely transferred — we have, in addition to the reasons just stated, the clear and decisive authority of the constitution itself. Its tenth amended article provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained. Thus regarded, it will be easy to perceive how the people of the several States could grant certain powers to a joint — or, as its framers called it — a general government, in trust, to be exercised for their common benefit, without an absolute surrender of them — or without impairing their independence and sovereignty. Regarding them in the opposite light, as powers absolutely surrendered and irrevocably transferred, inexplicable difficulties present themselves. Among the first, is that which springs from the idea of divided sovereignty; involving the perplexing question — how the people of the several States can be partly sovereign, and partly, not sovereign — sovereign as to the reserved — and not sovereign, as to the delegated powers? There is no difficulty in understanding how powers, appertaining to sovereignty, may be divided; and the exercise of one portion delegated to one set of agents, and another portion to another: or how sovereignty may be vested in one man, or in a few, or in many. But how sovereignty itself — the supreme power — can be divided — how the people of the several States can be partly sovereign, and partly not sovereign — partly supreme, and partly not supreme, it is impossible to conceive. Sovereignty is an entire thing — to divide, is — to destroy it.

Quote:This is in opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gordon v. United States (1864), 117 U S. 697 (703). 163

The citizen was not, under the theory of States' Rights, in contact with the National Government. He owed allegiance to his State, and the State, in turn, dealt with the Nation. After the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment set that theory aside by declaring: "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." Every citizen now owes allegiance to the Nation as well as to the State. ..."

Continue with Analysis Here

14th Amendment to be covered from a Trust Perspective as the Series progresses .
Celebrating Over 30 Years as a " Designated Paper Terrorist " - I Will Stand Corrected - No Legal Advice or Recommended Course of Action Expressed or Implied

The Constitution - Estate in Trust for the Heirs of Freedom - Local Link
Reply Share