SOCIAL
SECURITY
The Dance of the Seven Veils
Part
1 l Part
2 l Part 3
l Part 4 l Part
5
l Part
6
by Douglas V.
Gnazzo
July
12, 2005
|
“Necessity knows no law” “The
ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly "Where
does the Federal Reserve system get the money with which to create Bank
Reserves? Answer. It doesn't get the money, it creates it. When the
Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money. The Federal
Reserve is a total moneymaking machine. It can issue money or
checks." "The
cash, in truth, does not exist and has never existed. What we call 'cash
reserves' are simply bookkeeping credits entered upon ledgers of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The credits are created by the Federal Reserve
Banks and then passed along through the banking system." "The dollar represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government bonds from the United States Treasury, lending money into circulation at interest, by bookkeeping entries of checkbook credit to the United States Treasury. The
Treasury writes up an interest bearing bond for one billion dollars. The
Federal Reserve gives the Treasury a one billion dollar credit for the
bond, and has created out of nothing a one billion dollar debt which the
American people are obligated to pay with interest." "Do you mean that Banks, in buying Government securities, do not lend out their customers' deposits? That they create the money they use to buy the securities?” “That
is correct. Banks are different from other lending institutions. When a
savings association, an insurance company, or a credit union makes a
loan, it lends the very dollar that its customers have previously paid
in. But when a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's
deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not
taken from anyone. It is new money, recreated by the bank, for the use
of the borrower."
The beginning of our story goes back to the birth of our country, and perhaps even to past ages, however, we will use the birth of our country as our starting point. As was shown in detail in the Whence & Pence series, the original settlers and explorers of our country hailed from England. They were subjects of the Crown, as the King had issued charters granting them permission to go forth and to settle America in the name of the Crown, paying tribute to the Crown of one fifth of all gold and silver mined for starters. “yeilding therefore yerelie to us, our heires and successors, the fifte parte onelie of all the same goulde and silver and the fifteenth parte of all the same copper soe to be gotten or had, as is aforesaid” [The First Virginia Charter] It was not any easy life, exploring and settling a new land. It was dangerous, tiring, filled with back-breaking labor, diseases, and hardships of every kind. The weather was relentless and unforgiving, as was the earth from which food and water, the necessities of life must come. Many of the new settlers died a quick, but not an easy death. Those that survived still had a tough road to hoe. But the will of the strong always prevails, and so it did here, as well. Colonies grew in size and complexity, towns turned into cities. Commerce and trade grew and expanded. Some individuals prospered, and a few even thrived, but they were the exception, not the rule. But as the colonists grew stronger, the differences between them and the Crown became more and more apparent, more and more under stress. The colonists wanted one thing, the King another. Differences of opinions began to flare up, turning into minor scuffles, which soon became more serious acts and events.
The colonies of New England signed “The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England”, on May 19, 1643. This was the first written document expressing the form of the government of the colonies, or more precisely – of the people that made up the colonies. Included were the Plantations under the Government of Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut, and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith. Click the link to view the entire document: [The Articles of Confederation of the United ...] The language of the document clearly indicates that the motivating force behind the union was the age old truism of safety in numbers, as well as the positive effect that an increase in combined skilled labor has on the division of labor, and hence on the economy in general. These are basic survival skills, honed to a fine sharp point, waiting to be put to good use in the production of goods. Commerce it is called. “The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare.” So as early as 1643, American settlers were already joining together, seeking both safety and utility of commerce, by the union of man with his fellow man. Upon reading the 1643 articles of Confederation, as linked above, it is obvious that such was a forerunner of the later Declaration and Resolves that follows. It is worthy to note the following wordage, which focuses on the fact that each state or jurisdiction’s government was not to be intermeddling in another state’s jurisdiction. “and all things of like nature, which are the proper concomitants or consequents of such a Confederation for amity, offense, and defence: not intermeddling with the government of any of the Jurisdictions, which by the third article is preserved entirely to themselves” [articles of Confederation 1643] Thus our great nation was slowly taking shape, however, there were many forces aligned against it, that it was not completely aware of then, nor now; and that to withstand the onslaught of these sinister forces, the heart and soul of our nation would need to be forged in the fires of Truth and Justice, cooled by the waters of Liberty and Freedom, tempered by Righteousness, healed by the Peace that passeth understanding.
Fast forward ahead to the year 1774, the First Continental Congress issues a written “Declaration and Resolves,” which begins with: “Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various presences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county:” Notice some of the issues the people of America were not too thrilled about: binding the people by statutes, imposing taxes, unconstitutional powers being exercised, extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty. In the next “resolution” , a couple of the core issues are mentioned: “Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed: But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament, as are bonfide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects, in America, without their consent.” “Cheerfully consent ... for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country.” I’m speechless, at least they did add at the end “excluding every idea of taxation internal or external, for raising a revenue of the subjects, in America, without their consent.” Note the use of the word “subjects” in America. This meant, that at this particular time, the colonists still considered themselves to be subjects to the Crown. The year is 1774. Click on the following link to view the entire Declaration and Resolves Of The First Continental Congress. The above document of “Declaration and Resolves” can be seen to be a natural genesis from the first Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies in 1643. It is obvious, that as time progressed, so to did the gulf of differences between the mother country of Britain and the colonists of America.
Finally it all comes to a head with the issuance by the colonists of The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, however, there were other events worth noting that occurred prior to the Declaration of Independence. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress tried to negotiate in peace, the differences between Britain and the 13 Colonies, and sent a document for such settlement to Britain. The accord was called The Olive Branch Petition (click on to read). But King George III wasn’t interested. In August 1775 the King issued a royal proclamation declaring that the King's American subjects were "engaged in open and avowed rebellion." This was pretty much the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Second Continental Congress slowly, but methodically began to sever all ties with Britain.
On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee read his resolution for Independence to the Second Continental Congress, assembled in session, at the Pennsylvania State House, his resolution began: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." Lee’s Resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five with New York abstaining. Congress then recessed for 3 weeks, appointing a Committee of Five to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies' case for independence. On July 1, 1776, Congress reconvened. The next day, the Lee Resolution was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York abstained. On July 4, 1776 the peel of Church bells could be heard across New England, announcing the acceptance of the Declaration of Independence. Although the Declaration had been accepted on July 4, the signing of the document did not take place until August 2, 1776. New York ratified the Declaration on July 9, and on July 19th Congress ordered that the Declaration be “fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile [sic] of 'The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America,' and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress." On August 2, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed, eventually by 56 delegates; two never signed. [NARA | The National Archives Experience]. In about one years time, Congress issued the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The date of signing was November of 1778, although passed in 1777, it was not ratified and put in force until Maryland signed in 1781. See The Avalon Project : Articles of Confederation.
I have taken the time to cover the genesis of the Declaration of Independence for several reasons, least of which is that it is an example of just where, how, and what form of government evolved within America. Note in the first document from 1643, the colonists referred to themselves as a “Confederation of United Colonies.” They also thought it important to mention that they should not meddle in the government or affairs of one’s another’s state or jurisdiction. In 1774, within the language of the Declaration and Resolves of the first Continental Congress, we find that the colonists still considered themselves subjects of Britain, but that they were fast becoming fed up with not being asked or allowed, to give, or not give, their consent to the various acts of the British Parliament regarding the New World. In 1776 the Declaration of Independence declares that the colonies are independent and free states, and disavows any allegiance to the British Crown. And finally, we saw the Articles of Confederation of 1777-1781, in which the guidelines for governing the Confederation were declared. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation of 1777 referred to the colonies as the United States of America. The original draft of the Declaration can be seen here, NARA | The National Archives Experience, and the articles, which state, “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’”.
The Federal Convention convened in the State House in Philadelphia On May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Due to the fact that only two delegations from two of the 13 states had showed up on time, the convention was adjourned until May 25. I find the following fact quite fascinating and most telling: Robert Morris, the financier of the Revolution, who was as elite as they come, was the master of ceremonies for the opening of the convention. And how did he open the convention, by nominating General George Washington as President. Very fascinating. Recall Robert Morris from Honest Money, Part V: History of American Money and Banking and his involvement with the Bank of North America: “The Bank of North America was chartered in 1782; the first government sanctioned central bank. Its home was Philadelphia. This was the first organized public institution of the elite moneyed interest. Robert Morris was appointed Financial Agent (Secretary of the Treasury) of the United States, so as to be able to oversee the operation of the Bank. The government authorized the Bank of North America’s notes to be receivable for all duties and taxes for all governments; and they were to exchange at par with specie. No other bank of issue was permitted. In return for the government’s unprecedented largess of such limitless power of monopoly, the Bank of North America did what all patriotic bankers do: they offered to loan the government all the money it needed to finance the public debt with – while the American taxpayers paid the bill. Robert Morris was an elite collectivist. He dreamed of a centralized government, with the power to tax its citizens, creating a system of perpetual government debt; all to be monetized by the fractional reserve lending of paper money. He submitted his plan to Congress and they approved, issuing the charter for “his” bank. This was a wealth transference system of the elite collectivists, which in Morris’s own words would be a windfall to speculators of public debt – at the expense of the taxpayers; that would cause “wealth to flow into the hands that could render it most productive”. An interesting side note: Morris was unable to raise the required specie reserves for the bank. As one of the prominent members of Congress and the Government’s Financial Agent, Morris was able to appropriate specie on loan from France to the United States, and invested it “for the government” in “his” own bank. This meant that the majority of specie capital for Morris’s bank came from government accounts. These funds were then borrowed back by Morris from the bank, under the ruse of being the Government’s Financial Agent; funneling the money into government contracts with his own personal business associates, to provide war provisions to the government. Why he wasn’t charged with embezzlement boggles the mind, and defies the most basic ideals of jurisprudence. By the end of 1783, the first experiment with a central bank had ended – badly, and the Bank of North America was closed down. Morris convinced his Philadelphia connections to issue him a state banking charter, and he quickly changed the bank over to a private commercial institution.” No further comment is necessary, as the facts clearly speak for themselves. It does make one wonder who picked Morris for the job of master of ceremonies, and more importantly – why? Perhaps it was all innocent coincidence, as most of our history seems to be attributed to, or – it is not explained at all.. For weeks the delegates meant behind closed and guarded doors, a veil of secrecy descended as a shroud over the deliberations. After several weeks of intense debate and discussion, it had become apparent that instead of redrafting the Articles of Confederation, which was the original and intended purpose of the convention, Instead, an entire new blueprint for the government was to be written.
The main point of contention was: how much power the new centralized government was to have? By what power did it come to be, that a convention, whose original purpose and raison d’etre, was to redraft the Articles of Confederation, suddenly changed into a Constitutional Convention to draft a new form of government? Whose idea was this? It is hard to say exactly whose idea it was, but it was quite obvious who the most outspoken supporters were. From there as they say, follow the money. As already noted, Robert Morris was the master of ceremonies of the convention. He also worked behind the scenes, to influence what he saw, as the best form of government. Best for whom? As far as the actual delegates are concerned, the two most prominent members pushing for a new centralized form of government were: James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. You may recall Madison and Hamilton from Honest Money, Part V: “The First Bank of the United States was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, although not his first. In 1784, Hamilton had started the commercial Bank of New York, one of only three commercial banks in the country: the other two being Morris’s bank in Philadelphia and the Bank of Massachusetts in Boston. The strategic geographical location of the three banks was not by coincidence. This was the second public display of the elite moneyed interest. Cut from the same cloth as Morris, Hamilton was a statist who believed in a centralized form of government that controlled all aspects of the country – especially money, banking and trade. Hamilton’s true reasons for wanting a central bank were revealed when he wrote: ‘All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.’ This aristocratic indifference to the lower orders of his fellow man is the signature of the elite collectivist, who views the masses as a tool to be used in their selfish quest for riches. Europe provided the spawning grounds for such elite ideology, purveyors of which included: Lord Rothschild and Adam Weishaupt; soon to be followed by Cecil Rhodes, Oxford Professor John Ruskin, and Lord Milner. Under Hamilton’s direction, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States in 1791. The First Bank was granted the monopoly of the coveted power to issue notes. The charter was for 20 years and no other national bank was permitted. The former partner of Robert Morris, Thomas Willing, was appointed president of the Bank. Central banks attain their influence from the government’s sanction to emit paper bank notes that circulate as legal tender. This is key to their power. By establishing a central bank based upon fractional reserve lending, a system is created that allows for the use of book-entry loans and hence – money, a number of times greater than the actual money the bank has in reserves. In other words, they get to loan out money they do not have. By the magic powers of credit, money is created – from out of nothing, but the want, thereof. In 1811, the charter for the First Bank of the United States expired. President Madison, another of the elite guard, fought hard to recharter the bank. Congress failed by only one vote to reissue a new charter. Thus ended the First Bank of the United States.” My, my, what a small world – it gives new meaning to the saying “birds of a feather flock together.” It appears the triumvirate wielded enough power to get the job done, especially when considering who was supporting them in the background, all the way back to the ground from whence they all had come.
A few different plans were offered at the convention. The first plan was proposed by Edmund Randolph from Virginia and was called the “Virginia Plan”, as most of it had been drawn up by members of the Virginia Assembly prior to the convention. It called from a strong centralized government, with three branches. This was essentially the same plan that James Madison was in favor of, as was Morris. William Paterson of New Jersey submitted a plan that simply called for what the convention was originally intended and convened for – a Federal plan based on a revised draft of the existing Articles of Confederation. Paterson and his followers were concerned with the power that such a centralized form of government would have, and cringed at the idea that the independent States’ sovereignty was to be swallowed whole by the new central government. And then there was Adam Hamilton’s plan, which basically called for a remodeling after the British government, which he considered to be the best in world. Hamilton’s plan was the most outspoken in favor of a centralized government with vast powers and authority, so much so that some said that they would not be surprised to see a King of America appointed. Even the Federalists did not endorse his plan, at least not in public.
To make a long story short, a compromise was had with different factions giving up the “special interests” for the “good of all.” Some of the main issues were slavery, representation, and the regulation of commerce. It has been said that a major compromise was made between the “North” and the “South”, in regards to slavery. Slave importation was to be allowed for another 20 years by the northern delegates, and the southerners accepted a clause that required only a simple majority vote on navigation laws. A deal was cut. The deck had been stacked. The house was full. The pickings ripe. The pickers were ready. All was in place. A bounty harvest was about to be had, but not by all. As Hamilton wrote to Washington, the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." And what had the people just “quitted”? Hmm. And so our Constitution was passed, but ratification still awaited.
The convention provided a forum by which two basic ideologies regarding the government of our nation were seen to emerge. One called for a strong, central government, with broad and sweeping powers, even over the individual States. The adherents of this policy came be known as the Federalists. Opposed to the Federalists were the anti-Federalists, who were concerned that such a centralized government would usurp the freedoms and liberties of the States, and return the people to the servitude they had just fought to break away from with Britain. I leave it to the reader to decide who was right and who was wrong, based on the evidence of history from then to now. And perhaps it is the potential history that lays ahead, which should be given the greatest thought and concern..? Perhaps not.
George Mason was not only a well educated man, he was an honest man as well. He had written the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was used as the model and basis for our Declaration of Independence. Mason was obviously of the anti-Federalist persuasion. He was very concerned that the new Constitution, as it stood, would trample upon, and limit, individual rights and freedoms, in favor of the new central State Government. He called for a bill of rights to be added to the Constitution, to provide for individual rights and liberties. He new, wherefrom, he spoke. Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?" For months, disputes raged on, both in the public and in the government. Newspaper articles were written giving both sides of the argument, Federalist versus anti-Federalist; big government versus individual liberty. Madison knew that unless the Bill of Rights were added, the Constitution had little chance of ratification. The final compromise was made. The first ten amendments were added as the Bill of Rights.
Patrick Henry refused to attend the convention, stating that “he smelled a rat”, referring to a plan to adopt a powerful central government under the ruse of redrafting the original Articles of Confederation. Luther Martin of Maryland stated that “the conspiracy in Philadelphia needed a quiet breeding ground.” Even Thomas Jefferson wrote John Adams saying, "I am sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their members." [referring to meeting behind locked doors] Luther Martin was a very wise man. The next issue he raised will be gone into detail in another part of the series, but it is proper that it be made known here. Martin said quote, "The States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege." This may not sound like a big deal, when taken only upon the surface, but its thought runs very deep. Notice Martin is aware that “we are in possession of this privilege”. Just what does this mean? One seldom hears much talk or discussion about the rights and freedoms the original States had according to the Articles of Confederation, and just what right or authority was needed to change, add, amend, or break those solemn oaths? Could one just throw the Articles away? If they who wrote the Articles can change so quickly to the Constitution, can they then change just as quickly from the Constitution to another form of government? When the Founding Fathers were debating over our freedom, how concerned were they with the freedom of their slaves, who were back working on their plantations? It would appear that freedom was for the privileged, or for those who best deserved it, or who had earned it. Some would consider this similar to supremacy ideology. As Samuel Hopkins from Connecticut said: "How does it appear . . . that these States, who have been fighting for liberty and consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and authorize them to enslave their fellow men . . . Ah! these unclean spirits, like frogs, they, like the Furies of the poets are spreading discord, and exciting men to contention and war." And lastly, the words of Bledsoe can now be viewed in a somewhat different light, not to say that they are true, neither to say they are not. The reader can decide for themselves: “When we consider, in the single light of history, the manner in which the Constitution of the United States was made, or framed, and afterwards ratified, such assertions seem exceedingly wonderful, not to say inexplicable on the supposition that their authors were honest men....History will yet open the eyes of the world to the strange audacity of their assertions.” [Bledsoe]
Let’s compare some important wording in the several documents we have looked at that gave design, shape, and form to the early government of our great nation. We are searching out keys to understanding just what type of government our early forefather’s tried to install. The earliest documents were the initial Royal Charters dating back to the late 1500s. These papers gave the colonists, as the King of England’s subjects, the granted rights to go forth and settle the New World, according to the stipulations of the Charter. This subject has already been gone into in great detail in Whence & Pence, Part 1: The Founding, but is most germane to the present topic, and allows for a deeper understanding of what follows. Suffice it to say that the King is doing the stipulating, and the colonists, as his subjects, are following his directives. The first major document to be written by the colonists regarding an overall form of government for all of the individual colonies or states collectively, was the Articles of Confederation of 1643. Of note is the heading of the document, which reads, “The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England”. At this point in time, the people considered themselves to be a Confederation of United Colonies of New England. The next major document of import was the “Declaration and Resolves” of 1774. The wording of this document is a bit muddled, as to just what the colonists ideas were in regard to their relationship with the Crown, as well as what form of government they wanted within their colonies. However, this makes total sense, when viewed and considered according to the situation of the time, as the colonists were in a period of transition, from having been pure subjects to the Crown, to colonists for the Crown, to colonists running their own society, to colonists having differences of opinions with the Crown over the governing of their colonies. The issues were complex. Emotions were running high. We read in the document such diverse thoughts as “the mutual interest of both countries,” “the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country”, as well as, “and the commercial benefits of its respective members”; and lastly, “excluding every idea of taxation internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects, in America, without their consent.” You can feel the tug of war going on, between the old ways, and the new ways: of being subjects, to being free-men, with liberty and justice for all. The next document of consequence is the The Olive Branch Petition, in which the colonists had finally drawn the line, and were fed up with the lack of respectful, fair, and honest representation by the Crown concerning their new colonies. In the body of the document, the colonists still referred to themselves as subjects to the Crown. The Olive Branch Petition was the final peaceful offering to the many problems that now divided the New World from the Crown of Britain. The soulful wailings of hearts torn asunder filled the air. The time was fast approaching – to either cut bait and run, or to stand one’s ground. Then came one of the most famous moments in the history of individual freedom and liberty, which stood tall and straight, and held its ground against the great force that was pitted against it. The Declaration of Independence was written and given to Britain, the year was 1776. The colonists were breaking away from the mother country, forming their own Nation, expressing it thusly: “fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile [sic] of 'The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America,' and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress." This will be seen to be very important. Make note of the wording: the thirteen United States of America. Next came the Articles of Confederation, the first major written form of collective government for the colonies together, the preamble read, Preamble To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America." And lastly came the Constitution, which if you recall, came forth from a convention that was convened in order to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to draft an entire new form of government. The opening of the Constitution begins: “We, the people of the United States, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Of particular interest, note that the preamble starts off with “We the people of the United States”, and ends with “this Constitution for the United States of America”. Does this difference in wording mean or imply anything? Is there a difference between the United States and the United States of America? Is there a difference between “of the United States” and “for the United States of America?
Article I. The Legislative Branch – 1788 Section 2 – Clause 3: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons” Section. 8 – Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” Section 9 – Clause 4: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” Amendment IX. – 1795 ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment X. – 1795 “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.” Amendment XIV. – 1865 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 rebellion 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.” Amendment XVI. – 1913 ”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” United State Code Title 28 – Sec. 3002. Definitions (15) ''United States'' means – (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. (16) ''United States marshal'' means a United States marshal, a deputy marshal, or an official of the United States Marshals Service designated under section 564.
How many things are not only themselves, but are also other entities of themselves, or instrumentalities of themselves? Which means that “the thing”, is not only itself, but is “other things” as well, which are distinct from itself, otherwise why would they need to be so delineated and distinguished by the use of the words “or other”, which denotes something different from the original. I wonder what they could be thinking of, or have in mind? Perhaps we should ask for a clarification of just what we are, in regards to a Nation or the United States, or the United States of America, or the corporation. Is there really a corporation? If there is, does that mean the states are sub-corporations? And what would that make the cities, commercially and legally speaking, of course? Hmm. It gets more curious – most curiously.
A fair distance from social security, or so it appears. Ah, but appearances can be deceiving. Never judge a book by its cover, you never know what may await within. We have taken this circuitous route, because this is the route that one must follow, the trail that has been left behind, by the demons of debt, and the creatures they feed on; by the Discouri Twins of Nemeses; by the veil that attempts to hide their path. But do not despair, we are gaining ground. Shortly we will return directly to social security, from whence we departed – sort of, but not really, only in appearance. And you know how they can be. Part VIII to be forthcoming. "Happy
the age, happy the time, to which the ancients gave [Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote, Part I, Chapter XI] ©
2005 Douglas V. Gnazzo |
