Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Lex Rex - Law is King

The Scot Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661), Scottish commissioner at the Westminster Assembly in London, wrote Lex Rex: Law is King which became the clearest example of the Reformation principle of the people’s political control of their sovereign. Rutherford laid down in writing a concept of freedom without chaos; a government of law rather than the arbitrary decisions of relative men. There was order because the Bible provided a foundation for law. This far exceeded the Conciliar Movement and Medieval parliaments which were established on arbitrary church pronouncements that changed with the political wind of the time.

Rutherford’s work had a profound effect on the formation of the United States Constitution. John Witherspoon became president of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University) in 1768 and followed in the course of Samuel Rutherford. He profoundly influenced the writing of the Constitution establishing forms and freedoms of the principles found in Rutherford’s Lex Rex. Witherspoon was educated at Edinburgh University in Scotland and immigrated to the American colonies. Witherspoon was a member of the Continental Congress from 1776 – 1779 and 1780 – 1782. He became the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence and was chairman of several important committees.

John Locke (1632-1704) secularized the Presbyterian Lex Rex tradition. Locke stressed inalienable rights, government by consent, separation of powers, and the right of revolution. The Biblical background gave Locke’s whole system a firm foundation which is found in Rutherford’s work. Locke’s empiricism, revealed in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), has no place for “natural rights.” Empiricism rests everything on experience. “Natural rights” must be innate to the nature of man and not merely based on experience or must have an adequate base distinct from experience. Locke clearly stated the results which came from a Christian base but did not have the foundation which produced them. Hence he secularized Christian principles and teaching.

The belief in the law of nature preceded John Locke by thousands of years. Locke’s belief in an original “state of nature” is difficult to reconcile with the biblical account of creation. His view of children beginning life with a "blank slate" is difficult to reconcile with “original sin” as proclaimed in Psalm 51:2 and 58:3. Locke did believe in special creation. He did place faith in man’s power of reason but also recognized that reason is a gift from God. He was neither an agnostic nor a deist. He believed that reason demonstrates the veracity of God’s perfect revelation, the New Testament.

John Locke was a dedicated Christian as well as a student of the Bible.

“In 1695 Mr. Locke published his treatise of “The Reasonableness of Christianity,” in which he has proved that the Christian Religion, as delivered in the Scriptures, and free from all corrupt mixtures, is the most reasonable institution in the world… the last fourteen or fifteen years of his life Mr. Locke spent chiefly at Oates, seldom coming to town; and, during this agreeable retirement, he applied himself to the study of the scriptures…he admired the wisdom and goodness of God in the method found out for the salvation of mankind; and when he thought about it, he could not forbear crying out, “Oh the depths of the riches of the goodness and knowledge of God,” He was persuaded that men would be convinced of this, by reading the scriptures without prejudice; and he frequently exhorted those with whom he conversed to a serious study of these sacred writings. His own application to this study had given him a more noble and elevated idea of the Christian religion.”

John Locke recognized that the “law of nature” had it origin and authority in God.

“Thus the ‘law of nature’ stands as an Eternal Rule to all Men, Legislators as well as others. The Rules that they make for other Men’s Actions, be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the Will of God, of which that is a Declaration, and the fundamental Law of Nature being preservation of Mankind, no Human Sanction can be good, or valid against it.”

The English jurist William Blackstone's Commentaries reduced English common law to the writing. Blackstone believed that all law had its origins in God, and identified various types of law: scientific law is law as order in the universe; the rule of human action, rules of action dictated by a superior beings; laws of nations, international laws based on compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements; and municipal law, enacted laws of local government.

“Revealed law. – This has been given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines just delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of the ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed system is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God Himself, the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.”

According to Blackstone, our ability to apprehend the law of nature is limited because man is in a corrupted state due to the Fall from his first estate while in the Garden of Eden. He strongly believed the "law of nature" is the "will of God" and is binding on mankind.

“Law of nature – This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when He created matter, and endued it with the principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when He created man, and endued him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, He laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover and purport of those laws."

"Considering the Creator; only a Being of infinite power, He was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws He pleased to His creature, man, however unjust or severe. But as he is also a Being of infinite wisdom, He has laid down only such laws as were found in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all his Dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such, among others, are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due, to which three general precepts Justinian has reduced the whole doctrine of law."

The law of nature, being coeval with mankind as dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe and all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, in contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to human reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering, what method will tend most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestors before his transgression, clear and imperfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.”

John Locke and William Blackstone are recognized as those men who influenced American legal thinking more than other individuals. Baron Montesquieu, Algernon Sidney, John Calvin, John Milton, Thomas Hooker, John Cotton, Jonathan Edwards, John Witherspoon, and George Whitefield brought about universal acceptance of the natural rights philosophy of American patriots.

Thomas Jefferson was not an orthodox Christian but was strongly influenced by the biblical view of mankind. He was a noted student of the Scriptures and firmly believed in the "law of nature".

The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence speaks of people assuming among the powers of the earth, “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled them.”

He then ascribes their origin to God:

“We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created (he did not say evolved) equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

He closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions” and expressing a “firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence…” Jefferson recognizes and declares it is self evident that God is the author of natural law and unalienable rights.

The founders of our nation did not want to establish a “Christian state” but rather to establish a state that was based upon sound principles in accordance with the law of God as revealed in nature, conscience, and the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

English common law - American law

English common law is the most significant source of American law.

The Scriptural principles of Biblical law were the basic foundation of English common law. The Christian English jurist, Sir William Blackstone published his Commentaries which were a compilation of English common law. In the ten years prior to the American War for Independence; nearly 2500 copies of his commentaries were purchased and widely read in the American colonies. The English common law scholar Coke was respected and more widely read in the American colonies than in England.

Furthermore, the American colonists wanted to “biblicize” their legal and judicial systems further. The early colonists saw themselves as the “new Israel” whom God planted in a "Promised land".

Attempts to conform civil law to biblical code can be found in the “Massachusetts Body of Liberties” and in the “New Haven Colony Laws.”

“New Haven Colony Laws”

“This Court thus frames, shall first with due care and diligence from time to time provide for the maintenance of the purity of Religion, and suppresse the contrary, according to their best Light, and directions from the word of God. [Similarities to Psalm 2:10, 11:12; I Timothy 2:2]”

“Secondly, though they humbly acknowledge, that the Supreme power of making Lawes, and of repealing them, belongs to God onely, and that by Him this power is given to Jesus Christ as mediator, Matthew 28:19. John 5:22., And that the Lawes for holiness, and Righteousnesse, are already made, and given us in the scriptures, which in matters of morall, or morall equity, may not be altered by a humane power, or authority, Moses onely shewed Israel the Lawes, and Statutes of God, and the Sanhedrin the highest Court, among the Jewes, must attend those lawes, Yet Civill Rulers, and Courts, and this Generall Court in particular (being intrusted by the freemen as before) are the Ministers of God for the good of the people; and have power to declare, publish, and establish, for the plantations within their Jurisdictions, the Lawes he hath made, and to make, and repeale Orders for smaller matters, not particularly determined in Scipture, according to the more Generall Rules of Righteousnesse, and while they stand in force, to require due execution of them. [Similarities to Isaiah 33:22; Deuteronomy 5:8; 17:11; Romans13:4]”

Alexandre Vinet (1797-1847) was the professor of theology at the Academy of Lausanne. Professor Vinet was a thinker in the canton of Vaud and followed in the course of the men of the Reformation in Switzerland. Vinet was the foremost representative of French Protestantism of his day. He declared:

“Christianity is the immortal seed of freedom of the world.”
He was the outspoken leader for the freedom to worship and freedom of conscience in relation to the state.

Law is related to the entire structure of society and a culture which includes government not merely the context of civil and criminal conduct. The constitutionalist ideas of the Reformer Martin Bucer (1491-1551) of Strasbourg and John Calvin of Geneva did not lose contact with daily life. They were unlike the moribund contractual ideas of the late Middle Ages.

Charitable levelheaded Bucer had the strongest influence upon the conciliatory views of John Calvin in church affairs at Geneva and church state affairs. The constitutionalist model of Presbyterian government was an example and an education in the principles of political limitation.

In England, Presbyterianism did not succeed; but its political ideas were communicated through groups within the Puritan element in Great Britain. Consequently, it played an important role in trimming the power of English kings. The ordinary citizen discovered freedom from arbitrary governmental power while other nations moved toward absolutism. Centralizing monarchs welcomed the aid of the monarchial Roman church in controlling political heterodoxy.

The Foundation of English Common Law

Anglo – Saxon law

The law of the Anglo – Saxons prior to the invasion of the Normans in 1066 A. D. was a legal political system similar to the Old Testament Israel. In their decentralized government, a head of ten families was called a “tithing man.” The head of fifty families was a “vil-man”. The head of a hundred families was named a “hundred-man” while the head of a thousand families was known as an “eolderman”. The term "eolderman" may be related to the Scandinavian term “jarl.” Eventually the “eolderman” became known as an “earl” and governed a region called a “shire.” A “shire reef” was his assistant and became known as a “sheriff.”

The Code of Alfred the Great

Alfred the Great codified biblical law throughout his kingdom. He became known as the "Father of English common law."
“The Laws of Alfred (about A. D. 890) start with a recitation of the Ten Commandments and excerpts from the Mosaic Law; and in restating and revising the native Anglo – Saxon laws. Alfred includes such great principles as: ‘doom (i.e. judge) every evenly; doom not one doom to the rich, another to the poor, nor doom one to your friend, another to your foe.’” (Cf. Exodus 23: 1-3; Deut. 1:16 – 18)

Ecclesiastical law

The law of the church known as ecclesiastical law was an important influence on the creation of English common law. The Bible was the foundation of law of an independent church court system.

Jewish law

The church prohibited money lending (based on interpretation of various passages of Scripture) during the Middle Ages. Jewish people were not bound by the interpretations of passages of Scripture by the church for they interpreted the passages differently. The Jews were almost the only people from whom money could be borrowed during the Middle Ages. Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides) codified Jewish law which formed the basis of commercial law in England. Consequently, this was based on Jewish interpretation of passages from the Old Testament.

Viking law

Extensive portions of England, Ireland, and Scotland were controlled by the Danes and Norwegians. Territory north of a boundary in England was called “Danelaw” where Scandinavian law of the Vikings was observed. Thamar E. Dufwa traced the effect of Scandinavian law of the Vikings on the Magna Carta. He compared portions of Viking law with portions of the Magna Carta. Most of the noblemen who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1218 A.D. came from a region where the Vikings ruled for centuries north of "Danelaw." The individualistic quality of Scandinavian law is reflected in the Magna Carta and in the institutions of England and America.

Roman law

Roman law did have an influence upon the creation of English common law. We must consider the facts that Roman law was not the primary influence and was chiefly based upon the Bible. Classical Roman law was compatible with Biblical law in many areas. After the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the state religion; Roman law was revised to reflect the principles of the Bible. There were three major revisions of Roman law in the latter years of the empire. The first revision was the Constantinian Code of the 4th Century followed by the Theodosian Code of the 5th Century and finally the Justinian Code in the 6th Century. Each revision of law brought Roman law in agreement with the principles of the Bible. The Justinian Code of Roman law was discovered in the 11th Century and applied in England. This was not classic Roman law but law revised and in agreement with the Scriptures.

The Magna Carta

King John unwillingly signed the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. It has been called the “fountainhead of Anglo-American liberty.” Helen Silving, Professor of Law of the University of Puerto Rico traced in precise detail the Scriptural Biblical foundation and origin of the Magna Carta.

“Some scholars have noted a similarity between the English and Spanish charters, and inferred from this feature that the latter charter must have served as a pattern for the former. While there is no reason to exclude altogether the possibility of such a direct relationship between the two charters, it seems to be equally, or even more likely, that this similarity is referable to the charters’ common origin in the Bible. Such probability is supported by the fact that the draftsmen of both charters were undoubtedly Churchmen, learned in the Bible and Canon law.”

Parallels between the Bible and the Magna Carta are “self-curse” found in both documents, the fear of monarchy, the requirement that a king hold fast to law secured by the Magna Carta and in Deuteronomy 17. Further parallels are the authority to excommunicate or ‘being cut off from the people,’ the land becomes an agent of authorization while the king is under oath, law must be clearly written (Deut. 1:5), limitations are placed upon forms of punishment (Deut 25: 1-3), comparable punishments for perjury in criminal cases (Deut. 13:15; 19:17-21; Magna Carta Leonesa, articles 12-13) and the sole foundation of authority is based upon covenant.

Professor Silving maintains that many old legal documents of the Western culture may have their origins in the Bible.

“It is remarkable, indeed, and has an interesting bearing on the nature of our reactions to the Bible, that this has passed unnoticed, while efforts have been made to connect our constitutional documents with Greek and Roman ideas.”

Consequently, English common law reflects the Biblical Scriptural heritage of the Western civilization.

Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, author of “Out of Revolution, Autobiography of Western Man” declared, “Common law was Christian law.”

George W. Keeton author of “The Norman Conquest and the Common Law” adds:

“The judges of earlier times spoke with a certainty which was derived from their conviction that the common law was an expression of Christian doctrine, which none challenged.”

Charlemagne (742 – 814 A.D.)

Charlemagne (742 – 814 A.D.), king of the Franks was conversant in Latin and Greek. The great king of the Franks memorized great portions of the Old Testament. Although Charlemagne could read he never learned to write.

"Charles saw the state as more than the king’s private property. He was strongly influenced by the ideas of St. Augustine and the Old Testament, and felt a responsibility to create an ordered, harmonious society in which all men could work together toward eternal salvation. To achieve Christian concord, he labored to discover the causes of disorder and injustice. He issued a flood of laws, called capitularies, to correct abuses and prevent their reoccurrence. He imposed on his local agents, the courts, the responsibility to enact these laws and to do justice to all who had complaints. Repeatedly he sent his loyal agents to the missi dominici across his realm to check on the state of local affairs and correct abuses. This activity did much to bring order and justice out of the political chaos that had plagued the Frankish state at an earlier age."

A Dictionary of Christian Biography declares,
“The maxims of government which he adopted were drawn much more from the theocracy of the Old Testament than from the despotism of the Roman empire.”

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

The Evolution of United States Currency

The definition of “note, n.”, in Black’s Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th Ed.) is: “A unilateral instrument containing an express and absolute promise of signer to pay a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a specified time.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6Ed states, “An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of signer (i.e. maker) to pay a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a specified time. A note not meeting these requirements may be assignable as not negotiable."

“A note is a specific and unconditional promise to pay.” UCC-304-1

“Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper.”Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

An original Federal Reserve Note (series 1914) declares, “The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand Five Dollars”.

This series of Federal Reserve Notes made no pretense of being dollars. This note is a promise to pay lawful money; therefore, a note cannot be money.


Please notice that United States Notes are not Federal Reserve Notes!

A United States Note was backed by gold on deposit at the U.S. Treasury.

The United States Note (1953 series C) promised to pay a specific sum of dollars to the bearer on demand. The 1953 Series C Note was a legal valid note according to the definition of “note.”The note declared, “THIS NOTE IS A LEGAL TENDER AT ITS FACE VALUE FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.” The word "tender" means: “to offer”. Therefore, legal tender means that it is legal to offer something in payment of a debt. Consequently, one is not forced to accept a note as payment of the debt.

There was a significant change in the 1963 Series Note. It states, “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.” Furthermore, there isn’t a promise to pay dollars to the bearer on demand although the term ‘FIVE DOLLARS’ appears on the note. Lawful money that backed the note was removed by 1963. Green pieces of paper created by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, issued by the United States Department of the Treasury were intentionally designed to appear like the lawful notes they replaced. The Department of the Treasury proclaimed that the pieces of green paper were notes and dollars. The 1963 Series Notes were neither lawful notes nor dollars! A note to pay the bearer on demand dollars cannot be the dollars that it promises to pay the bearer.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 declared that the Fed notes would be backed by 40% in gold. Gold backing was reduced by 1928 as the Federal Reserve assumed more “authority” to loosen credit and float larger quantities of notes.

The Federal Reserve Note (Series of 1928 A) declares, “REDEEMABLE IN GOLD ON DEMAND AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.” Although notes were no longer redeemable in gold; they were still redeemable in silver which was also lawful money.

Please notice that the “note” declared FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE”, “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND FIVE DOLLARS.”As I stated earlier in this essay; a note promises to pay in dollars.

Assistant General Council, Russell L. Monk, of the Department of the Treasury declared, “Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars.”

The United States Treasury issued the SILVER CERTIFICATE backed with 100% silver reserve. The certificate declared, ‘SILVER CERTIFICATE’, “THIS CERTIFIES THAT THERE IS ON DEPOSIT IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FIVE DOLLARS IN SILVER PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND”. The certificate was a legitimate, dependable, sound money substitute backed by 100% money and was not inflatable.

The SILVER CERTIFICATE lost convertibility and was eliminated in 1968 when they were recalled by the United States Treasury. Consequently, since 1968, neither notes nor certificates of the United States Treasury were issued that would pay lawful money if one were to attempt to redeem them. Actually, there were no longer notes but imitation notes; counterfeit!

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1974Ed.):“Counterfeit: To imitate or copy esp. with the intent to deceive. To engage in counterfeiting something of value. Forgery. Something likely to be mistaken for something of higher value.”

Dr. Gary North declares, “If individuals do it, the State must intervene and punish violators, since fraud and theft are both involved. Yet, the State is also to be limited by law of honest weights and measures; it must not force citizens to accept a unit of money which is worth less in exchange than its face value. In short, legal tender laws are immoral, currency debased is immoral; printed unbacked “money” is immoral.”

Prior to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the United States government coined and issued debt free money. The only Constitutional lawful money is gold and silver.

“The terms ‘lawful money’ and ‘lawful money of the United States’ shall be construed to mean gold and silver coin of the United States.”
USC Title 12 § 152

“Coins and paper currency used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidence of debt…”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6 Ed.

Congress, acting appropriately upon delegated powers of the Constitution, ratified the Coinage Act on April 2, 1792. The Coinage Act of 1792 specified lawful money to be gold and silver coin. The denomination was based upon a standard unit of weight – a dollar (371.25 grains of fine silver), based upon the Spanish milled Dollar of silver in circulation within the United States. The Coinage Act simplified the process of issuing standard coins in circulation. An individual could take his silver or gold dust, shavings, or bullion to the mint. It would be melted and pressed into coin at no cost to the owner. It guaranteed the weight and substance of the dollar.

One dollar of silver is 412.5 grains, 90% pure, 10% alloy for durability and strength.

One dollar of gold is 27.5 grains, 90% pure, 10% alloy for durability and strength.

Fiat green paper that circulates impersonating ‘notes’ still bears the inscription “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER OF ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.” One must ask the question “a tender of what?” Federal Reserve “Notes” and United States “Notes” are still called “notes”…but “notes” to pay what?

“Legal. The form of law; Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof.”

“Tender. An offer of money. The act by which one produces and offers to a person holding a claim or demand against him the amount of money which he considers and admits to be due, in satisfaction of such claim or demand, without any stipulation or condition. As used in determining whether one party may place the other in breach of contract for failure to perform. The actual proffer of money, as distinguished from mere proposal or proposition to proffer it. Hence, mere written proposal to pay money, without offer of cash is not tender."

Blacks Law Dictionary 6 Ed.

Legitimate United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes did not contain superfluous commentary. “IN GOD WE TRUST” appeared on illegitimate, non-redeemable, non notes. The Federal Reserve Note is worthless as a valid legitimate, promise to pay money, credit instrument.

The people of the United States of American, through their state legislatures, granted the United States government Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution. “The Congress shall have the power…to coin money, regulate the value thereof.” This power granted by the people was vested only in the United States Congress. Congress delegated this power in violation of the United States Constitution.

“Congress cannot delegate or sign over its authority to any individual, corporation or foreign nation.” 16th Corpus Juris Secundum, § 141.

“The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 368

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

16th American Jurisprudence, § 256, 2nd Ed.

Gustavus Myers declares in his book History of the Great American Fortunes that the Rothschild family of bankers attempted to exert control over the United States through the central bank – Bank of the United States.

Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Bank of the United States, applied to Congress for a recharter bill in 1832, four years in advance of the expiration date of the old bill. On July 10, 1832. It was Biddle who sought vengeance on Jackson by calling in outstanding loans, thereby creating the Panic of 1837.

Excerpts from Andrew Jackson, Bank Veto Message, July 10, 1832

“It [the Bank of the United States] enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders....”

“The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men…”

“More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars.”

“Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people....”

“It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.”

“Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.”

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.”

“Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union.”

In 1835, President Jackson withdrew government's money (gold and silver on deposit) from the “Bank of the United States.”

In 1836, Andy Jackson paid off the national debt by using real money instead of reserve type notes.

Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War, refused the exorbitant interest rate to finance the Union proposed by August Belmont, an agent of the Rothschild family in the North. President Lincoln ordered the printing of $450 million “greenbacks” which were interest free legal tender notes. Meanwhile, the Rothschild family financed the Confederacy through the Erlangers, their agents in the South.

John F. Kennedy issued interest free legal tender “United States Notes” before his assassination. By Federal law a particular number of United States Notes had to be in circulation.

The American taxpayer could save billions of dollars merely by lowering the number of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation which is borrowed at interest. An equal number of United States Notes which are interest free could replace the FED notes. The United States Congress decided that Americans don’t need both currencies so they chose to withdraw interest free, legal tender, United States Notes from circulation.

Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, addressed the House on June 10, 1932:

“We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U. S. government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies; domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. The Federal Reserve banks are the agents of foreign central banks. The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board.”

“The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, locally controlled corporations.” Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F.2d 1239, 1241 (1982)

The Congressional Record (June 10, 1932, p.12595) also clearly states the FED is not part of the United States Government but is a private corporation.

Governor of the Federal Reserve Board (1921) William P.G. Harding declared, “From a legal standpoint these banks are private corporations, organized under a special act of Congress, namely, the Federal Reserve Act. They are not in the strict sense of the word, ‘Government banks’.”

The Right-Honorable Reginald McKenna, Midland Bank of England, Secretary of the Exchequer declared, “Those who create and issue credit and money, direct the policies of government, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.”

Baron M.A. Rothschild boasted, “Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.”

President James A. Garfield proclaimed, “Whoever controls the money in any country is master of all its legislation and commerce.”

The fifth plank of the Karl Marx (1848) Communist Manifesto is: “Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

Thomas Jefferson declared, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Congressman, Chairman, Wright Patman of the House Banking and Currency Committee declared, “In the United States we have, in effect, two governments…We have duly constituted Government…Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.”

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Secure Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity

Noah Webster proposed a Constitutional Convention as he traveled from New Hampshire to North Carolina in 1785 to 1787. He produced Sketches of American Policy; a 48 page document presented to George Washington at Mount Vernon in 1785.

Webster was in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention and was visited by: Washington, Franklin, Rufus King, Abraham Baldwin, Edmund Randolph, William Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, James Madison, Roger Sherman, William Livingston, and John Marshall.

Two days before the Convention adjourned, Thomas Fitzsimmons, delegate from Pennsylvania,requested that he prepare an essay in support of the Constitution. Although Noah Webster wasn’t a delegate to the Constitutional Convention; his counsel, advice, and guidance were momentous. Noah Webster is our authority if we are to understand the terminology of the Constitution.

Article IV of the United States Constitution states:

“This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Webster sheds light on the phrase “which shall be made in pursuance thereof.” In Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828”one finds these definitions:

1.Following; prosecution, process or continued exertion to reach or accomplish something as in pursuance of the main design.
2.Consequence: as in pursuance of an order from the Commander in Chief.”

“Done in consequence or prosecution of anything, hence agreeable, conformable pursuant to a former resolution, the house proceeded to appoint the standing committee the measure was adopted to a former order”

“To follow, to go or proceed after in a like direction. The captain pursued the same course as former navigators have taken. A subsequent legislature pursued the course of their predecessors.”

Consequently, the phrase “the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof” actually means:

The laws of the United States which shall be ratified by subsequent legislatures shall be laws that follow and precede after in a like direction the course of their predecessors. The “senators and representatives before mentioned and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution,” laws following, prosecution, process or continued exertion to reach or accomplish something as in pursuance of the main design. Legislation shall be done in consequence or prosecution of anything, hence agreeable, conformable pursuant to a former resolution. The Chief Executive officer is to pursue the same course as former navigators have taken and subsequent legislatures pursue the course of their predecessors. Government officials have fulfilled their oaths to secure the blessing of liberty when this takes place. Therefore, all treaties made must not violate the blessings of liberty secured by the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence declares, “We hold these Truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness … that to secure these Rights governments are instituted among men."

The “pursuit of happiness” is illuminated by Sir William Blackstone:

“For He [the Creator] has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and felicity, He has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things as some have vainly surmised, but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness. This is the foundation of what we call ethics or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems amount to no more than demonstrating that this or that action tends to man’s real happiness and therefore very justly concludes that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature, or on other hand, that this or that action is destructive to man’s real happiness and therefore the law of nature forbids it.”

I quote again from Noah Webster’s First American English Dictionary:

Law of nature:

“Law of nature is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power.”

Civil liberty:

“Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state, or nation. A resistant of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.”

“‘The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.’ Ames”
“In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.”

Article VI of the United States Constitution states: “The senators and representatives before mentioned and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution.”

A President-elect assassinated in Dallas spoke these words in his Inaugural Address… “For I have sword before you and Almighty God that same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.”

Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution states, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

George Washington set the precedent and placed his hand upon the Holy Bible as he swore that solemn oath then proclaimed, “So help me God.”

The preface to the United States Constitution declares: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insecure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

I quote Noah Webster again:

1.Posterity, descendants, children, children’s children etc. indefinitely the race that proceeds from a progenitor. The whole human race are the posterity of Adam.
2.In a general sense, succeeding generations opposed to ancestors.

“‘To the unhappy that unjustly bleed, Heav’n gives posterity t’avenge the deed.’ Pope”

The president of the United States swears before American citizens and Almighty God that he will “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution".

Consequently, the president of the United States, “senators and representatives before mentioned and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers” take solemn oaths before the citizens of America and before God that they will “…secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

The Declaration of Independence states, “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form – as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

President Kennedy declared in his Inaugural address, “the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the state but from the hand of God.”

“Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Liberty to our Posterity is secured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Life is among those liberties which the forefathers of our country pledged to secure with their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor."

Article IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Among those rights secured by the Constitution is the inalienable God-given right of life!

Philosopher theologian Francis A. Schaeffer declared: “When a government of a nation violates the laws of God; they abrogate their authority.”

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves…and our Posterity…the unborn!

Major General Billy Mitchell's 1925 Report

Major General Mitchell published his report as the book Winged Defense in 1925 which foretold wider benefits of an investment in air power:

“Those interested in the future of the country, not only from a national defense standpoint but from a civil, commercial and economic one as well, should study this matter carefully, because air power has not only come to stay but is, and will be, a dominating factor in the world’s development.”

The purpose of this extensive essay is to emphasize the facts concerning warnings given by General Billy Mitchell concerning a war which would become the Pacific Theatre of WWII.

Politicians and military officers did not take the necessary precautions to prepare for an adequate defense before the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor.


Billy Mitchell submitted an intelligence report following a trip to the Orient in 1924. The report has been labeled "the masterpiece of his career." The 323 page report was probably the most prophetic document of his career. He stressed that "care must be taken that it is not underestimated." Mitchell was referring to estimates of Japanese air power and the significance it would eventually play in a war which Mitchell believed would eventually happen.

Billy Mitchell, the visionary, made predictions which were unbelievable and accurately prophetic. Although his superiors were not impressed by his convictions in the 1920s; his predictions concerning the role of air power would eventually become history. Mitchell foresaw the ambitions of Japanese expansionist goals in the Pacific.

He presented in his 323 page report what he considered to be the start of a war in the Pacific Theatre. He prophetically declared that a Pacific war would start with a Japanese air and sea attack upon the U.S. military bases at Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands.

The attack on Pearl would be accompanied by an aerial attack on the Philippines. Attack will be launched as follows:

Bombardment, attack to be made on Ford Island (Hawaii) at 7:30 A.M..... Attack to be made on Clark Field at 10:40 A.M.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 at 7:55 A.M. and later at Clark Field, Philippines at 12:35 P.M. Mitchell's estimate was off by 25 minutes for Pearl Harbor and less than two hours for Clark Field in the Philippines.

In the same year as Mitchell released his investigative report to the military; the Dayton Journal published a full-page editorial declaring the need for America to support an enlarged air force to prepare for Japanese advancements in aviation. A drawing of a modern Japanese warplane, flying from Tokyo toward San Francisco across the Pacific Ocean was included in the newspaper article. The plane in the illustration was firing its guns as it approached the Continental United States.

American military leaders began to heed Mitchell's warnings as the Japanese occupied Manchuria and German troops invaded Austria and the Rhineland during the late 1930s. America began to heed Mitchell's warnings as it moderately rebuilt its armed forces. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; Billy Mitchell's warning of an impending attack was finally taken seriously.

Billy Mitchell had the ability to intelligently forecast the future. I question whether this outstanding quality is less important in today's environment. Billy could visualize what aviation could do when it was given the means even though his convictions were based upon estimates of contemporary equipment which lacked the capability.

Although he could neither have designed the B-29 nor imagined that it would be manufactured by the thousands; Billy Mitchell knew that aircraft of this nature would be developed which would achieve the overall effectiveness of the B-29. Therefore, he was able to predict the outcome of the Pacific war which he was warned would occur.

Mitchell's predictions came true. The Battle of Midway would become the evidence of his prophetic ability. In six months, two opposing naval carrier forces fought each other completely in air combat. Ships on neither side were in visual contact with each other nor were naval guns fired upon the opposing naval ships. American military forces were involved in aerial combat in which air superiority was a primary factor in winning World War II. This was true in both the Pacific and European Theatres of operation. Each branch of the military services had its own air service by the spring of 1942. A few years following the conclusion of World War II; the United States Air Force was formed.

Many of General Billy Mitchell's problems which created enemies were do to his six week end of year inspection of Army and Naval aviation in the Hawaiian Islands. He mentioned to reporters that Wheeler Field was the finest airfield he had inspected. Mitchell continued to produce critical observations written in his report which would be submitted when he arrived home. He criticized the preparedness of the Army and Navy defenses in Hawaii. He noted that there was no cooperation and coordination between the services.

"Our defense is based on a land army, coast defense guns and battleships, all of which are uncoordinated. A modern boy, fifteen years old, who knows about air power and had a simple military training in high school, could work out a better system."

General Charles P. Summerall, Army commander at Schofield Barracks did not appreciate the stinging critique of Mitchell's report. General Summerall would become a powerful antagonist in Billy Mitchell's future. General Summerall wrote to General Patrick as Mitchell departed Hawaii to visit Guam. Summerall declared that Mitchell's "assumptions as to the action of the enemy" were unsound and preposterous.

Billy and his wife were on their honeymoon when the “Thomas” carried them through the Pacific. He sketched the layout of islands and plotted potential strategic air fields. Mitchell attempted to anticipate the tactics of any potential enemy in the future. He took note of a small island which was 200 miles outside of his course. The island had been previously ignored as having no strategic military importance. General Mitchell declared:

"Before coming to this conclusion (of no strategic value), a careful reconnaissance should be made of it. Wake Island lies about 300 miles north by west of Taongi Island of the Marshall group, which is now in the hands of the Japanese. From the vicinity of Wake Island westward our course everywhere lay within aircraft operation of Japanese Islands."

This notation indicated Mitchell's obsession; an inevitable potential threat of attack from Japan. Although the officer recognized it and had written of the threat in 1913; it was his Pacific tour of 1923-24 which brought his conviction to the foreground of his report.

General Douglas MacArthur met the Mitchells when they arrived in Manila on New Year's Eve. General Billy Mitchell and General Douglas MacArthur had been close friends. Mitchell toured the Philippines for two weeks, flying frequently. He was always delighted to take others on their first flight above the ground. One of Mitchell's passengers was the guerilla commander, Emilio Aguinaldo. Aguinaldo dropped his calling cards to observers on the ground as they flew over the village where he had been born. General Mitchell expressed his love and admiration for the Chinese people when he wrote:

"The Chinese themselves are extremely virile, democratic, industrious and very strong physically. Biologically they are undoubtedly superior to any people living. They are extremely intelligent and capable of carrying out any development that is desired."

Although he praised the Chinese people; he observed the deterioration of the Chinese military preparedness to defend China:

"From being a nation that dominated everything around them, as was the case about a century ago, the Chinese have lost their military and political power and are an easy mark for the European nations and the Japanese."

General Mitchell noted that China had misplaced its emphasis for the future and was vulnerable. He sincerely hoped that American would recognize and learn from the mistakes of the Chinese.

Japan was the final destination on the Mitchell honeymoon which was his primary interest. The Japanese were far more secretive than German military had been. They were restrictive of his movements throughout the entire tour of Japan. When he departed from Japan on the voyage home; he had seen enough to alarm him with concern. While on route to San Francisco; he used the trip to compile his notes into a 323 page treatise on the situation in the Pacific. July, 1924

"Japan knows full well that the United States will probably enter the next war with the methods and weapons of the former war...It also knows full well that the defense of the Hawaiian group is based on the island of Oahu and not on the defense of the whole group."

"The Japanese bombardment, (would be) 100 (air) ships organized into four squadrons of 25 (air) ships each.

The objectives for attack are:

Ford Island, airdrome, hangers, storehouses and ammunition dumps;

Navy fuel oil tanks;

Water supply of Honolulu;

Water supply of Schofield;

Schofield Barracks airdrome and troop establishments;

Naval submarine station;

City and wharves of Honolulu."

“Attack will be launched as follows: bombardment, attack to be made on Ford Island at 7:30 a.m.” “Attack to be made on Clark Field (Philippine Islands) at 10:40 a.m.”

"Japanese pursuit aviation will meet bombardment over Clark Field, proceeding by squadrons, one at 3000 feet to Clark Field from the southeast and with the sun at their back, one at 5000 feet from the north and one at 10,000 feet from the west. Should U.S. pursuit be destroyed or fail to appear, airdrome would be attacked with machineguns."

"The (Japanese) air force would then carry out a systematic siege against Corregidor."

"The United States must not render herself completely defenseless on the one hand thinking that a war with Japan is an impossibility, and on the other by sticking to methods and means of making war as obsolete as the bow and arrow is for the military rifle."

Messr. G. Katsuda made the most striking declaration which was not included in Billy Mitchell's report made in 1924.

"Our people will cheer your great Mitchell and, you may be sure, will study his experiments."

Messr. G. Katsuda was responding to a correspondent of the Hartford Courant. The statement was made after Billy Mitchell demonstrated the capabilities of air power by sinking the Ostfriesland in 1921. Furthermore, the Japanese House of Peers statesman added:

"Should there be such a war America would have to fight it a long way from home...It would be gravely embarrassing to the American people if the ideas of your General Mitchell were more appreciated in Japan than in the United States."

Messr. G. Katsuda proclaimation would become an accurate historic analysis of American policy. Billy Mitchell's report disappeared into a file cabinet. Consequently, General Patrick would claim he did not see it until a year after Mitchell submitted the report.

Seventeen years later, members of the military and state department would finally put credence in the scenario which Mitchell described would happen in detail. The report would eventually be re-examined by a military desperately attempting to discover what the predominant Japanese forces would do next in a war waged in the Pacific which Mitchell predicted would happen seventeen years earlier.

General Douglas MacArthur cast the only dissenting vote during Billy Mitchell's military Court-martial. The verdict of the Court-martial was debated on Capitol Hill as veterans groups passed resolution condemning the verdict.

President Calvin Coolidge approved the sentence of the military court but altered the final verdict. Billy Mitchell was granted full subsistence and half pay because he would not be able to accept private employment while in uniform.

General Billy Mitchell refused the modified sentence declaring that it would make him "an object of government charity."

Mitchell resigned on February 1, 1926. Billy Mitchell began a four-month lecture tour across the continental United States. He continued to show films of the bombing of ships and expressed his theme of the necessity of military preparedness in the air. Major American magazines as well various aviation journals published his sweeping charges. He continued to bring attention to the major advances in aviation made by Europeans and in Asia.

Billy Mitchell continued to warn Americans of Japanese plans to seize Hawaii, Alaska, and the Philippines. Billy Mitchell accurately predicted the Japanese would not formally declare war:

"We not only do nothing in the face of all this," he said, "but we leave our future in the air to incompetents."