Are we still under military rule? The war that never ended.

[allodial]

Lets include the 17th Amendment , adopted April 8, 1913 . Direct election of representative Senators by popular vote , rather than selection by the individual State legislatures .

And speculatively, that style of voting *might* be for the residents of the post-1862, military-created or defacto "State" of the United States.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, to be consistent with the method of election. It was adopted on April 8, 1913.(Source: Wikipedia)

Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, [U]during the Recess of the Legislature of any State the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

Why was there a need to have the people of a State elect rather than the legislature of a State choose? Was it because the U.S. Senate wanted to pull something off related to MONEY that it could not otherwise without the sovereign's DIRECT depute? Relevantly was it because they knew they were dealing with defacto, post-Civil-War States that lacked power they NEEDED and they KNEW it?

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. {Why must the electors be 'in' each State. Were electors previously presumed to be without a State...as in ..private? Or as in outside of a land strange to them?}

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

How does the executive of a State issue writs on the people? Or is this a different kind of 'people'? Like residents or public citizens as opposed to sovereigns?

One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.

The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).

Could there have been be a relationship between U.S. citizenship (-> the House or Representatives) and State nationality (-> the Senate) that is obviated by analysis of related history? Were U.S. (federal) citizens (14th amendment ) ever considered to be eligible for voting in the organic states of America? Is there a connection between the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act?

• February 3 – The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified, authorizing the Federal government to impose and collect income taxes.
  
• The {17th} Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).
  
• October 3 – The United States Revenue Act of 1913 re-imposes the federal income tax and lowers basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%.
  
• The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3)

What's the relationship between interest, the Federal Reserve, military scrip, the 17th amendment and taxes?

... And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another....

What was 'wrong' with the State legislatures electing/selecting/choosing U.S. Senators? Did they need a more direct kind of endorsement of the people of a State? And still was it an organic state or a U.S. district-state? Did it depend on whether it was one of the first 13 or the first 33 (pre-Civil War) or not? There are perhaps at least two speculative extremes: (i) come 1917 the only U.S. States cognizable by the U.S. Congress were the post-Civil-war district-states rather than U.S. State legislatures--as in only 'seen' were the U.S.'s plenary zones and only U.S. citizens (not State Nationals) so therefore direct election was the ONLY way; or (ii) the U.S. still saw the sovereigns out there ..separate from the U.S. but then happily 'invited' them into direct election/endorsement through the 17th amendment?

As in for the Federal Reserve Act to really have teeth and for the coming Buck Act and Social Security Acts to have validity the US had to get the adequate approval-in-trusteeship for funding WWI, WWII, creating the FRB (needed approval to use the assets held in trust)--thus the 17th Amendment? Perhaps a stretch........perhaps not.



While the gold confiscation in the U.S. is widely discussed, how much gold and silver was already being held by the U.S. already during the year 1913 and by the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed? (See attached PDF.)

[xparte]

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

[allodial]

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

Perhaps a story about an attempt to escape from or avoid the presumptions (or presumptuousness?) of Roman Civil Law (and perhaps British Manorialism) might be insightful? [Right of avoidance?]

We do not find peaceful inhabitants left in peace without proper license plates. I know a fellow who lived in peace many years with Kingdom of Israel license plates but then one icy morning two cars slid into his and the Charges began to accrue. [I should inquire how that turned out.].

Winston Shrout rather succinctly has caused against going into 'the public' without a bond. 'Notice ahead of time' seeming to be a significant and key factor. And so the reminder of the nature of the Flood called Admiralty on land...

Among the many things that were important to our fore-fathers, the one thing that stood out was to establish a government free of any relationship or influence of the private Roman civil law operating in and controlling public policy. It was the oppression of the Roman civil law, as the king and parliament dictated, that was at the foundation for seeking expatriation from England under the king's assumed divine right. The Roman civil law (also referred to as "admiralty-maritime law"/15 or the "law of the sea" as well as "private international law") was the result of private church law operating for commercial purposes in the public sector. The amalgamation of church law and civil government was derived from three ingredients; Greece, Rome and Christianity. The political theory derived from the first two of these ingredients was tempered to accommodate the third. Its originators and apologists were the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, and the first historian of the Christian Church, Eusebius of Caesarea. Through his writings, Eusebius had once and for all established the new way to interpret history, and his followers applied the same political philosophy for over 1000 years.

In simple terms, Roman civil law is a perversion of private law. That is, the conscience of private law was never meant to operate in forming public policy of government. Private law was always a part of establishing bilateral contracts and could be used in government only for setting up private commercial relations between government and corporations called "licenses." But the conscience of private law could never operate without bilateral contracts unless it was through a trust.

It was this Roman civil law that had taken over all Europe and England and our founding fathers wanted nothing of it in the "commercial law system of the American states." It represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is, slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts the individual never was aware he was getting into until he was hit with compelled performance.

Thomas Jefferson expressed this disdain of Roman civil law being introduced into English common law in 1760 by Lord Mansfield. In fact, it was this decision that sparked the American revolution. After this date, Jefferson wanted nothing to do with the common law of England because of the way it had been polluted with Roman civil (ecclesiastical) law by Mansfield.

Note: many Bible-believers might not give too much weight to Constantine's sincerity. There those who suggest that Rome was out to wipe out true believers and with other means not working turning to used the strategy of 'incorporation' ("Let's be friends I'm one of you and your ruler too.")

And so the importance of libel of review.

Related:

U.S.A. The Republic Is the House That No One Lives In
Invisible Contracts (by George Mercier)

[pumpkin]

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

Some interesting things I have found researching traffic law. Traffic law and the rules and processes used to enforce them, are applicable to an agency. That of course is an agency of government. Indiana code specially states that these processes NEED NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH THINGS SUCH AS THE COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE AS WITH THE COURTS. Traffic laws are internal rules for government (and commerce). They enforce them using the courts, but the courts act administratively. The judical rules of court even specifically states that evidence of failure to have insurance is not admissible as to prove wrong doing, but only admissible concerning questions of agency (someone acting of the behalf of another). The entire point system for drivers license only exists within the administrave code. IMO, when you get pulled over and show the license with the seal of the state on it, you are presumed to be an employee of an agency. Not that the cop knows this, but it begins the presumption. License are a personal effect, and are not subject to unreasonable searches without warrant. Most 'laws' including traffic that are applied against the people are administrative only. Administrative is of course executive. The rights of the people are not directly subject to the executive, and true controversies of rights require judicial proceedures to resolve. Controversies between the people and government are not controversies of rights, as only the people have rights. Governments only have limited authority and limited powers. When government come against the people or one of the people, the situation can best be explained as a 'faithless servant'.