US vs USA

Philadelphia – Old City: Independence Hall – The Signing of the Constitution in A.D. 1787. But did the “Singning” constitute Ratification?  (Photo credit: wallyg)

A couple of friends sent an email to me concerning the meanings of “United States,” “United States of America” and “The United States of America”.  I replied as follows:

It seems to me that the Founders were incredibly casual with their use of the terms “United States” and “The United States of America”.  They routinely used the term “the United States of America” (in the Preamble, for example) to almost certainly mean “The United States of America”.  That allowed later generations of villains to define “United States of America” in a way that’s other than “The United States of America”.  They left us an almost astonishing burden of ambiguity and confusion.  In retrospect, their failure to precisely define what “United States” and “the United States of America” meant is equivalent to an Achilles Heel that opened the door to great treason in this country.  They assumed the meanings of those terms were obvious and would remain obvious to their descendants.  They were mistaken.

 

Geo. Washington: 1st President of the United States or 8th President of The United States of America? Or Both?

Gilbert Stuart’s Portrait of George Washington (The Constable-Hamilton Portrait) Year = 1797) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received an email from “menaradi” that reads as follows:

“Just read your article on the Constitution and enjoyed it, but came across this one and thought you might like to read it, especially the 2nd to last paragraph of this article…. tell me why don’t we know about the 1st seven presidents of this country????

“http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html”

I suspect that the answer to your question may be that the first “president” (John Hanson?) was not president of the “United States“–he was president under the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) and was therefore president of “The United States of America“.

Later, in A.D. 1789, the people created a new “government” by means of The Constitution of the United States.  That new government was the government of the “United States“–but not of “The United States of America”.  The first president of the “United States” was George Washington–but it’s possible that Washington may also have been the eighth (?) president of The United States of America.

 

Consent

Founding Fathers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The most radical statement in 2,000 years of western political history is found in the third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence”:

“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.”

The Declaration that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights is the foundation for individual sovereignty and government as a public servant rather than a public master.

The third sentence of the Declaration is almost as profound:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The first half of that sentence declares the fundamental purpose of government as envisioned by the Founders:  to secure to every man, woman and even unborn child their God-given, unalienable Rights.

The second half expresses another principle that is fundamental to freedom:  governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Thus, the concept of “consent” is fundamental to the foundation of governments established by the Founders.

But what, exactly, does consent mean?  Can I run stop signs if I don’t “consent” to obey traffic laws?  Can I avoid paying income taxes by simply withholding my consent to be bound by Title 26 of the United States Code?

The concept of consent is both fundamental our de jure form of government—and extremely hard to grasp and apply.  OK—you do have the right to consent or not to consent, but you don’t have the right to consent or not to particular laws . . . or do you?

The concept of consent is particularly important if a fundamental hypothesis advocated on this blog—the difference between The State (the States of the Union) and “this state” (an administrative division of a singular territory of the United States)—is valid.   If “this state” is a real governmental structure that exists as an alternative to The State, it appears that we may only be subject to the laws of “this state” based on some manifestation of our consent to submit to “this state”.

Thus, if we could more fully understand the concept of consent, we might be able to avoid being subject to the laws of “this state”.

 

The United States of America vs the United States

Image via Wikipedia

I received a comment elsewhere on this blog that asked for an analysis of the difference between “The United States of America” and “United States”.  I replied as follows:

As I understand it, the word “constitution” signifies a document that originally creates, incorporates or “constitutes” some new entity.  We say “The Constitution of the United States,” but the same text might just as easily have been entitled “The Charter of the United States” or “The Incorporation Papers of the United States”.  As I understand it, the instrument entitled “The Constitution of the United States” is the document that “constituted” the entity named “United States”.

Note that even though a document that performs the function of  ”constituting” or creating a new entity, that document need not be expressly named “The Constitution of [That Entity]“.  It could have an name that never used the word “constitution” but still performed the function of “constituting” a new entity.

We’re all familiar with the federal “Constitution”.  There’s a problem with that document.  The author’s never attached an explicit title at the top of that document and so there’s some confusion about its proper name.  Some think that document is properly named “The Constitution of the United States”.  Some say, “The Constitution of The United States of America.”  Others say, “The Constitution for the United States of America”.

 

U.S. Inc.

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a 15 minute video of a woman (I wish I knew who she was) outlining much of the problem we have with what passes for “government”.  She cites a lot of evidence to support her conclusions.  And she displays her passion for liberty and anger and hatred for the treasonous whores in our “government” who presume to have reduced us to the status of slaves, animals and “things”.

Good evidence.  Great passion.   She knows she’s right.  Her evidence inspires her passion.

The natives are not only restless–they are educating themselves.

video  00:15:06

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZzgGdxYGR0&feature=youtu.be

 

“the United States of NORTH America”

Image via Wikipedia

In A.D. 1795, our government ratified a treaty with the nation of Algiers. One of the two signatories to to that treaty was Algiers; the other was “the United States of North America”. The phrase “the United States of North America” appears roughly 20 times in that treaty.

Thus, it appears that in A.D. 1795—seven years after ratification of the Constitution of the United States—either:

1) at least with respect to international treaties, the proper name for our national government may have been “the United States of North America”;

2) no one, including George Washington, had yet agreed on a proper name for this country; or,

3) “the United States of North America” has subsequently been supplanted by the “United States”.

 

Dennis Craig’s Documents–#1

Dennis Craig has been a regular guest on my radio show over the past six or eight weeks.  We’ve talked about a number of subjects, but the central theme has been a series of documents that Dennis drafted and ultimately filed with the national government.

Dennis claims that as a result of his process, when his name comes up on government computer data bases, the government files now include a “DO NOT HOLD” notice.  As a result, Dennis claims to have had a number of confrontations with the police or other “authorities” who, upon checking Dennis in their federal data base, simply release him and avoid further contact.

 

The Bankruptcy of the United States; James Traficant’s Speech

Image via Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia, “James Anthony Traficant, Jr. (born May 8, 1941) is a former Democratic Representative in the United States Congress from Ohio (from 1985 to 2002). He represented the 17th Congressional District, which centered around his hometown of Youngstown and included parts of three counties in northeast Ohio’s Mahoning Valley. He was expelled [from Congress] after being convicted of taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and forcing his aides to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and on his houseboat in Washington, D.C., and was released from prison on September 2, 2009, after serving a seven-year sentence.”

I don’t know the details or timing concerning Mr. Traficant’s conviction in A.D. 2002, but if the criminal allegations against him were true, I would’ve expected him to have been made Speaker of the House rather than expelled from Congress.

In fact, many people believe that Mr. Trafficant was ultimately tried and sentenced in A.D. 2002 for having made an extraordinary speech in A.D. 1993 to Congress.  In that speech, Congressman Traficant alleged 1) the U.S. government is bankrupt; 2) the federal government was dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act of A.D. 1933; 3) the “receivers” of the US bankruptcy were the “international bankers via the United Nations”; and 4) the US monetary system was a fraud.

As I said, this was an extraordinary speech.  He was lucky to have merely been jailed; he might’ve been shot.

 

The White House Inc.

Image by Matt Ortega via Flickr

First, consider a peculiar video wherein President Obama and former President Clinton are both speaking at “The White House”.  President Obama leaves the podium, and allows former President Clinton to continue to answer questions–at “The White House”.

You don’t need to watch the whole video.  The first 1 to 3 minutes will be enough.  But you might ask yourself, What th’ Hell is President Obama doing by “handing off” the podium at “The White House” to someone who was not only nearly impeached from office but, seemingly, no longer occupies a public office?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dODwyYpDmqY&feature=player_embedded#!

Most importantly, note the blue-green and white oval in the background behind the podium that has a drawing of the White House and carries the words:

“THE WHITE HOUSE

“WASHINGTON”

Millions of Americans have seen that oval behind the President or his press secretary for years and probably thought it was just a sign (kinda like “MEN” or “WOMEN” near a restaurant’s lavatories) to signal the physical place where the speaker is standing.

But I don’t think so.  I think that blue-green oval is a corporate logo for a private corporation called “THE WHITE HOUSE” and/or “THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE”.

 

Political Choice

Image via Wikipedia

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Baker v  Carr that federal courts were incapable of answering a “political question”.  This raises the possibility that if a sophisticated defendant based his defense on the presence of a “political question,” the federal courts might be precluded from hearing or deciding the case.

I’ve therefore become a student of the concept of “political”.  Political choice, political decisions, political argument, political doctrine are on my radar.