RSS

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

12 Nov

English: * Title = Gilbert Stuart's Portrait o...

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.

 I don’t believe that the governments of “The United States of America” and of the “United States” are identical.

“The United States of America” differs from the “United States” in this regard:  As per the Articles of Confederation, “The United States of America” includes only the States of the Union.  There are no provisos in the Articles of Confederation for territories or “districts” like Washington DC.

But territories and an exclusive district for the federal government quickly became an issue.  The issue of territories was in part remedied by the North West Ordinance of A.D. 1787.

When the new Constitution of the “United States” was ratified in A.D. 1789, it allowed the newly-created “United States” to include a district that would become “Washington DC” and the territories–in addition to the States of the Union.

It appears to me that there are no such districts or territories within “The United States of America,” but such districts and territories do exist within the “United States”.

Insofar as The United States of America was declared to be a perpetual Union, I believe that the government of The United States of America is still present.  I think we can catch glimpses of it in the signatures of presidents on treaties.  I suspect that the president signs treaties as “President of The United States of America“.

But I also suspect that whenever the president acts domestically (as in signing executive orders) he may sign as “President of the United States”.

If so, President Obama may be the 44th President of the United States and 51st President of The United States of America.

If my conjecture concerning the differences between “The United States of America” and the “United States” is roughly correct, then it might follow that so long  as you admit (perhaps on your mailing address and by use of a Zip Code) that you are within the “United States,” you could be in a territory or even Washington DC rather than a State of the Union.  But if your mailing address properly specified that you were within The United States of America, then it might follow that you would have challenged or even refuted any presumption that you are within a territory of the United States.  (I doubt that Zip Codes exist within The United States of America and/or any State of the Union.)

So, why don’t Americans know about the first seven “presidents”?  I suspect that the reason may be that knowledge of the first seven presidents might open the door to realizing that “The United States of America” and the “United States” are two very different venues–and the government of one is not necessarily the government of the other.  More importantly, within the venue of “The United States of America,” you may have certain rights that are not easily accessible within the venue of the “United States”.

 

Tags: , , ,

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

  1. Steve

    November 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    I very rarely watch the PRESIDENT, any of them when they address the country on tv. But the last time OBAMA was on giving a speech the SPEAKER introduced him as THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (period) There was no America included. This in my mind confirmed he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNTED STATES INC. and therefore the issue of his birth certificate, or where he was born is mute. All large corporations have a president/ceo, vice presidents, secretaries and treasurers, do they not? Thank you for your endless dedication to free speech and fact finding! I enjoy your articles very much!

    Steve
    conyers, georgia
    united states of America

     
    • Don

      November 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM

      Steve
      November 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM
      @I very rarely watch the PRESIDENT.
      SHAME ON YOU !!! Bronco Bama NEEDS to be “watched.” <(: AND more than just watched.Then again, doing this might be in violation of the Separaton of The Muslim Church & State doctrine.

       
      • Steve

        November 14, 2012 at 3:52 AM

        Don
        @Seperation of the Muslim Church and State doctrine…

        Lol! It’s hard to watch more than 5 minutes of Bronco B. My lie-o-meter gets pegged so far to the bulls^t side! You are right though, he does need to be watched…ever notice he signs most of his constitution shredding EO’s when most of the country is preoccupied with mind numbing festivities?
        Didn’t he pass the NDDA on New Years Eve?

         
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

      @ My lie-o-meter gets pegged so far to the bulls^t side!

      Yes indeed it do. Did you see the Video “MY FEELINGS EXACTLY?” < (Alfred Adask, comment).
      It sounds to me like the little 4 year old girl says,"Bronco" Bama. Steve, I am so tired I cannot for the life of me,remember, if I ever knew, what "NDDA" is. It doesn't bother me to say up front that I am ignorant or even worse. Regardless of what "Adask," says,I am not vain or as he, Adask, says, VAY-EEEN.He sure knows how to get the point across. especially to "DUNCES" as I am. Neither am I "PROUD." I defeat my own purpose by staying up too long & spend too many hours on this site & realize too late that I am "rumdum." It's impossible for me to "rest" tho, when someone I thought was my friend, insults me. I confess that I do make comments,"in vain." But isn't that why we have 2 ears,so it can go through one & out of the other? HEY !! Thanks for you comment. אני אוהבת אותך

       
      • Steve

        November 15, 2012 at 3:03 AM

        @”rumdum”
        I can totally relate to that!

        @Bronco Bama
        I did see that video, and thats what she says. I wish that nickname would stick to him, because he sure is “bucking the system”!

        Don, I have spent countless hours not just on this site, but youtube, and Rod Class’s talkshoe calls also. People think I am crazy when I try to bring up a discussion about what is happening to our country. they say you spend wayto much time on that dam computer, while they’re sitting there watching hour after hour of mind numbing tv. Sometimes I just want to throw my hands up and say f^(k it all. But its like watching a train wreck in slow motion, you just can’t force yourself not to watch, you know its going to be bad but you don’t want to miss a single moment of it!

        I got NDDA wrong…its actually NDAA. National Defense Authorization Act. (The kidnapping and indefinete detention of Americans anywhere in the world without warrant.) I am afraid to ask how can it get any worse than this?

        One thing I’ve learned about being on the internet…you better have thick skin…one minute you’re the hero, and the next you’re the zero!

        Hang tuff!
        Steve

         
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM

      @Hang tuff!
      Wow!!! Did you ever say a lot !! hero 2 zero.never wanted 2 B a hero. used to say, one is a lonely number. zero is below that. so low that when you look UP, you see the bottom. That is LOW Brother. have to look UP 2 C the BOTTOM. I’m weary of “hanging” but I have too.Bless your heart.

       
      • Steve

        November 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM

        @ zero you have to look up

        A very close friend of mine wants to write a book…her title is…”You Can’t Fall Out of the Basement!”
        She was nine years old when Hitler started bombing London. One day she came home from school and her neighbors house where her school mate lived had been leveled by a German air raid bomb.I guess when you’re hunkered down in the basement, the only way is up! It seems as though history is repeating itself. Like they always say…”If you don’t learn from the past, you are surely bound to repeat it!” If we can’t “hang”, than we have to hunker!
        Stay safe! I think the worst is yet to come before it gets better!

         
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

      @A very close friend of mine wants to write a book…her title is…”You Can’t Fall Out of the Basement!”
      Quit “topping” me ! I started to say that puts her on, well I better not say what I started to because it would not be UNDERstood like I meant it 2 B.

      If we can’t “hang”, than we have to hunker!
      I UNDERstand that !

      Stay safe! I think the worst is yet to come before it gets better!

      Sad to say, I KNOW you are right. Hey stop the world & let me OFF.

      Tell your friend, the Title itself will make it sell. It is Commercial !! What an eye catching title. Ever heard of Kris Kristofferson? He did a song for me that he wrote called Jody & the kid. I had to be honest with him & I told him that I thought it was extremely well written but I did not think it was commercial. By that,I meant I did not think it would sell. I don’t think it sold many copies either when it did get recorded. One day, a couple of years later, after Kris did make the “Big Time,” he was on a TV network program, I think it was Merv Griffin, & Kris was asked about any new songs he had written, & he mentioned the latest one, turned & looked straight into the camera & said: “I bet there is someone out there who would say it’s not COMMERCIAL however. I can’t help but believe that he was directing his statement to me.Alfred, would say,Don, that’s because yiu are so VAY-EEEEN
      Thanks again,Steve. Send me an E-mail sometime- donaldbailey02@comcast.net

       
    • Anonymous

      April 28, 2015 at 7:35 PM

      What I was taught is that the electors elect the President of the United States of America,, (Personally, I think when the people vote, for the most part, it’s a dog and pony show to make the people THINK they have a voice), then this person who they elect as Pres of US of A, APPOINTS HIMSELF to be President/C.E.O. of the UNITED STATES CORP, and then he
      takes the oath office for the President of the UNITED STATES ….. ONLY. We have no President of the united States of America. If you paid attention when Obama was taking his oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution OF the UNITED STATES. He did not swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution FOR the united States of America. If you ever hear it on TV again, you can hear this for yourself. To my knowledge NO PRESIDENT, back to and including, George Washington has ever taken an oath to uphold the Constitution FOR the united States of America. They want us to believe that the US and US of A is one and the same “government/country.” They are not not. The Constitution is actually a service contract between the states of the union and the government to provide services for the states of the union.

      You can compare the united States of America to the living man or woman. It is REAL.
      You can compare the UNITED STATES to the Strawman.

      Same for states.
      states of the union = real land, defined by meets and bounds/for living men and women/American
      Nationals/non-resident Aliens.
      STATES = legal fictions/Strawmen for states of the union/CORPORATIONS/ where Strawmen “live”
      but actually Strawmen are considered to be dead.

      If you really want to know what is going on, read this book: “Disclosure 101 -What you Need to Know” by Judge Anna Von Reitz. It is, without a doubt, the best book I have ever read regarding
      the dual government we live with!

       
  2. pop de adam

    November 12, 2012 at 1:15 PM

    I read an interesting paper by one Doug Herich called The Orphan Constitution. It is rather convoluted and requires close scrutiny, I had to read it a few times myself. This paper explains how George Washington himself may have not taken the proper oath to become the president as outlined in the constitution, but instead gave an oath to the office of president, which is actually the head of congress, thus either abandoning the presidency or comingling the executive and legislative branches.

    A simple google search brings many results, the top result is a “Scribd dot com” that loads slowly and has advertisments. I am reluctant to post it, but it is there and is fully readable. I posted this on the mention of George Washington, not that it either supports or refutes Als’ report, Again just thought it to be food for more thought.

    -pop

     
  3. applescence

    November 12, 2012 at 1:33 PM

    Al,
    Dennis Craig bynum had brought up an issue in his paperwork about the creation of the United States of America in 1946, I think it was, during the summer recess of Congress. I have gone through his and other paperwork and still cannot find or figure out what he was referring to. Obviously, it had something to do with re-creating the “image” of the US of A, presumably under the banner of the United States the corporation.

    Do you know what it was that was created that DCB threw the red flag up about in his filings?

     
    • Adask

      November 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      Nope–I don’t know.

      What I do know is that the Articles of Confederation created a confederation and perpetual union that was expressly named within quote marks, within the “Articles” as “The United States of America”. Not “Unites States of America,” or “USA” or “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. The articles expressly declare that the proper name of the entity constituted was “The United States of America”–and that’s the name I intend to use and rely on.

       
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM

        To Who it may concern:

        I do not know if the following is true or false but my question is: IF John Hanson was a black man, & IF slavery was so bad, why is nothing written about him not at least havig tried to have slavery abolished?

        John Hanson was a white man from Maryland. The rumor that he was black is false. Frequently a photograph (daguerrotype) of a black man, John Hanson Moor, is presented as evidence that John Hanson was black. In truth, there was no photography of any kind during John Hanson’s lifetime. John Hanson Moor was a Liberian senator, unrelated to John Hanson.(wiki Answers)

        Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_John_Hansen_the_first_president_of_the_US_African_decent#ixzz2C2hJ1KqH

         
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 4:09 PM

        From: The Articles of Confederation

        On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland:
        John Hanson March 1 1781
        Daniel Carroll

        How can John Hanson be both the.A President & also be “On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland:” I think PatriotOne would say this is all a bunch of BS !! If he,PatriotOne,doesn’t want to say it, I WILL, “It’s all just a bunch of BS & HS !!

         
      • John TWB

        November 13, 2012 at 12:31 AM

        Right! “The United States of America”, the perpetual union, as in the first constitution so adopted in the law of each of the ole 13 States. Maryland was the 13th to do so, on February 2, 1781. A month later, on March 2, 1781, “the Continental Congress” was reconvened at Wall Street, NYC, as “The United States in Congress Assembled” [See the Journals of the Continental Congress for this date, which reports the official adoption of said “stile”, pursuant to the constitution as “confirmed” in the Congress on the previous day]. Samuel Huntington was then the President, the first of ten Presidents of the United States in Congress. Hanson was the third in this constitutional line. Cyrus Griffin was the 10th and last; he resigned on November 2, 1788, a Sunday in New York City. About four months later, at sunset on March 3, 1789, a cannonade salute ceremonially marked the interment of the Confederation government. The following day at high noon the new Congress convened under the authority of the second constitution. Wasn’t much of an opening-day turn-out in Congress; the east coast had been battered by the worst ever weather anybody then could remember, making many roads and bridges impassable. Senate and House quorums were achieved only in early April. General Washington’s inauguration took place on April 30.

         
      • PatriotOne

        November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

        I would say BS. Pondering; Why would any Man think He (or they) would need to for[u]m a ‘story’ Declar(ing)ation They are free Men other than it served only to inform other MEN/KINGS that are/were merly ACTORS? Being that ACTORS are confined to a script and THEY cannot see-hear-taste-feel-smell real Men.

        So the ‘founders’ were left to the devices they knew. Could a KING hear Men or was a KING confined to a script, only able to hear MEN, thereby ACTING according to the next scene, eg scene 4 ACT 7 THE CONSTITUTION.

        The Articles of Confederation being authored by honest Men confining themselves within their ACTING role[s]/ ARTICLES. Being/becoming frustrated within their limitations, created scene 4 ACT 7 THE CONSTITUTION and thereby attempting to turn all Men into ACTORS and CITIZEN.

        Is it that “Germany” and “Russia” and Egypt” and “Brazil” and “England” and and and could not see Men but could see MEN/ACTOR/CITIZEN? And the COUNTRIES were bound to accept all submitted SCENE’s and ACT’s placed upon the WORLD STAGE?

        This brings me to the evidenced truth that the barrel of a gun decides who is free and who is SLAVE, with a herd of IDIOTS determining who was right to fire and who was wrong.

        However, I know of no other alternative. Had honest Men prevailed these united States wouldn’t be such a bad place to BE.

         
      • Anonymous

        April 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM

        In the aforementioned book, Disclosure 101-What you need to Know by Judge Anna Von Reitz, she explains all forms of all the names for US vs US of A, including spelling, the word “the” when the u is capitalized and when it is not – all of it. She explains all of this thoroughly, among other EXTREMELY interesting, and many unknown things by the general public – It’s an absolutely MUST READ for anyone who is interested in this subject .

         
    • mAximo

      November 14, 2012 at 8:05 AM

      It’s BS to those w/no understanding of feudalism & the “free System
      of English Law” without which what the founders said or did might
      make no sense. They tried to prevent the former from displacing
      the latter in a process that commenced in 1066 as described in Roger
      Sayles’ book, and as implemented only in the territories via the
      Constitution, where the US was made a feudal lord. Reconstruction
      later turned “the State” of the Union into “this state” of the US,
      at least in those States that had seceded, if not all.

       
    • ibFreeAmerican

      November 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM

      I too had found such references right in the preamble to a few laws and possibly treaties that specifically stated the New Gov-co would be structured identical to the existing American gov and that was the corporate structure, complete with a president etc. Found these references in some laws around 1820’s – 1870’s. found while researching Lincoln. One preamble even boldly stated that this new Gov-co corporate structure was and dose belong to and is answerable to the Queen.

       
      • ibFreeAmerican

        November 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        United States Code – USC Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C).
        District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

         
  4. dasanco

    November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

    Actually if your definition of president of the United States is roughly; “the highest ranking executive officer”, the the answer would be;

    George Washington is the seventeenth president of the United States …

    1. Peyton Randolph
    2. Henry Middleton
    3. Peyton Randolph
    4. John Hancock
    5. Henry Laurens
    6. John Jay
    7. Samuel Huntington
    8. Thomas McKean
    9. John Hanson
    10. Elias Boudinot
    11. Thomas Mifflin
    12. Richard Henry Lee
    13. John Hancock
    14. Nathaniel Gorham
    15. Arthur St. Clair
    16. Cyrus Griffin
    17. George Washington

     
    • mAximo

      November 14, 2012 at 6:39 AM

      dasanco:
      1-8 = a President of the Congress of the united States of America;
      while 8 might have been a de facto President of the United States of
      America (in Congress assembled), none were de jure in international law,
      since the British had not yet surrendered their rule. In any case, No 9
      was the 1st to comply fully, as well as the 1st to employ the Great Seal
      of the United States of America (= the front of the two-sided Great Seal
      of the United States). Thus, John Hanson was acting both as President
      provisionally, as well as on behalf of Maryland vis-a-vis international
      law, esp. if strictly applied to only allow for the independence of the
      united States, i.e. individually as stated in the Declaration, which is
      why Britain at first wanted to negotiate separate treaties w/each State.

       
      • Don

        November 14, 2012 at 5:58 PM

        @ “Thus, John Hanson was acting….”

        Why did the BLACK ACTOR not do SOMETHING to AT LEAST TRY & abolish SLAVERY, DICK TRACY?
        He was BLACK, RIGHT? OR, waw he a AFF-FREE-CUN american? HANSON is an AFRICAN “name,” Isn’t it? SHO NUFF IS, E-uhh. I no it E-uhh. BLACK as they come. HANSON, straight out of AFRICA. Cane git no blackuhhnat. AWE wuhh Haesuh, a white mane? WHICH IT E-UHH?

         
      • Don

        November 14, 2012 at 6:10 PM

        mAximo
        November 14, 2012 at 6:39 AM
        dasanco:
        @ “1-8 = a President of the Congress….”
        One minus eight = WHAT?? And I was taught 1-8 = -7.well I’m a son-of a-gun cause my pappy was a pistol. I now don’t feel that I’m the lowest rung on the ladder.

         
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 2:41 AM

      dasanco
      November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM
      Locodasanco, excuse me, I meant, dasacnoloco,EXCUSE ME !!, dasacno, there we go, I got it right that time. Red herring rabbit trail & primrose lane like nothing I ever saw. WOW !!!

       
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 7:04 PM

      @dasanco
      @November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

      @Actually if your definition of president of the United States is roughly; “the highest ranking executive officer”, the the answer would be;

      @George Washington is the seventeenth president of the United States …

      I disagree with the order of the Presidents as U have them listed. the following is the correct order

      1. Peyton Randolph 14
      2. Henry Middleton 17
      3. Peyton Randolph 16
      4. John Hancock 3
      5. Henry Laurens 1
      6. John Jay- 11
      7. Samuel Huntington 2
      8. Thomas McKean- 10
      9. John Hanson- 13
      10. Elias Boudinot- 15
      11. Thomas Mifflin- 5
      12. Richard Henry Lee- 6
      13. John Hancock- 9
      14. Nathaniel Gorham- 8
      15. Arthur St. Clair- 7
      16. Cyrus Griffin- 12
      17. George Washington- 4

      The correct order is as showing above.

       
      • mAximo

        November 17, 2012 at 3:47 AM

        Your perspicuity concerning venue is evidently why PatriotOne meets
        your exacting standards of lexical sense. You should be his editor,
        so that the rest of us might make sense of his book “Adventures in
        Legal Land.”

         
  5. Mike Scott

    November 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

    I believe that the original government of our nation was styled “The United States of America” both under the Articles of Confederation and under the Constitution of 1789, and for roughly 80 years thereafter.

    Try looking up the “Act of 1871” on your favorite search engine.

    You are likely to get a whole bunch of sites saying that our problems with the “United States” started with that act. As you are perusing those results, you might find it interesting to pay some extra attention to the site “teamlaw.org” (or teamlaw.net, same site).

    The “Constitution of the United States of America” still has only 13 amendments to this day (including, of course, the “missing” 13th amendment, which WAS ratified, and which was one of the main reasons that the “Esquires” and their buddies attacked us in the War of 1812 – aside from the fact that they were hellbent on forcing our government to approve the creation of “The Second Bank of the United States”, they also had a very specific mission to destroy as many of our national records as it took to ensure that the evidence of the ratification of the 13th amendment, was destroyed. However, enough very strong circumstantial evidence from state archives, including printed copies of the Constitution, printed in Virginia (the last state needed to ratify), containing that amendment – is more than enough to convince me that it was ratified.

    When you see a “Constitution” that has 27 Amendments, that is not “the latest revision of the continuation of the Constitution of 1789” – it is the “Corporate Policy” of that private corporation created by the Act of 1871, and I would not count on using that one to defend my liberty – it is CORRUPTED.

    Our original Government which was created to secure our rights, is not dead, but for practical purposes is currently “asleep” – because elections for the President of THAT Government have not been held according to the requirements of that original Constitution since at least 1916, the office of President in that Government is VACANT.

    That Corporation created by that Act of 1871, is acting as the “de facto” government, contrary to law, and hoping that the small number of people that know the truth about that, remains small enough to ignore.

    Some good people (Team Law is the main group I know of, but there may be others) have been fighting hard, for years, to bring that Government back to life, and had hoped to elect a President into that Government this year, but the effort depends a lot on donations for the resources needed, and it was not possible to do it this year, but watch out in 2016!

     
    • Don

      November 13, 2012 at 10:28 PM

      Mike Scott
      November 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

      My research confirms what you say regarding this “missing 13th Amendment.” I actually saw the original. It was encased in glass & an armed guard was “protecting” it. I forget now though if it was Pennsylvania, or Maryland where I saw it,e.g. the Real McCoy. I have also seen it in many early State Constitutions.

       
  6. Anon4fun

    November 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    Benjamin Curtis, Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote:

    Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can have been no other than citizens of the United States under the Confederation. By the Articles of Confederation, a Government was organized, the style whereof was “The United States of America.” This Government was in existence when the Constitution was framed and proposed for adoption, and was to be superseded by the new Government of the United States of America, organized under the Constitution. When, therefore, the Constitution speaks of citizenship of the United States existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it must necessarily refer to citizenship under the Government which existed prior to and at the time of such adoption.

     
    • Don

      November 13, 2012 at 10:17 PM

      @ Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can have been no other than citizens of the United States under the Confederation.

      Are the “Citizens” as defined/described above, within the same meaning as citizens of the United States per the 14th amendment? A yes or No answer is sufficient. I don’t need a sermon explaining your answer to my question. If you don’t respond to my question, I will take it to mean your answer is, No.

       
      • PatriotOne

        November 13, 2012 at 11:39 PM

        My thoughts on the 14th Amendment, also advocated by Rod Class, is that the 14th Amendment citizen is in fact and equal to and nothing more than an elected government employee ie’ “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, that the 14th Amendment has no-thing to do with People and every-thing to do with elected ACTORS.

        The Amendment does not have the word People in it. It does not state “People born in the United States are citizens of the United States”, it states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

        The Supreme Court ruled that CORPORATIONS are persons, it did not rule that CORPORATIONS are People.

        The President RESIDES in the White House. He does not OWN the White House therefore he can only RESIDE while he has permission to ACT as-if he is a PRESIDENT..

         
    • JohnTWB

      November 14, 2012 at 3:40 AM

      CURTIS, J., Dissenting Opinion
      SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
      ________________________________________
      60 U.S. 393
      Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford
      ________________________________________
      Decided: March 6, 1857
      ________________________________________
      Mr. Justice CURTIS dissenting.

      The relevant excerpt:

      “Without going into any question concerning the powers of the Confederation to govern the territory of the United States out of the limits of the States, and consequently to sustain the relation of Government and citizen in respect to the inhabitants of such territory, it may safely be said that the citizens of the several States were citizens of the United States under the Confederation.

      “That Government was simply a confederacy of the several States, possessing a few defined powers over subjects of general concern, each State retaining every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. And no power was thus delegated to the Government of the Confederation to act on any question of citizenship or to make any rules in respect thereto. The whole matter was left to stand upon the action of the several States, and to the natural consequence of such action that the citizens of each State should be citizens of that Confederacy into which that State had entered, the style whereof was, “The United States of America.”

       
  7. Jim

    November 12, 2012 at 4:32 PM

    Ed Rivera does a good job of explaining the distinctions the organic laws have built with regard to “government” in America . Perhaps Al and Ed could produce an article together. Check out his credentials and web page edrivera.com.

     
  8. Don

    November 13, 2012 at 9:52 PM

    PatriotOne
    November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM
    @I would say BS.

    I think you are Sooooo RIGHT !!!

     
  9. Don

    November 13, 2012 at 10:03 PM

    PatriotOne
    November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM
    Now All the super dooper above average Bear intellectuals on this Alfred Adask Blog are more confused than before. PatriotOne, you have got to stop being so CLEAR. You are confusing people with the FACTS. We can’t have this !! Stop it !!

     
  10. Don

    November 13, 2012 at 11:02 PM

    PatriotOne
    November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM
    Your “scenes” show clear scenery, to me, & paint not only a picture, but shows a picture within the “scenery.” This is Nooooo BS either.

     
  11. Anon4fun

    November 13, 2012 at 11:32 PM

    Don: >>Are the “Citizens” as defined/described above, within the same meaning as citizens of the United States per the 14th amendment?<<

    Negatory. The 14th Amendment added the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requirement for United States citizenship.

    Contrariwise, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says:

    "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    This type of citizen need not be “subject to the jurisdiction” of, and may therefore demand “benefit” from, the United States.

    The above is my understanding as of now, in any case.

     
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 12:12 AM

      Don
      November 13, 2012 at 10:17 PM

      @ Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can have been no other than citizens of the United States under the Confederation.

      Are the “Citizens” as defined/described above, within the same meaning as citizens of the United States per the 14th amendment? A yes or No answer is sufficient. I don’t need a sermon explaining your answer to my question. If you don’t respond to my question, I will take it to mean your answer is, No.

      I said I did not need a sermon. I also said: If you don’t respond to my question, I will take it to mean your answer is, No.

      You responded with a sermon using your explanation by using posts I made earlier. Remember, Thou shalt not steal. Or IF you do steal, do as I do and say,e.g. “stolen from” Here is a clearer example. The following is a comment I made, recently

      MY FEELINGS EXACTLY !!! (stolen from Alfred Adask)

       
    • PatriotOne

      November 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM

      “”not subject to any foreign power,”” =’s Ohio is a foreign power as far as Kentucky is concerned. The People are free as far as God or Creator is concerned. A gang of men and women wearing costumes and commonly referred to as GovCo cannot subject anyone or thing to “their” power because “they” only have power over their-self as an individual Man or Woman.
      Any POWER exercized by the costumed GovCo is enforced at the barrel of a gun.
      I think people have been trained to mis-use words, and GovCo mis-uses words on purpose.
      If written correctly, so as not to confuse, the 14th would properly ‘say’ “””””not subject to any foreign force”’.
      there is no such thing as government “power”, government is FORCE.

       
      • Don

        November 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

        @ there is no such thing as government “power”, government is FORCE.

        Like in Statutory Law EnFORCEment.

        PatriotOne, I hope you get this. Last night, I went back & was reading again some of your posts from a month or so back,& I saw some comments I made to you that I should not have have made. The problem was, what you were saying was not your thoughts,etc.,it was something you were saying that somebody else said & I didn’t catch it that way. Sooooo,I owe you an apology.I regret responding to you as I did. It was my mistake. I’m sorry. You are my #1 favorite poster & that ain’t NO BS.

         
      • PatriotOne

        November 17, 2012 at 8:39 AM

        I’m sure everything that could be said has already been said by another that said he said that she heard him say they said…

        How many ways should it take for Lysander Spooner describe slavery before the people comprehend what ‘it’ is?

        Bubba Clinton – “that depends on what YOU mean when YOU say “it”.

        Q: What facts do you (Mr Prosecutor) rely upon that prove the CON-STITUTION applies to Me?
        A: WE pay a man to wear a SHERIFF costume, to follow a script, to carry a gun, he will not get paid if he refuses to perform, and he has children to feed, and he has a pension for rest, and he wants what is his… THE CON-STITUTION APPLIES BECAUSE I SAY SO AND THE SHERIFF BELIVES HE REALLY IS A SHERIFF [if it didn’t apply I’d be forced to offer a service as a plumber or a bartender instead of forcing a service as a GovCo ACTOR]

         
  12. Don

    November 13, 2012 at 11:54 PM

    To: PatriotOne
    @scene 4 ACT 7

    I’ll be glad when the last ACT is over.I want the “curtain to fall/come down.” I’m weary of this “PLAY.”
    I’ll be sooooo happy when the last act is over.

     
  13. Don

    November 14, 2012 at 12:33 AM

    PatriotOne
    November 13, 2012 at 11:39 PM

    PatriotOne, you don’t seem to understand that if you keep on posting sensible comments like you do, this blog will be over because there will be nothing else to debate,disagree with or argue about.
    Quit making so much sense !!! I do not want this blog to stop being available to debate issues. There will be nothing left to argue about, debate or disagree with if you keep on posting comments like you do. I don’t want to lose you. This blog is the only place I know of where I can read & enjoy your comments.Sooooo, try not to come on as strong as you are doing,otherwise, I will not be able to see anymore of your makes sense to me comments & proof that Gov-co is just a bunch of BS.

     
  14. Don

    November 15, 2012 at 8:47 PM

    2 PatriotOne
    @Had honest Men prevailed these united States wouldn’t be such a bad place to BE.

    Makes sense to me. Most honest men with any intelligence would not want anything to do with Government unless they are so eat up with vanity they think they change the way the Ruler of this present evil world wants things. I was asked by 60 minutes many years ago to do a program. I said NO THANKS. I think if I was vain,the vanity would have made me decide to accept their offer. Even offered to pay me too. It wasn’t a lot but that wasn’t why I declined their offer. I did get a free meal however. Conned umm N 2 that. Sooooo Long.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s