-> SNETNEWS Mailing List -----Original Message----- From: James Hardin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 8:18 PM Subject: Are we "Federal Children," owned by the Government? >Friends, > >This is from Tony, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Jim Hardin > >http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com >To receive Freedom Page mail, put "Subscribe" >as subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Learn the truth about the UN >http://themustardseed.home.mindspring.com > >Read Rep. Ron Paul's Freedom Reports >http://www.free-nefl.org > > >Washington Grassroots Email Network >Are we "Federal Children," owned by the Government? >Friday, 09-Oct-98 22:41:41 > >208.254.9.38 writes: > >Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 17:16:39 -0700 >From: Joyce Rosenwald >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Hello & info > >Hi ....I'm finally back from a long needed vacation. Rest seems to wind me >up. Below is an article I've written in response to the federal demand for >a national I.D card. I believe if the law is passed, a subpeona for an >injuction to prohibit the implementation of the law should be filed in >every state until a court challenge is made to declare the >constitutionality of the act. Of course, this is only my opinion, but the >information in the post below should demonstrate that this legislation >would be blatently unconstitutional. If the states' decide to adopt and >implement it, a suit could also be filed against every elected public >official who votes to enforce it in the respective state for "breach of >the public trust." The president is now being charged for breach of the >public trust because he is presumed to have lied to the people and >violated the national constitution. Elected public servants on either a >state or federal level should be held to those same standards. Elected >officials are guilty of a felony if found to have violated the public >trust of those they were elected to serve. The law is a strange animal. A >person can't sue another until he/she has been caused an injury and can >prove it. I believe if this legislation is passed and implemented in the >states, the people of those states will have been caused an injury by >those same people who were elected to protect their G-d given rights, by >passing legislation that is considered to be unconstitutional. Their >actions in passing this legislation would of course be not only a "breach >of the public trust," but possibly also an act that would cause a "breach >of the peace." I don't think the people of the several states will accept >being tagged and tracked like animals peacefully. G-D Bless America >Your's in Liberty Joyce > >Are we "Federal Children," owned by the Government? > >In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth >"registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was >known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law >that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of >mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes >provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate >with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. >What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, >creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of >"Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are >owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment >process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily >life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process >of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things >necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a >"free country." > >Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into >family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records >were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" >records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births >and names of their children with the government of the state in which they >are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state >tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth >certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States, >thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years >a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be >issued at birth. In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. >The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of >their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit >from the Federal Reserve system. > >To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, >requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had >by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have >force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a >judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, >and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the >state from whence taken. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted. > >The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The >state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and >appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every >birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if >properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for >many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that >the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth >certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or >registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be >tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the >state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of >the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as >"HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year." > >In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the >administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, >to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the >act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States >to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal >Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, >and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several >States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or >yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of >taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are >within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint >resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved >powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing >has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth >of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; >Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander >Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of >Massachusetts. To wit: > >I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the >Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters >relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of >federal funds for the purposes of the act. > >Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in >Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED >REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT >MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A >MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the >people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There >is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal >appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING >OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE >REQUIRED. > >By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary >powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the >act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans >submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several >States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As >to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and >the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO >PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE >CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR >REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT. > >(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress >and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, >405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551. > >In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits >to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one >of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the >reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face >detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the >States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be >passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, >247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. >44. > >The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to >be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for >Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers >reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, >May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. >212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. >559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390. > >(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option >either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to >give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, >by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a >constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San >Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 >U.S. 529. (3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of >government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of >the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws >for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make >laws for the United States. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice >Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606. > >The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found >in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up >government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority >to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as >unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be >upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What >has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are >defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The >government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. >Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway >you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states >does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. >Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know >their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. >Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states >rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of >the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. >If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right >to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth >tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to >prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to >liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was >created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under >which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation >come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we >should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be >treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to >let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be >written.......... > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Jackie Juntti >Washington Grassroots Email Network >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >[Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The >Sender - A.K. Pritchard] > >------------------------------ > >A.K. Pritchard >http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/ > > >To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask! > >"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments >it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest >limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right >of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext >whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the >brink of destruction." > >-- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 >"Commentaries on the Laws of England." > > -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> Posted by: "John Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
