Something not discussed nearly enough, even around here, is that the federal government does NOT have authority to "do whatever it wants." It has LIMITED authority, per the Constitution.
The federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over (a) Washington, DC, (b) the federal territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and (c) the federal enclaves (areas such as military bases, where the State granted to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction or such jurisdiction was reserved by the federal government upon statehood).
In every other area within the States, the federal government ONLY has jurisdiction in those specific areas that the Constitution enumerates such powers (bankruptcy courts, immigration law, post offices, etc.).
In 1956, a report was published discussing federal jurisdiction:
https://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/DSJurisdictionReport1957.pdf
As the federal government attempts to encroach on areas that are not within its powers, it becomes more and more important to be reminded of the constitutional limitations.
The trick used today is the feds claim they have a "contract" with a person or business and that allows them to violate their jurisdictional limits.
It does not. The feds cannot obtain by private contract what it cannot have the authority to do via the Constitution.
They also claim the "interstate commerce" clause as a reason to get their fingers into everything. With that argument they can justify almost anything. We have to get them back to a restricted interpretation of interstate commerce.
Robert Jackson was the justice who wrote the opinion on that. He said that if a farmer COULD have sold his produce across state lines, even though in fact he did NOT, then it fell under "interstate commerce."
Complete BS.
Jackson was also a lead prosecutor for US at Nuremberg, which was a kangaroo court. The rules were set by the Soviets (no evidence needed to be presented in order to obtain a conviction, tortured confessions were submitted as "evidence," etc.).
John Roberts said that Jackson was his all-time favorite SCOTUS justice, when he was interviewed by Karl Rove. Bush KNEW that Roberts was a tyrannt type BEFORE he was appointed. That is likely WHY he was appointed and confirmed by the criminals in the Senate.
I was wondering the other day if part of this whole operation was to get the states to take back the power they have. We've seen some movement toward that with Fla and Tx but we need more states to step up and block what DC does to really seal the deal.
The Constitution specified a Postal Department, which no longer exists. It is now a corporation. I strongly suspect it is the same with the Patent Office.
I am not sure why SERCO, a foreign Crown corporation is running the Patent Office.
Actually, it's whether or not you receive a federal benefit, not the location of where you live.
Income tax started in 1861. It is an excise tax on the benefit of a federal privilege (such as holding public office, or owning stock in a federal corporation like the railroads were back then). It's the exact same concept as a tariff, where a foreigner pays an excise tax on the benefit of doing business by crossing the border into the USA (foreign commerce).
WE have the authority to do as we please as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. It's past time to take back our country and lock up the criminals that think they RULE us.
Last night, I was looking at misc notes I had saved, and what you say is related:
But free people don’t ask their governments for permission to do things. “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” is the maxim for this principle. Totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union operate on the reverse. In those systems, everything not allowed is forbidden. Everything depends on permission from the State.
That's the difference between common law and civil law systems. Most of the world is civil law, originating from Roman Law.
The English colonies inherited common law, but with governments that try to impose civil law systems where they don't belong.
Law shmaw. It's common sense. Adults can do as they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
Civil law countries see it differently.
FED .gov has no jurisdiction at all.
Look up the word together with allod or better known as allodial (derived from allodium, dog-latin, derived from Saxon: Allod)
Another reason for not having any jurisdiction is that the FED .gov has since 1999 no capacity and authorization to exist as a corporation, due to the ending of the third bankruptcy/ restructuring in 1999. The Constitution had to be reauthorized by the then eligible voters. But no such thing has ever happened. Instead we were surprised by 9/11 and the patriot act. (diversion)
We are talking about a rogue system.
Not sure where you get the idea the federal government claims a contract with individuals or businesses to overcome personal jurisdiction issues. I'm a third year law student and that literally has never come up in my study. Now, privity of contract between two private entities? Sure. But personal jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with contract - it's about state citizenship and where a cause of action occurred.
Sounds like you are conflating personal jurisdiction (which deals with whether COURTS have the ability to adjudicate matters that are binding on the individual parties) with Congressional legislation - the latter of which truly is expansive because of poor readings of the Constitution, such as the commerce clause or spending clause.
I didn't say anything about that. You are the one confused here.
Federal government has no constitutional authority to determine education curriculum in classrooms outside of federal territories and enclaves, but they do it via financial incentives to the States, and then they attach strings to it.
Happens ALL THE TIME. That's one small example.
In law school, you are only taught part of the law, and then only from one particular perspective (namely, that there is no such thing as right and wrong, but only winning arugments and losing arguments).
I didn't mention anything about personal jurisidiction. I specifically mentioned federal jurisdiction.
No, I am talking about federal jurisdiction vs. State jurisdiction.
But we don't have to accept false court decisions. We can replace judges who violate their oath of office -- something that will NEVER be mentioned in law school.
Law school does not teach you how terribly corrrupt the majority of judges are today. Only the School of Hard Knocks can do that.
You have no clue what I'm taught in law school, because clearly you are not a lawyer nor attend law school yourself. Stop assuming you have some secret knowledge about a subject you literally have no training in. "No such thing as right or wrong, only winning and losing arguments" is literally what I would expect a person who has never been to law school would cynically say about what they expect law school to be.
You invoke the term "federal jurisdiction" as if it's a self defining phrase. Federal jurisdiction in what? Article 1 or 3? You ARE conflating the two because you are interchangeably taking concepts from legislating and adjudicating and pretending they are two sides of the same coin.
You think we don't talk about replacing judges who violate their oath of office? Ya man, we NEVER talk about professional responsibility. It's not like we have an entire class on it and then have to take the MPRE. And I am assuming by "violate their oath of office" you mean "Anything a court does that I don't understand".
Get off your high horse.
How long will it take for us, the patriots, to understand the commies don't care about the laws and that also means our Constitution. They need to be destroyed, and very soon. I heard that larry hogan, the governor of MD was happy youngkin was elected. Watch out Virginia, larry is not a conservative in any way and is probably a commie. Please monitor what youngkin does and what he says--make him stand by his campaign promises--I am not sure what they were, but I think CRT being banned was one, etc.
Bankruptcy Courts...
Wait a minute. Didn't we just cut off the foreign funding for the Dems, who were already in massive debt?