The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 14, 2009, 02:15 PM   #51
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Perhaps the advocates for secession, both past and present, took these words to heart?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
pnac is offline  
Old February 14, 2009, 11:47 PM   #52
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
Re the several posts on this thread, and what appears to be a somewhat heated discussion, concerning "you cannot fight city hall", city hall being a blank that the individual might fill in for themselves, from my PERSONAL experience, you, the individual not only can, but you can win. I note that the affairs, I was involved in with were SMALL matters, one with the IRS, another with the state revenue dept. Penn State Income Tax. No great amounts of money were involved, and there was nothing about sovereignty either, however sometimes, individuals or a relatively small number of individuals not only can fight "city hall", they can do it successfully, and they can win.

My personal experiences might well NOT transfer to other areas, however whenever I hear that old saw about one not being able to fight "city hall", I think back to the admittedly small matters I was involved with, and wonder about larger issues.
alan is offline  
Old February 15, 2009, 02:30 AM   #53
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Does this effect the state sovereignty issue?


The case of In re Merriam’s Estate, which was affirmed in the Supreme Court in United States v. Perkins, lays down a solid foundation for something far more ominous that the mere fact that the United States is a corporation:
“It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, [*485] so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. A domestic corporation is the creature of this state created by its legislature, or located here and created by or under the laws of the United States. (Code of Civil Pro., § 3343, sub. 18.) The United States is a government and body politic and corporate, ordained and established by the American people acting through the sovereignty of all the states.”
-- In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894).
In Volume 19, CJS (Corpus Juris Sec.) § 968 one finds the statement that “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State.” The above case is cited as the authority. That the United States is a foreign corporation is exactly what the court held. By affirming the decision, the United States Supreme Court concurred in U.S. v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625 (1896). The legal definition of a "foreign corporation" is different from the colloquial use of the phrase.
Two attorneys made argument for the United States in the New York Court of Appeals. One attorney, Jesse Johnson, argued that “stock held by decedent in foreign corporations should not be included in the value on which the tax is to be levied.” However, Charles Baker argued that the “legacy in question on the death of the testator vested immediately in the United States, and became at once their property, free from liability to taxation.” Baker then confronted the court with an either/or position. Either the United States was not a corporation at all, and therefore not within the meaning of those terms employed in the New York laws, OR the United States was a domestic corporation entitled to all the privileges and immunities respectively. The court did not find for either argument. It held the United States was a corporation, it was not domestic, and was not immune from being taxed on the legacy of the estate. It further held that the tax imposed was on the right of succession and not on the property itself, rendering the United States argument with respect to stocks of foreign corporations completely moot. The Supreme Court affirmed New York’s holding by stating that the legacy became the property of the United States only after it had suffered a dimunation to the amount of the tax. However the Supreme Court also made clear that the United States was not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt from taxation and that the United States was indeed a government corporation.
There is no arguing to the contrary. The United States is a foreign corporation. In fact, if one reads Title 28 USCS § 297, the “compact states” of subsection (a) are clearly defined as “countries” in subsection (b). So if the United States is a foreign corporation in relation to a group of “countries,” then what are the ramifications to those who have dual citizenship, especially when the foreign corporation formally enters into bankruptcy and becomes pledged to a third party creditor?
This is also supported by the statement; "The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State", Volume 20, Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785 based on the definitions § 1783. "Definitions" and § 1784. "What Are Foreign Corporations".
For supporting material and evidence see the following with references...
"Essay on Citizenship"
"The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation With Respect to a State", Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785
pnac is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07111 seconds with 7 queries