Requirement for Consent

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion , Form #05.016 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 6. Created the “administrative state”, whereby federal agencies are empowered to directly and unconstitutionally 1 supervise the activities of otherwise private citizens and enforce federal statutory law against them. This sort of 2 intrusion is repugnant to the Constitution: 3

“The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876) ; United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883) ; James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903) . Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) ; United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) , their treatment of Congress' §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has

4

5

6

7

8

9

not been questioned.”

10

[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) ]

11

7. Caused a destruction of sovereign immunity and rights of persons domiciled in states of the Union that brings them 12 under the control of the foreign law system that makes up the U.S. Code. See 28 U.S.C. §1605. 13

“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

14

15

16

[Samuel Adams, 1772]

17

8. Invaded the exclusive sovereignty of families and churches over charitable causes. Only churches and families can 18 lawfully engage in charitable causes. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the government may not use its power to 19 tax to compel anyone to subsidize “benefits”, whether charitable or not, to the public at large: 20

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”]; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

due compensation .”

28

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

29

__________________________________________________________________________________________

30

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree

31

32

33

under legislative forms.

34

Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const.

35

36

37

Lim., 479.

38

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations — that they are imposed for a public purpose. ’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47;

39

40

41

42

43

Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”

44

[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

45

46

WARNING : Participating in ANY government franchise can leave you entirely without standing or remedy in any federal court! Essentially, by eating out of the government's hand, you are SCREWED, BLACK AND BLUED, and TATTOOED!

"These general rules are well settled: (1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself [a "public right", which is a euphemism for a "franchise" to help the court disguise the nature of the transaction], is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40, 9 Sup.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L.Ed. 696; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L.Ed. 35; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L.Ed. 700;

Requirement for Consent

281 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________