MONTANA TO INTRODUCE BROAD-BASED STATE NULLIFICATION ACT

[uncletonoose]

What are the chances of this passing?


By J.B. Williams
February 8, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The Montana State Legislature is first to introduce a broad-based state nullification bill designed to reassert the states right to rein in the federal government by nullifying all unconstitutional acts committed by the three branches of the federal government.

Montana HOUSE BILL NO. 382 sponsored by Rep. D. Skees is titled - "AN ACT PROHIBITING INFRINGEMENT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NULLIFICATION OF ANY FEDERAL STATUTE, MANDATE, OR EXECUTIVE ORDER CONSIDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE STATE; ENACTING THE MONTANA NULLIFICATION REAFFIRMATION ACT; AND PROVIDING A RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY DATE."

The bill is based upon a Model State Nullification Reaffirmation Act researched and drafted by the Constitutional Justice Division of The United States Patriots Union of Sheridan Wyoming.

In cooperation with strategic partner Stand Up America, led by MG Paul Vallely, US Army (Retired), the Patriots Union has distributed the Model Bill to more than 30 state legislatures through its many member/activists across the states.

Many of these states are working to adapt the model bill to suit their state interests, but Montana is the first to actually introduce the bill, largely in the form in which it was originally presented to state legislators.

If passed, the bill reasserts the states right to nullify any federal statute, executive order or judicial intrusion which the state legislature deems unconstitutional and abusive towards the states or the people of the states.

For more information on the Montana bill, contact Rep. Derek Skees office.

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams130.htm

[General of Darkness]

Damn, Montana is looking better and better.

[hoarder]

Considering the source "News With Views", most likely they made it up. Can it be found anywhere else?

http://blekko.com/ws/Montana+HOUSE+BILL+NO.+382

[Ponce]

I am from Oregon so that makes me an Oregonian.......and from Montana? a Montanese?

[hoarder]

I am from Oregon so that makes me an Oregonian.......and from Montana? a Montanese?
Do they call people from Cuba "Cubanese"?

[goldleaf]

Palani, what Montana and other states are on the verge of doing is invoking their 10th amendment
right, which I don't need to write here. Its not as complicated as many here think. If the feds try to
ram something down the states throat and their authority to do so is not specified in the Constitution
the state can and should tell them to stick it! If there's a law that got on the books from a previous
administration that doesn't follow the 10th then nullify it. At least thats what I'd do.

I've read lots of replies to different threads here where people are coming up with stuff that makes me
think they are justifying giving up. Not me! I'll go down blazing bullets before I crawl off into a cave
buried in a semi load of beans and rice!

[mrnhtbr2232]

I've read lots of replies to different threads here where people are coming up with stuff that makes me
think they are justifying giving up. Not me! I'll go down blazing bullets before I crawl off into a cave
buried in a semi load of beans and rice!

The stakes are simple: if the government financially breaks you and puts you in prison your life is over. Re-tooling for a more under the radar approach should not be seen as justifying giving up. Some things are no longer worth fighting for - picking battles wisely, vs. picking them on principle is where it's at now. The going down guns blazing thing is a last-resort move that requires total commitment if you go for it.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Montana has been making it clear for years that they mean what they say. They have already invoked their 10th amendment rights over certain long-gun laws, which they simply choose not to follow. By carefully observing the commerce clause, they have arranged affairs where the federal government does not have standing.

Montanans are also aware of Original Jurisdiction positions, which they are in the process of filling.

Their constitution: The Constitution for the Great State of Montana guarantees "access to a clean and healthy lifestyle", which grants individuals virtually unlimited remedy to many of the modern world's ailments.

[7th trump]

Palani, what Montana and other states are on the verge of doing is invoking their 10th amendment
right, which I don't need to write here. Its not as complicated as many here think. If the feds try to
ram something down the states throat and their authority to do so is not specified in the Constitution
the state can and should tell them to stick it! If there's a law that got on the books from a previous
administration that doesn't follow the 10th then nullify it. At least thats what I'd do.

I've read lots of replies to different threads here where people are coming up with stuff that makes me
think they are justifying giving up. Not me! I'll go down blazing bullets before I crawl off into a cave
buried in a semi load of beans and rice!

Montana and the "State of Montana" are not the same legally nor lawfully. What the ignorant elected asshats in each state that attempts to invoking their 10th amendment dont realize is that they are elected officials of federal territories (the State of XXXXXX). These federal state territories dont get the 9th or 10 amendment protections. See the Buck Act and what it accomplished and why it came about.
The only thing these elected goons are going to accomplish is more confusion which is just what the soviet commies calling themselves Americans in washington DC want.

[Carl]

Montana is taking Constitutionally lawful actions, the Federal Government is oporating under the Color of Law and has absolutely no lawful authority within any state or upon the people residing within. Legal myths created to provide for and by the Federal Government an excuse for its continued unlawful excursions into the states' or peoples' lives, notwithstanding.

[hoarder]

Montana is taking Constitutionally lawful actions, the Federal Government is oporating under the Color of Law and has absolutely no lawful authority within any state or upon the people residing within. Legal myths created to provide for and by the Federal Government an excuse for its continued unlawful excursions into the states' or peoples' lives, notwithstanding.


Watch out for this guy. He is an agent.
Oh, come on. Reaching a bit far, aren't we? Carl has been a GIMmer for a decade. He's wrong sometimes but not disingenious.

[hoarder]

I suspect he has FRNs in his wallet. !2 USC 411 says only federal reserve banks or their agents can hold those things. That makes him either a bank or an agent.

By that definition hoarder is an agent. Watch out for hoarder!

[goldleaf]

This isn't word for word, but I recall a part of the 10th amendment that states that what isn't described
in the constitution as to what the feds can do concerning states is to be left up to the states OR THE PEOPLE.

Maybe something can be done at the lower levels of government, such as, counties, townships and villages.
Me, being our town chairman, would like to know what can be be done, seeing that our country was established as a bottom up society. I am constantly looking for ways to provide more liberty for the people in our township rather than just worry about plowing snow and mowing ditches.

[hoarder]

There was a county in New Mexico 20 years ago that passed the U.S. constitution as a local ordinance. Really ticked the U.S. Forest Service off. They complained at a meeting of the county board and were told they had better get down to the sheriffs office and register as foreign agents or they would get the sheriff to arrest them.
I know some locals here in Montana who would probably love to read up on that little tidbit of history. Got a link?

[goldleaf]

Thanks, Palani! This is exellent material to study as our town is working on a coordination plan. This will help us a lot as we ready ourselves for a battle getting the county to accept our plan.

[Carl]

Montana is taking Constitutionally lawful actions, the Federal Government is oporating under the Color of Law and has absolutely no lawful authority within any state or upon the people residing within. Legal myths created to provide for and by the Federal Government an excuse for its continued unlawful excursions into the states' or peoples' lives, notwithstanding.


Watch out for this guy. He is an agent.

That's rich coming from a guy that spends the majority of his time here JUSTIFYING the Government's unconstitutional actions as LEGAL.

You're nothing more than a modern day Tory.

Get lost you POS, excuse making, government sympathizer.



.

[Carl]

Oh, come on. Reaching a bit far, aren't we? Carl has been a GIMmer for a decade. He's wrong sometimes but not disingenious.


I suspect he has FRNs in his wallet. !2 USC 411 says only federal reserve banks or their agents can hold those things. That makes him either a bank or an agent.

Plus he cannot hold a discussion without resorting to four letter argument.
You don't discuss, you dictate misinformation and when that misinformation is pointed out to you, you call that person an agent.

You also don't know how to read.

12 USC 411:


Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.

The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References In Text

Phrase "hereinafter set forth" is from section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, act Dec. 23, 1913. Reference probably means as set forth in sections 17 et seq. of the Federal Reserve Act. For classification of these sections to the Code, see Tables.

Codification

Section is comprised of first par. of section 16 of act Dec. 23, 1913. Pars. 2 to 4, 5, and 6, 7, 8 to 11, 13 and 14 of section 16, and pars. 15 to 18 of section 16 as added June 21, 1917, ch. 32, Sec. 8, 40 Stat. 238, are classified to sections 412 to 414, 415, 416, 418 to 421, 360, 248-1, and 467, respectively, of this title.

Par. 12 of section 16, formerly classified to section 422 of this title, was repealed by act June 26, 1934, ch. 756, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1225.

Amendments

1934 - Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision permitting redemption in gold.

Change Of Name

Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Section Referred To In Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 348, 420, 421, 467 of this title.

Show where in 12 USC 411 it says that anyone who has FRNs in their wallet is an agent of the Federal Reserve.

You can't do that because you're a liar and a disinformation agent.


.

[Carl]

Here. I'll make it big so that your bi-focals won't miss it

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.

Does it follow that banks are the entities that take BANKRUPTCY? Is it routine these days for PEOPLE to take BANKRUPTCY as well? Does your head work for anything other than a hat holder?



What, are you mentally retarded?

You just proved that you don't know how to read.


.

[7th trump]

Hey carl take a chill pill and listen to what Palani is saying. I have studied and read court cites regarding the citizenship of the 14th amendment.
Palani is 100% correct and every court in this country will agree just as I know Palani understands that the 16th didnt give the government no new taxing powers.
That 14th amendment is crux to this countries problems.

[Carl]

Hey carl take a chill pill and listen to what Palani is saying. I have studied and read court cites regarding the citizenship of the 14th amendment.
Palani is 100% correct and every court in this country will agree just as I know Palani understands that the 16th didnt give the government no new taxing powers.
That 14th amendment is crux to this countries problems.
The 16th isn't under discussion.

Palani is talking out his ass.

You say that you've read the court cites, then it shouldn't be too dificult for you to present them for all to read.

PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE

[Carl]

Even if 7th trump did so you don't have the wherewithall to read and understand them. After all, you studied the issue 15 years ago and dismissed it, didn't you? If so then you have the cites already.

When were you recruited to be a disinformation specialist? Does it pay well?
There you go with your week minded crap again, making excuses for 7th's expected failure in advance.

I've flat out told you the disinformation you're spewing, now list all the disinformation you believe I've presented.

*And just so you know, calling you a liar isn't disinformation.

.

[7th trump]

Even if 7th trump did so you don't have the wherewithall to read and understand them. After all, you studied the issue 15 years ago and dismissed it, didn't you? If so then you have the cites already.

When were you recruited to be a disinformation specialist? Does it pay well?
There you go with your week minded crap again, making excuses for 7th expected failure in advance.

I've flat out told you the disinformation you're spewing, now list all the disinformation you believe I've presented.

.

Easy!
Everything you've said thus far!

And here are a few court cites you asked for...........


“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

"On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. . ."
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.

"The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

[Carl]

What, are you mentally retarded?

You just proved that you don't know how to read.

Are you so dense as to think that it is money that you have been working so hard for? Illusions die hard, don't they?
Why are you trying to change the subject, the status of the FRN wasn't in debate, your idiotic claim that people who use FRNs are agents of the Fed was.

You're entitled to believe whatever conspiracy you chose to concoct, but don't come in here like you're Moses descending from the mountain delivering the one and only truth, especially when you have not one shred of evidence to support your claims.

[Carl]

Easy!
Everything you've said thus far!

And here are a few court cites you asked for...........



United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html


McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883) Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment


Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927) Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2189879

Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8878069912222383906&q=Kitchens+v.+Steele,+112+F.Supp+383&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43. Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17357719541747913405&q=Jones+v.+Alfred+H.+Mayer+Co.&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

Read that link because it explains the history that led up to the creation of the 14th, to give freed slaves citizenship.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692. Invalidates the entire 14th Amendment theory espoused by palani

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935) Quote out of context, full quote follows:
Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution contains the provision, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, provides:
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . ."

Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependent" upon state citizenship.[3] "In reviewing the subject," Chief Justice White said in the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 377, 388-389, "we have hitherto considered it as it has been argued, from the point of view of the Constitution as it stood prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. But to avoid all misapprehension we briefly direct attention to that [the Fourteenth] Amendment for the purpose of pointing out, as has been frequently done in the past, how completely it broadened the national scope of the Government under the Constitution by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate 428*428 and derivative, and therefore, operating as it does upon all the powers conferred by the Constitution, leaves no possible support for the contentions made, if their want of merit were otherwise not so clearly made manifest."

The result is that whatever latitude may be thought to exist in respect of state power under the Fourth Article, a state cannot, under the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge the privileges of a citizen of the United States, albeit he is at the same time a resident of the state which undertakes to do so. This is pointed out by Mr. Justice Bradley in the Slaughter House Case, 1 Woods 21, 28:

"The `privileges and immunities' secured by the original constitution were only such as each state gave to its own citizens. Each was prohibited from discriminating in favor of its own citizens and against the citizens of other states.

"But the fourteenth amendment prohibits any state from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, whether its own citizens or any others. It not merely requires equality of privileges but it demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely unabridged, unimpaired."

I'll get to the others tomorrow.........


.

[Carl]

Why are you trying to change the subject, the status of the FRN wasn't in debate, your idiotic claim that people who use FRNs are agents of the Fed was. Of course the status of the FRN is part of the debate. It is what MAKES you an agent. Your insistence upon asserting that demonstrated false nonsense MAKES you an idiot.




You're entitled to believe whatever conspiracy you chose to concoct, but don't come in here like you're Moses descending from the mountain delivering the one and only truth, especially when you have not one shred of evidence to support your claims.
I only lead mules to water. It is beyond my pay grade to force them to drink.
You have yet to prove that there is water, Moses

[7th trump]

Easy!
Everything you've said thus far!

And here are a few court cites you asked for...........



United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html


McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883) Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment


Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927) Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2189879

Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8878069912222383906&q=Kitchens+v.+Steele,+112+F.Supp+383&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43. Has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17357719541747913405&q=Jones+v.+Alfred+H.+Mayer+Co.&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

Read that link because it explains the history that led up to the creation of the 14th, to give freed slaves citizenship.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692. Invalidates the entire 14th Amendment theory espoused by palani

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935) Quote out of context, full quote follows:
Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution contains the provision, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, provides:
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . ."

Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependent" upon state citizenship.[3] "In reviewing the subject," Chief Justice White said in the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 377, 388-389, "we have hitherto considered it as it has been argued, from the point of view of the Constitution as it stood prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. But to avoid all misapprehension we briefly direct attention to that [the Fourteenth] Amendment for the purpose of pointing out, as has been frequently done in the past, how completely it broadened the national scope of the Government under the Constitution by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate 428*428 and derivative, and therefore, operating as it does upon all the powers conferred by the Constitution, leaves no possible support for the contentions made, if their want of merit were otherwise not so clearly made manifest."

The result is that whatever latitude may be thought to exist in respect of state power under the Fourth Article, a state cannot, under the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge the privileges of a citizen of the United States, albeit he is at the same time a resident of the state which undertakes to do so. This is pointed out by Mr. Justice Bradley in the Slaughter House Case, 1 Woods 21, 28:

"The `privileges and immunities' secured by the original constitution were only such as each state gave to its own citizens. Each was prohibited from discriminating in favor of its own citizens and against the citizens of other states.

"But the fourteenth amendment prohibits any state from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, whether its own citizens or any others. It not merely requires equality of privileges but it demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely unabridged, unimpaired."

I'll get to the others tomorrow.........


.

Oh really now Carl?
Heres what the courts say about the dual national citizenship eminating from the 14th.


“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
Care to explain how an amendment can nullify the Bill of Rights for all who are not of the colored race?
Care to explain how a government can force athe national citizenship on all Americans that the courts says such citizenship in rights is distinct from that of the People of the Several States?
I'm damn sure not holding my breath!

[JohnQPublic]

Carl: make your arguments but drop the insults. Consider this a warning. The purpose of GSUS is to discuss and debate. Insults do not make your arguments stronger.

[Carl]

Carl: make your arguments but drop the insults. Consider this a warning. The purpose of GSUS is to discuss and debate. Insults do not make your arguments stronger.
palani insults the intelligence of every member of this board with his screwball theories, I'm merely responding to those insults in kind.

But, I'll attempt to tone my rhetoric down a notch, out of respect to the board owners.


.

[Carl]

Lets nip this 14th Amendment conspericy theory in the bud, shall we.


--------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


--------------------------------------------------------

I challange anyone to find anywhere within that amendment anything that grants the Federal Government the power to regulate the conduct of personal activities within a state. You're not going to find it because it grants no such authority, irrespective of a person's citizenship status.

What that means is that; any time the Federal Government takes upon itself the authority to regulate the personal conduct of any U.S./State citizen outside Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards or other needful Buildings owned by the Federal Government or outside the 10 square miles radius of the seat of Federal Government, it is in violation of the Constitution, period, end of story.

They can't grant to themselves powers through law that are denied to them by the Constitution.

.

[Carl]

If you're hankering for a real conspericy theory the look into the 17th Amendment.

It took from us our Republic where government is the servant of the people and made us a Democracy where all the people are the government and as we all know, the government has the authority to regulate itself.



.

[Half Sense]

What does all this legalese have to do with the situation in Montana? If Montana does nullify a large body of Federal law, then each entity will back their position with arms, not lawyers.

[Carl]

What does all this legalese have to do with the situation in Montana? If Montana does nullify a large body of Federal law, then each entity will back their position with arms, not lawyers.

A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y NOTHING.

Montana has lawful standing to pursue their 10th Amendment recognized rights.

And if it comes to the point that force of arms are necessary to uphold that lawful standing, I'll be there.



.

[Carl]

Thank you for the opportunity to clear up your misunderstanding.


The 14th amendment CREATED a new SOCIETY. Pure conjecture on your part with no substantive evidence to back it.


The NEW nation created by the 14th amendmentPure conjecture on your part with no substantive evidence to back it.


Of the COUNTRIES fubject to THE LAWS of ENGLAND. Don't live in England, not applicable, don't care.


I don't believe the 14th amendment was lawfully enacted. Well good of you to share your opinion.


Now it is time for you to dredge up some more arguments that you believe is going to nullify everything I posted here. Why should I bother nullifing your screwball opinion, you can belive whatever you want to believe, I'm not gonna stand in your crazy way.


Except if everything is going so well in your world why do you want to mess with the feds so badly, Carl? Is it always someone elses fault with you? Do you take responsibility for anything? If it is your state then why have you let it get so badly in trouble?
My world is none of your concern, mind your own screwball reality and keep your derogatory speculations to yourself.


.

[7th trump]

I guess there are Montana residents and then there are BONA FIDE MONTANA RESIDENTS. To be BONA FIDE you must live in "this state", a federal zone. I guess all the rest are illegitimate children, huh?


http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/18/2/18-2-401.htm


8-2-401. Definitions. Unless the context requires otherwise, in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) (a) "Bona fide Montana resident" means an individual who, at the time of employment and immediately prior to the time of employment, has lived in this state in a manner and for a time that is sufficient to clearly justify the conclusion that the individual's past habitation in this state has been coupled with an intention to make this state the individual's home.

Just to take this a little deeper in drilling this for Palani "employment" is ONLY territorrial to federal territories.
If you look at the Social Security Act where "employment" gets its birth (see 26USC 3121(b) "employment" same as title 42 "employment" and where SS happens to be actually statutorized) the act tells a story where the government redefines the fifty states as a "State" where Quam, Distric of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Samolian Islands and other federal territories and enclaves share the same "state" definition.
Each and every state defines "State" as used in their Civil Law form statutes to include these non statehood territories.
So ask yourself since when did DC become the 51st state?
Palani is telling the truth!

[Cobalt]

I wonder if the list of duties includes paying Montana income tax?

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/49/1/49-1-204.htm

49-1-204. Rights and duties of citizens of other states. A citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of this state has the same rights and duties as a citizen of this state not an elector.

Evidently the rights do not include voting.


I paid MT income tax when I worked there for a couple months as a resident of WA.

[Cobalt]

I paid MT income tax when I worked there for a couple months as a resident of WA.

MT is most definitely a federal zone. If you had worked in Mont. then income tax would not be owed.








Individual Income Taxes

Montana residents are taxed on all income, regardless of source, except that income which is statutorily exempted from taxation. Part-year residents and nonresidents are taxed on all Montana source income that is derived from or connected to Montana sources. Additionally, part-year residents are taxed on all non-Montana source income generated during or attributable to the period of the tax year in which they resided in Montana.

http://revenue.mt.gov/forindividuals/taxes_licenses_fees_permits/Individual_Income_Taxes/default.mcpx

[7th trump]

Of the COUNTRIES fubject to THE LAWS of ENGLAND. Don't live in England, not applicable, don't care.


Here 'ya go, Carl, a reason to care where your law comes from
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/1/1/1-1-109.htm

1-1-109. Common law of England -- when rule of decision. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.

And here is the history of that statute

History: En. p. 356, Bannack Stat.; re-en. p. 388, Cod. Stat. 1871; re-en. Sec. 144, 5th Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 201, 5th Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 5152, Pol. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 3552, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 5672, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Pol. C. Sec. 4468; re-en. Sec. 5672, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 12-103.

Carl,
Not to sound arogent or anything like that but dont you think you should stop argueing with Palani?
If you are an agent you've been lied to.
And if you are not an agent maybe what Palani is introducing and conveying to you is the proper way to study the issues you dismissed 15 years ago.
The internet was in those days quite new and a lot of people thought they knew something then. Then a long comes time and people who are genuinely concerned with the issues at hand that know what to look for.
Just saying Carl.
Ego's are tough to get around especially if you are denial of having one.

[Carl]

I hate to point out ignorance when I run across it but Vattel's work is considered a part of the Law of Nature. You wouldn't put down Nature now, would you, Carl? I haven't addressed the subject as it is not at issue so, what leads you to believe that I might be putting it down? And why do you feel Vattel's work is ignorant? I happen to like "Law of Nations", although its depiction of man in a state of nature is somewhat romanticized. I like to average between Hobbs and Locke/ Vattel's descriptions for a more realistic view.

provide me with YOUR theories of what a nation/state is composed of. My theories are not at issue but sure, right after you provide us proof of a working, court and Federal Government honored, remedy to the 14th Amendment.


But the Common Law that is declared by the U.S. constitution DOES depend upon the laws of England, don't they, Carl?That subject is not at issue, what is at issue is your apparent inability to produce the proof of a working, court and Federal Government honored, remedy to the 14th Amendment.
Do you realize that you have a very nasty and persistent habit of creating arguments where none existed on topics not at issue? It makes you appear scatterbrained. Not an insult, just an observation.



I don't believe the 14th amendment was lawfully enacted. I sense no rebuttal on your part in this statement. You'll get no argument from me on the matter as there is strong evidence that the 14th, 16th and 17th were never properly ratified, not to mention that the 17th is in clear violation of the Constitution's Article 5, which clearly prohibits the removal of a state's right to equal suffrage in the Senate by amendment.


Yet you take no responsibility. OK Mr. Cryptic, "no responsibility" for what? And what makes you believe you know me?


Hard for a disinformation agent to change its spots? I wouldn't know, maybe if you were to post pictures of yourself on accession we might be able to let you know if your spots change over time. Of course, it might be hard for us to tell, your bold government apologist spots might obscure any observable changes in your disinformation agent spots.

.

[Carl]

Do you not agree that nations and states are composed of People only, much like the Boy Scouts or Brownies?
Does my statement not suggest that I consider Vattel to have good handle on the Law of Nature?
Does not Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" describe man in the same manner as Vattel?
Wait. Didn't you indicate that the laws of England had no place. I believe your precise statement was "Don't live in England, not applicable, don't care." Has your point of view shifted since you posted this?
First things first. Do you have a view as to what a nation or a state consists of?
I would suggest that I provide REASONS rather than argument. Is this an issue?
Is my appearance an issue?
Wait. Didn't you indicate that the laws of England had no place. I believe your precise statement was "Don't live in England, not applicable, don't care." Has your point of view shifted since you posted this?
Are you capable of forming your own view?
Wait. Didn't you just suggest that I appeared scatterbrained by introducing unrelated topics? Do you then apply the scatterbrained observation to your own posts?
But the Common Law that is declared by the U.S. constitution DOES depend upon the laws of England, don't they, Carl?
I would suggest that I provide REASONS rather than argument. Is this an issue?
Again with the name calling Carl? Do you take no responsibility for issues you complain about? All of these issues you have a problem with and they are someone elses responsibility? Maybe we could cut to the chase and make the list shorter by discussing issues you ARE responsible for?
I believe I see your point. Do you believe that if you cannot figure your way out of a maze then nobody should be able to figure their way out? A bit elitist of a view don't you think?
I don't have a need to carry this one-sided debate any further.
:lies: :lies: :lies:


Your benefit of discussion on these issues is terminated.
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

Not your thread, you can't dictate to me and you can't delete this one.


.

[Carl]

Carl,
Not to sound arogent or anything like that but dont you think you should stop argueing with Palani?
If you are an agent you've been lied to.
And if you are not an agent maybe what Palani is introducing and conveying to you is the proper way to study the issues you dismissed 15 years ago.
The internet was in those days quite new and a lot of people thought they knew something then. Then a long comes time and people who are genuinely concerned with the issues at hand that know what to look for.
Just saying Carl.
Ego's are tough to get around especially if you are denial of having one.

Don't worry, the very last thing I think you come off sounding like is "arrogant".

What is it with you conspiracy fanatics that anytime someone disagrees with you, you automatically jump to the conclusion that they must be an "agent" of some sort? What, people aren't allowed to disagree with you?

palani isn't conveying diddly squat except maybe that his a.d.d. has gotten the better of him; cut-n-past pages of material, bold a few selected words in it, then rant incoherently about their cryptic meaning.

His arguments are the same as they were 15 years ago, (except the arguments made then were logically coherent) and they have the same utility today as they had back then, ZERO. Pursuit of that cryptic crap was and is a giant waste of time that does not improve your, or anyone else's, condition one tiny little bit.

Quite simply; contrary to your and alani's assertions, pursuit of the 14th Amendment legalese angle does not result in an individual's liberty from the system, it results in the individual's total capitulation to the system as they join the government in finagling words to gain what is only a psychological advantage that the government can and will disregard as it pleases them. After all, they crafted the words that you're attempting to use against them and they can make them mean whatever they desire, whenever it suits them.

Do you honestly believe you can out wit government playing their game?

A reasonable person can recognize a dead end alley when they're led into one and upon recognition of that situation, will logically abandon the path that led them there and seek a new one. A fanatic will stand it the end of the ally with his back against the wall beckoning others to join him, insisting the wall isn't there.


.

[Gaillo]

Of course the status of the FRN is part of the debate. It is what MAKES you an agent.
Your insistence upon asserting that demonstrated false nonsense MAKES you an idiot.



Get lost you POS, excuse making, government sympathizer.


See you in a week, Carl. TOTALLY unacceptable behavior here.