Freedom-Fighters Forum

The Constitutional Broadside
V2 N6 A PUBLICATION OF THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY COUNCIL
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

“RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR’S”

QUESTION: “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?”

At first glance it might appear that the above question has nothing to do with Constitutional Law or with our rights as citizens. However, close examination of this question will prove that the correct answer is of utmost importance in regaining and retaining our freedom.

CAESAR’S TRIBUTE

The incident reported in the New Testament Matt. 22:15-22 is often used to excuse improper activities of The People’s Government. Our government officers, who are employees of the People, and even citizens themselves fall into a semantic trap when they use this incident to try to justify great social evils such as enforced and illegal collection and misuse of tax money for unconstitutional purposes.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD TRIBUTE IS ESSENTIAL

In order to clarify the problem treated in this Broadside it is necessary to define a certain word used in the question “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?”

If this question and its answer bears on the problem of understanding and defining United States Constitutional Law, our efforts to comprehend the thinking of our Constitution’s Founders should take us back to their time and to their use of language. For this purpose we refer to the first edition of Noah Webster’s great work published in 1828. That fascinating dictionary says:

“TRIBUTE: An annual or stated sum of money or other valuable thing paid by one prince or nation to another, either as an acknowledgment of submission, or as the price of peace and protection, or by virtue of some treaty. The Romans made all their conquered countries pay ‘tribute’ as do the Turks at this day; and in some countries the ‘tribute’ is paid in children.”

This definition of “tribute” by Webster in 1828 would approximate our modern word, reparations, as used to describe the conduct of the Soviet Union in stripping conquered nations of their manufacturing plants and other assets after World War II.

At the time of Jesus Christ, Judea was a conquered nation. It is therefore evident from Webster’s definition of “tribute” that the questioner asked Jesus a very tricky question about payments made to the Roman conquerors by their subjects. Jesus was looked upon by the Romans and by their puppets, the Jewish leaders, as a fomenter of rebellion against Rome. He was preaching of a “religious kingdom” right under their noses. For him to question payment of “reparations” or “tribute” would have been treated as treason worthy of death.

Jesus wisely sidestepped the question and never really answered it. Rather he simply said, “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” But he never did say that Caesar had a right to collect tribute from the conquered Jewish people. He simply refused to be lead into a trap.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD “TAX” IS ALSO ESSENTIAL

Any attempt to define tribute as taxes or taxes as tribute should be dispelled by Webster’s 1828 definition of a “tax”. He said then:

“TAX: 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.”

From these definitions it can be seen that “TRIBUTE” is paid through compulsion by the people of a conquered nation to their conquerors. “TAXES” are the payments made by the citizens within their own country for their own benefit to run their nation as they desire.

Many today in the United States try to bend the Lord’s answer, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s,” to justify enforced collection of unconstitutional and unmoral taxes on the allegation that the Lord’s answer calls for supine obedience by a captured citizenry to unrighteous governmental dominion.

There is no proper comparison between a conquered people who were subjected by force as was Judea and our nation of today where the free citizens of our country employ some of their fellow citizens to man our own government.

Our free citizens legitimately assess and pay proper constitutional taxes. It is criminal for outlaws in the government to use government force to compel some citizens to pay “TRIBUTE” under the guise of so-called taxation to support the plunderers and the voters they purchase.

HAS OUR GOVERNMENT NOW BECOME A MODERN “CAESAR”?

A very real problem is rapidly developing in America. It stems from the tendency of many citizens and of many of their employees in government to equate the roll of the federal government with that of a Caesar.

If our government has reached the status of a Caesar, a Czar or a Dictator, our Constitution is no longer an effective compact with which we can protect our liberty. If, however, that hallowed document is still in force, there is no way to equate our proper federal apparatus with a Caesar type government.

Our government is a creation of the People. It is ours to direct and control. The Preamble to the Constitution says in part: “We, the People of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

If there is a “Caesar” in our country, “Caesar” consist not of one man, or of the federal government, or the states, but the entire body of citizens. The People of this country are Sovereign. We rule through our own law – but only for as long as our conduct and our law is in harmony with God’s law and is approved by Him. When we are no longer willing to be subject to God, our nation is doomed to be destroyed by our disobedient conduct.

Every elected member of the government is and should be, and every appointed employee should also be, under solemn oath, and all should be subject to the penalties for perjury if they fail, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are for this reason forever denied the authority or the privilege to subject the whole people to their rule. Nor have they the right to “feather their own nests” by collecting tribute from the people they might want to conquer. For them to take tax money for their private benefit should be treated as a crime bearing certain imprisonment as the penalty.

It is equally repugnant to foster or allow the notions that “THE PEOPLE” are obligated as a righteous duty to pay “taxes” for no other reason than that they are “assessed”. Even though the assessor and his cronies may be convinced that they are “Caesar”, they do not possess the authority to plunder through taxes for their own notions of the “General Welfare” of the country.

THE LAW THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL

What is the true nature of “constitutionality?” Are all duly passed “amendments” and all “Supreme Court decisions” legally constitutional in nature?

Lawyers generally, and Courts in particular, have long tried to “sell” the notion that “The Constitution is only what the Supreme Court says it is.”

The Constitution itself says in Article Six, “This Constitution and the laws of the united States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby.”

Article Five provides that amendments to the Constitution are to me made by legislative, and not by Judicial process. It states that, “Amendments to the Constitution shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof . . . as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

QUESTION: Can an amendment ratified by three fourths of the States be unconstitutional? Or can a five to four decision, or even a unanimous decision, of the Court be in reality unconstitutional?

QUESTION: When intelligent people of good character and reason hold different views of the nature of “constitutionality,” how can they resolve their differences properly?

Let’s suppose that an “amendment” or a “decision” infringes on the rights of the whole body of citizens, or suppose that it would change the nature of our government into some new form of government. Would such changes be “constitutional?”

For instance: Suppose that three fourths of the State Legislatures, or The Court, goes out into some new area of thought and declares that it is “legal” to kill babies as they are removed forcibly from the womb before natural delivery. Or suppose that “government” decides it is “constitutional” to confiscate by taxation the income or property of all individuals, or corporations.

Can such decisions be constitutional if they violate human rights that are unalienable?

ALL MEN ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR

The Declaration of Independence states, “That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

This quotation means that “all men,” not just a few or a special elite group, but “all men” are endowed by their Creator. “All,” of course, means every single one of the human race. “Endowed” means, “to enrich or furnish with any gift, quality of faculty: to indue. Man is ‘endowed’ by his maker with reason.”

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE

According to our Founding Fathers, the Creator endowed all men with rights to their life, their liberty, and with ability to pursue their own happiness. Who did it? God did it, he did it in such a way that these rights are not transferable. Unalienable means, “Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

GOVERNMENTS SHOULD SECURE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

According to the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of life, liberty and happiness” along with such rights as the ownership and control of property.

God gave the rights. The rights are held by all men and women. Government, that is, our government is created by the people to make themselves secure in their God-given rights. And the “just” or righteous power exercised by the government is derived from the people and by them delegated to the “government.”

Furthermore, it can be argued, power is delegated by the people to government only so long as such power is used to protect the people in their rights. Any use of power not delegated by the people to government is wrong; it is unconstitutional and unconstitutional use of power is void. The contract given by the people to individuals to represent the people in performing governmental functions does not extend to unconstitutional actions.

THE PEOPLE CAN ALTER OR ABOLISH GOVERNMENT

The Declaration of Independence further states, “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (rights to life, liberty and property) it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”

When is it “the right of the people to alter or abolish it“? When government becomes destructive of the rights of the people.

Since these rights are not transferable, it is automatically unconstitutional for the people’s representatives to alter the Constitution or government to such an extent that government infringes on God-given rights. Infringement on individual rights is automatically infringement on “the people’s” rights.

GOVERNMENT FUNCTION IS STRICTLY DEFENSIVE

Since government is created or “instituted by the people” to secure or protect their God-given rights, it should be clear that the function of government is strictly defensive. Any law which attempts to remove or infringe upon the rights of the people is aggressive.

It should also be clear that any “law” is unconstitutional if it is designed to transfer any citizen’s property to any project that goes beyond the power of government to function in its constitutional defensive or protective capacity.

It matters not whether the majority of the people, or their legislators, ratify such a law. The people have no such right and their elected legislators cannot exceed their granted powers. By attempting to infringe on the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and property endowed by God to every person, legislators, judges, or administrators exceed their delegated authority and such actions are void.

GOVERNMENT MUST RENDER UNTO THE PEOPLE

If you would render unto Caesar thin the United States of America, you must secure to the sovereign people of this country their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

For this purpose the Constitution was written and adopted and taxes may be collected for this purpose alone.

Any attempt to use government force to compel some citizens to give up their rights or their property for the private benefit of other citizens is unconstitutional and is therefore forbidden.

Any such conduct tends to change the purpose of government from a defensive-force-government to an aggressive-force-government. This results in loss of the ability of the individual to enjoy his rights instead of the protection of that ability.

TAXES, THE FEDERAL RESERVE, THE I.R.S. AND THE 16^TH”

We believe in honoring obeying and sustaining the law.” But does Congress have unlimited power to lay and collect taxes? Can Congress legally confiscate one person’s income and give it to another?

Is there an unholy alliance between the Federal Reserve and I.R.S.? Is the 16^th Amendment legal even though ratified by 3/4ths of the states?

Does the Federal Reserve System have legal power to impose usurious interest rates on the country? Could this be considered a tax?

Should the Fed have such vast power to monetize the assets of the people?

When law abiding people face up to such questions, they face a real dilemma. They want to obey the law, but what is the law of the land?

Is every statute passed by Congress necessarily “the law of the land”? Must good citizens bow and scrape before every ordinance passed by any “law making” body acting under the guise of law?

The Supreme Court has said, “No.” It has held that any statute that is unconstitutional is not a part of the law of the land. It says that “an unconstitutional law is void; it imposes no restrictions; it compels no obedience; it assesses no penalties; it has no force. No one is under obligation to obey such a law.” In fact, it is imperative that citizen’s preserve “the law of the land that is constitutional” by opposing and removing from the statute books every unconstitutional statute. If they fail to do so, they are by that failure outlaws themselves. They are tolerating and living outside of the law. They are destroying the Constitution by not sustaining and obeying Constitutional law.

What can a citizen do in the face of a “run-a-way” government that is bent on passing every kind of regulation or “law” it can think of that its administrators or law it can think of that its administrators or legislators think will be “good for the country”?

Take the Federal Reserve Bank Act as an example. Here you have a “law” that was passed by Congress, signed by the President and enforced by the Courts and administered as the law of the land for over 60 years.

Certainly this “law” is well entrenched it has been accepted as “The law of the Land” by the overwhelming majority of the citizens. Vast and almost incomprehensible power is in the hand of the administrators of this banking act.

Under this “law” private individuals, subjective people who are accountable only to themselves in the end, have power to “coin money and regulate the value thereof“. Federal Reserve Notes bear the legend. “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private” In addition, this privately owned banking system has the power to monetize the assets of the country and to issue money that is based on and backed by the wealth of the nation. It can and does use your own bank deposits as the legal base for its issuance of new money, and it can pyramid and multiply the money of the nation in a way that you would not believe. Finally, it can destroy most of the nation’s money by cancelling it. It does this by the simple process of calling loans that are outstanding. It can refuse only on the basis of its own whims to create new money. By these vast powers it can bring our nation to its knees, either by inflation or by deflation.

That certainly constitutes an awesome grant of power. Do you want that power to remain unchallenged in perpetuity?

In a future Broadside we will suggest and discuss an alternative method for coining money and regulating the value thereof. In the meantime, will you please take the trouble to tell us what you think should be done to give us a money system that will not subject us to yo-yo manipulation by people who stand to profit from monetary gyrations?

UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUREAUCRATIC “POLICE” POWER

Great confusion exists today in the minds of most Americans about the nature of our government.

The story is told in one of the New Testament parables about a wheat field into which an enemy had sown tares, or weeds, during the night. The servants came to the master and asked if they should root out the tares. Jesus said, “No, leave them alone lest you tear up and trample the wheat. We will separate the wheat from the tares in the harvest.”

The lesson of this parable applies to us today in the field of government. We, the people, are the final judges of the nature of our government. We are its creators. Day by day we are reaping the harvest of what we planted yesterday. We are the losers if we get “weeds” instead of “wheat.” Today is the day of harvest. The time to separate the wheat from the tares, good government from bad government, is now.

SEMANTIC WEEDS: WHEAT AND TARES

In one sense, words are the seeds of good government. If the words are good, they are “wheat.” If they lead to trouble, to the loss of freedom, to slavery, they are the “tares” in our government effort.

Words are “good” when they convey truly the meanings intended. They are bad, or “tares” when they leave an impression or a meaning that is in any way deceitful.

But remember, sometimes we get true meaning from words we read or hear. At other times, we read our own private meanings into the words we receive.

If we hear a certain word such as “democracy,” we will understand the speaker only if the meaning that is already in our mind before he speaks is identical to the meaning for this word that is intended by the speaker.

If our meaning is different, we will “read our meaning” into the words we hear. In this case, we will believe that the speaker expressed the meaning that we had in our mind before he spoke. But in fact, he may have said something, or intended to say something, that is the absolute opposite of what we assume in this case that he said.

A REPUBLIC vs. A DEMOCRACY

The AMERICAN definition of these two words used by the Founding Fathers of our Republic, as it was given by Noah Webster in 1828, was:

“REPUBLIC: A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, (1828) it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.”

To clarify the difference between these two forms of government, let us suppose that in Boston in 1776 when the people from whom all authority and power must come, wanted to take some concerted action as a democracy, the citizens themselves would meet at the Town Hall and vote on each item of business. That form of government would be a democracy.

On the other hand, under a republic they would go to the polls and elect representatives and delegate to them the authority to exercise in behalf of the citizens the sovereign powers of government. Such representatives in a republic are the government. They exercise all the powers of government during the term of office for which they are elected.

The Constitution of The United States, Article 4 Section 4 requires that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.”

OUR NATION IS A REPUBLIC

Ours is not a democracy wherein the people rule by their direct action. It is a Republic in which elected representatives exercise the sovereign power.

But in our limited powers type of government, the citizen has absolutely no power over government other than to cast his votes from time to time for his favorite candidates for office. Once the majority has elected the government officers, the persons thus installed in office must rule only in accordance with the law of the land that is CONSTITUTIONAL.

POLICE STATE BUREAUCRACIES

A POLICE STATE is one that is ruled by police power. In our nation, both federal and state, we are seeing the development of bureaucracies that are performing police state functions. They are beginning to rule without regard to the wishes or vote of the people. They are invading state after state more dangerously than if they were foreign foes.