Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg
Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum
ARE WE 'FEDERAL CHILDREN' OWNED BY GOVERNMENT?
Posted By: hobie
Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, 3:40 p.m.
Found posted at RMNEW DAILY EMAILS,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/message/27182 -----
From: "A Voice For Children"
Date: Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:33 am
Subject: Are We "Federal Children" owned by the Government?
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Stewart
Subject: Are We "Federal Children" owned by the Government?
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:41:33 -0500
From: "Beaver Cole"
Reply-To: "Beaver Cole"
Organization: Cole Publications
Provided By: Dave Champion
Are we "Federal Children," owned by the Government?
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth
"registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was
known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a
law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health
of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other
purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to
cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and
expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry
which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under
the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children
as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public
school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most
aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated
into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do
all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in
what is called a "free country."
Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered
into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These
records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as
"official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering
the births and names of their children with the government of the state
in which they were born, even though there is no federal law requiring
it. The state tells you that registering your child?s birth through the
birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the United
States, thereby making him/her a United States citizen. For the past
several years a social security number was mandated by the federal
government to be issued at birth.
In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors
of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their
states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from
the Federal Reserve system.
To wit: "Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. Sec. 1,
requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had
by law or usage of state of it?s origin. That foreign statutes are to
have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that
a judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive
effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage
in the state from whence taken.
Black?s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. Cites omitted.
The state claims an interest in every child within it?s jurisdiction.
The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights
and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children.
The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a
valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable
assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who
have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the
trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security
number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the
assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your
child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children,
are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now
designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born
every year."
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the
administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state,
to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the
act was unconstitutional, and that it?s purpose was to induce the States
to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal
Constitution?s 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government,
and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the
several States, held, that, as the statue does not require the plaintiff
to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than
that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants,
who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the
complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has
usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the
statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without
their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of
the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury
et. Al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To wit:
I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the
Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters
relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of
federal funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in
Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED
REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF
EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE
SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to
which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be
subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out
of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY.
THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT
TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.
By section 4 of the act, the Children?s Bureau is given all necessary
power to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the
act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the
plans submitted to it, and for than purpose by its agents to go into the
several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may
provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are
the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN
EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT
OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF
HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE
GRANTED BY THE ACT.
(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress
and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316,
405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits
to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on
one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the
reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face
detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the
States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be
passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v.
Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v.
Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to
be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for
Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers
reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe,
May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot?s Debates, p. 525; Pollard?s Lessee v. Hagan, 3
How.212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221
U.S.559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390
(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal
option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth
Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act.
A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege,
to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison
v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke
Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.
(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by
cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States,
not provided by the Constitution.
Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the
States the power to make laws for the United States. In reference
Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;
Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.
The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been
found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set
up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated
authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once
declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the
past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution
hasn?t changed. What has changed is the way this government views human
life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by
government.
The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked.
Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional
anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the
several states does not exist and if defended properly would never
survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected
public servants won?t save us when we all know their agenda does not
include serving those who place them in power. Perhaps the 10th
amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will,
when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will
not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government.
If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the
right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will
in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the
documents to prove their authority to demand or legislate for it. If
our God given rights to liberty and freedom which were the foundation
upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and
freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer,
then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell it?s
people. If we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg
our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are
not free, then perhaps it?s time to let the final chapter of the Great
American Revolution now be written........
More Info at:
http://www.christiancommonlaw-gov.org/ Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg
Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 4.31.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-->