{"article":{"id":17881,"heading":"Are we Federal Children owned by the Government??","author":"see material","created":"2002-07-19 00:43:39","modified":"2002-07-19 13:40:53","last_modified":"Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:40:53","article":"

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<\/a>

-----

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\/<\/a>



Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg



Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 4.31.



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

-->

<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Your best investment in understanding may be a Black's Law dictionary, then you will understand the fraud that has been sucking away your life since you arrived on this planet!!","numcomment":1,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2002\/07\/17881.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":17890,"heading":"State vs Federal Citizenship","article":"There are in reality two classes of citizens here in the US. One is the state citizen, eorge Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jeferson were all citizens of their respective states. Today we have another class of citizen the 14th amendment Federal Citizen. Originallythe federal Citizens were only those individuals who lived in a US territory such as Puerto Rico and Guam and the District of Columbia. You can find a plethra of information about the difference between these two classes of citizens at www.state-citizen.org. And if you live in the Los Angeles area I urge you to attend a monthly meeting, you will be amazed at some of the stories you will hear.","author":"Randy Grant","parent_id":17881,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2002-07-19 13:40:53","modified":"2002-07-19 13:40:53","fileurl":""}]}