Submitted by M. R. Hamilton on
Dear Governor Brewer,
Most people, including many elected officials, are not aware of a Supreme Court ruling that concluded there are two separate United States in North America. That dissenting opinion predicted what has occurred and it is a matter of history now. To make the matter clear we must look at a couple of cases. The first being U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) in which we find,
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 its own who owe its allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.
Take note to the passage "each has citizens of its own who owe its allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect." You have been nobly attempting to protect the people of Arizona, but have not had good advice in how to proceed. I am hoping that this information will help you determine what steps are available to you that have case law to support them.
After the federal government established its municipal corporation it formed for governing the Washington D.C. area, it formed a second corporation. The second corporation was established, because the federal government could not operate outside the confines of the US Constitution in regards to owning property. This also affects many other endeavors on which the federal government has since embarked. That is why the federal government does not have jursidiction in regards to national parks. It merely takes an executive order from any governor to reclaim every acre of national parks within that governor's jurisdiction. The problem most governors have is admitting that each state also formed corporations to allow them to operate deceptively outside a republican form of government.
Each state agreed to a republican form of government to join the union of American states, but in every state, politicians repeatedly call their form of governmnet a democracy, when in fact, it is the corporation that is a democracy. So when elections are held, as governor, you have merely run for a corporate office, not for the official office of governor of Arizona.
Be that as it may, having the position that you have, all you would have to do is sign an executive order reclaiming the sovereign territory of Arizona and restricting the federal government to it's territory that Arizona has, through legislative process, ceded to the federal government's corporation known as the United States. That means you have the authority to have every single federal agent outisde of it's physical territory arrested and jailed for harrassing the people of Arizona.
In the united states of America, we are not in fact "one nation under God". We are still 50 separate nations with 50 separate jurisdictions and 50 separate constitutions. That means that you do not have to allow any of those criminal immigrants that are being shipped to any federal outpost in Arizona to exit that outpost and enter Arizona.
For further evidence of this jurisdictional argument see, Downes v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 and Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652. As you will read in Downes v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 ,
"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which the Congress had exclusive legislative authority." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
So the federal government will pass laws that only apply to its territory, but will act as though it applies to YOUR territory. It is a very simple matter to put a stop to this intrusion into Arizona territory. Just put your state police to work and allow local police to do what you had started previously when a federal court tried to make Arizona bow to its jurisdictional authority. All you have to do is challenge the federal government's jurisdiction. This applies to criminal immigration, Obamacare or the income tax. The same cases mentioned above applies to all of these issue.
The second case in which this territorial confirmation was mentioned was Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 defined the term "United States" when it opined,
The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
This creatred an environment for deception and tyranny the likes of which has never been seen prior to this point in American history. The dissenting opinion said it all when Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote,
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of the restrictions; the other to be maintained by the Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to...I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era legislative absolutism...It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside the Supreme law of the land finds lodgement in our Constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
Looking back, it is easy to see he was right.
So, although the federal government has the responsibility to deport criminal immigrants, (they all become criminals when they illegally cross our border), it does not have the authority to make Arizona lived with the results of the federal government not doing its job. The federal government has the right to ship criminal immigrants to its territory such as military bases in Arizona, but it does not have the authority to release them in Arizona territory. State police can be stationed outside the gates of federal territory and arrest the groups of criminal immigrants the federal government is turning loose. If those criminal immigrants are awaiting a date in federal court, they can wait in federal territory and be cared for by the federal government. Do not allow the federal government to get away with usurping Arizona sovereignty.
M. Randolph Hamilton
- M. R. Hamilton's blog
- Log in or register to post comments