The political atmosphere and how it impacted the case law
In part 3 we examined some of the case law that forced the SCOTUS into a deep examination of the Territorial matter by comparing it to the practice of Congress regarding the Territories in the contiguous US. The court very quickly realized ALL Territorial practices began with the historical precedent created by Congressional action within the 50 states from before the signing of the Constitution to this very day.
We saw the court make the claim that the federal government was created in 1777 under the Articles of confederation and claimed that the creation of the federal government was a ‘perpetual union’ and that perpetual union was written into the Constitutions preamble; “The confederacy, owing to well known historical reasons, having proven a failure, a new Constitution was formed in 1787 by “the people of the United States” “for the United States of America,” as its preamble declares”…
It now becomes easier to rectify the existence of the NWO’s Article 4: “The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.”
When the governments framers wrote “perpetual union” that’s EXACTLY what they meant, and this ‘perpetual union’ has a name….it’s called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Downes v Bidwell
The SCOTUS decided the Bidwell case in May of 1901, at this time the President of the United States was William McKinley, who was assassinated in September of that same year. The attorney general was Philander Knox, a banker and politician who took over for McKinleys man John W. Griggs but both of these men appeared to be globalists as John Griggs went on to sit on the Hague and he later became the president of Marconi wireless while Philander sent his attorneys to represent the government on the Downes case in May, Philander succeeded Griggs in April. McKinley was assassinated 5 months after the Downes decision and the vice president……? Theodore Roosevelt.
McKinley and Roosevelt crossed paths prior to Roosevelts ascension to the vice presidency; “In the 1896 presidential election, Roosevelt backed Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed for the Republican nomination, but William McKinley won the nomination and defeated William Jennings Bryan in the general election. Roosevelt opposed Bryan’s free silver platform, viewing many of Bryan’s followers as dangerous fanatics, and Roosevelt gave campaign speeches for McKinley”. [wikipedia]
McKinley then made Roosevelt ‘assistant secretary of the navy’, this was the beginning of the end for McKinley as Roosevelt’s ambitions were NOT for POWERLESS appointments, and his position in the navy gave him the power he needed to implement change. In 1899 vice president Garret Hobart died of a heart attack leaving an open spot on the 1900 Republican national ticket.
“Though Henry Cabot Lodge and others urged him to run for vice president in 1900, Roosevelt was reluctant to take the powerless position and issued a public statement saying that he would not accept the nomination”.
“Additionally, Roosevelt was informed by President McKinley and campaign manager Mark Hanna that he was not being considered for the role of vice president due to his actions prior to the Spanish–American War. Roosevelt attended the 1900 Republican National Convention (no doubt in defiance) as a state delegate and struck a bargain with Platt: Roosevelt would accept the nomination if the convention offered it to him, but would otherwise serve another term as governor. Platt asked Pennsylvania party boss Matthew Quay to lead the campaign for Roosevelt’s nomination, and Quay outmaneuvered Hanna at the convention to put Roosevelt on the ticket. Roosevelt won the nomination unanimously”.
[Theodore Roosevelt: ‘A life’ Miller, Nathan (1992)]
Theodore Roosevelt was a military man who gained the office of the United States presidency without having to campaign for it. I encourage you all to read the book cited above to become acquainted with Roosevelts ideology and compare it to todays political ideologies. I would imagine you may be asking why all this political history if we are talking about case law? Because of the nature of the ARGUMENTS by the US attorneys at bar which were stated by Judge Harlan Marshall in the dissenting opinion in this manner;
“In the opinion to which I am referring it is also said that the ‘practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall so direct;’ that while all power of government may be abused, the same may be said of the power of the government ‘under the Constitution as well as outside of it;’ that ‘if it once be conceded that we are at liberty to acquire foreign territory, a presumption arises that [182 U.S. 244, 379] our power with respect to such territories is the same power which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by them;’ that ‘the liberality of Congress in legislating the Constitution into all our contiguous territories has undoubtedly fostered the impression that it went there by its own force, but there is nothing in the Constitution itself and little in the interpretation put upon it, to confirm that impression;’ that as the states could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory, and therefore none to delegate in that connection, the logical inference is that ‘if Congress had power to acquire new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional provisions;’ that if ‘we assume that the territorial clause of the Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions;’ and that ‘the executive and legislative departments of the government have for more than a century interpreted this silence as precluding the idea that the Constitution attached to these territories as soon as acquired.’
These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. 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 be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism”. [and a little later….]
“The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar-that we have in this country substantially or practically, two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U.S. 244, 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions.
‘To what purpose,’ Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176, 2 L. ed. 60, 73, ‘are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.’
The wise men who framed the Constitution, and the patriotic people who adopted it, were unwilling to depend for their safety upon what, in the opinion referred to, is described as ‘certain principles of natural justice inherent in Anglo-Saxon character, which need no expression in constitutions or statutes to give them effect or to secure dependencies against legislation manifestly hostile to their real interests.
‘They proceeded upon the theory — the wisdom of which experience has vindicated- that the only safe guaranty against governmental oppression was to withhold or restrict the power to oppress. They well remembered that Anglo- Saxons across the ocean had attempted, in defiance of law and justice, to trample upon the rights of Anglo-Saxons on this continent, and had sought, by military force, to establish a government that could at will destroy the privileges that inhere in liberty. They believed that the establishment here of a government that could administer public affairs according to its will, unrestrained by any fundamental law and without regard to the inherent rights of freemen, would be ruinous to the liberties of the people by exposing them to the oppressions of arbitrary power. Hence, the Constitution enumerates the powers which Congress and the other departments may exercise, — leaving unimpaired, to the states or the People, the powers not delegated to the national government nor prohibited to the states. That instrument so expressly declares in [182 U.S. 244, 382] the 10th Article of Amendment. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of 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”.
THIS was the argument(s) put forward by the attorneys (sent by the attorney general) who provided all the necessary documentation to convince the court of their claim and the information has now been given to you to read. The information is;
- The articles of confederation
- The Northwest Ordinance
- The preamble to the US Constitution
- And the Congressional history of the implementation of the Territorial scheme as evidence of legitimate Congressional authority
- The reports of the law of civil government was drafted at this time and submitted to the secretary of the war department Elihu Root….Theodores man, these were most likely NOT used in the Downes case but are vital to this entire exercise
These documents [except the last bullet point] represent the bulk of the US attorneys arguments and exhibits before the court, and the court….. opined in favor of that argument. Many fail to understand how law works in the US so lets condense a very long tutorial into this; the court can ONLY decide a case based upon the arguments in your paperwork and so the arguments create your legal position on a matter and the judges decisions are also based upon your legal arguments. The written opinion will be laid out by the judge writing the opinion by going through the facts and arguments presented at bar and in this manner you will know the evidences presented and the legal position of the parties even though you were not present.
Lets continue with a question: What was the land policy before and then after this decision? Its very simple. Prior to 1901 all the evidence suggests that the government had a majority who believed they (the government) held the lands in trust on behalf of the states to extinguish title at a future date (see Montana’s admission act) AND to dispose of in other ways to the benefit of the entire US citizenry, AFTER Downes v Bidwell the policy became (in time) outright militant ownership. Personally? I call that a ‘seizure’ but that is MY opinion.
This includes a follow up question; who did the seizing? We see the political atmosphere of the time as one of war with military men rising to power on the deaths of both the vice president AND the president. The military mind of that time had adopted a sense of ‘manifest destiny’ which they infected the US citizenry with. It can hardly be criticized, we were up against some powerful enemies in our ascension as a nation and we had to fight for our place at the table. The American progressives (Republican/RINO’s) led by Theodore Roosevelt felt that power was the only way to secure the still fragile idea of the Republic, but there is a price to pay for this kind of power as we all know, ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ and not even the United States would be immune to that corruption.
Ladies and gentlemen, we do not need to invent theories to explain how the US Government is operating OUTSIDE of the US Constitution we need only revisit our founding documents and case law and the result is?; I give you the modern……Administrative state. It is a confluence of Article 1 section 8 clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Article 1 section 8 clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
Article 4 section 3 clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
In other words, the rules and regulatory provisions in the Constitution that were meant for Government operation (inside the office and the military) and Territorial management are simply taking over the Constitutional government where all US Government jurisdiction is slowly functioning Territorially. This has infected every state in the union and unless a correction is forthcoming the Territorial system WILL become the dominant force of government and the US Constitution will have little to no force of effect as already that sacred document is being eroded.
The remaining question hopefully has not eluded you as it is my mind daily and I will ask it now, ‘Is this Administrative state a military based system’? It appears there will need to be a part 5 if we are to investigate THAT matter satisfactorily but to begin lubrication of the synapse pathways in anticipation of a heightened electrical output I shall introduce a few questions: Where are the most secret US military bases located? How was the land to build these on secured? Is there Constitutional oversight of these bases? What is the nature of these bases and what is their function?