Federal Reserve Audit Bill Overwhelmingly Passes The House

[SKUNK420]

So the Republican controlled House passes an Audit the Federal Reserve bill. I bet Harry Reid does not even allow it to be brought up for a vote in the Democrat controlled Senate. Harry is to busy with tax returns.

on a side note from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and of course the Presidency and did nothing overall except make my dollar buying power go down. I'm getting less and paying more.

time to sign up for welfare under the new rules.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^he already said he wouldnt. Reid is a fucking Fascist.

 

[bentom187]

SS officer reid agree's
[YOUTUBEIF]HNGXsgLRkXU[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]xV7d9q3163A[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]JcgQPdYj4Mk[/YOUTUBEIF]

modern facisim is here.we finance it.well the FED does with our permission(apathy).
[YOUTUBEIF]13Rll6ZHbow[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[erictheoldfart]

Skunk, very timely and subtle reference to Harry's tax returns. Fox news reported this morning that Harry has been in politics all but two years of his adult life and started with nothin,' now worth over 10 MILLION! Lobbyists? Inside trading? Graft? Corruption? Pelosi is even more deplorable.

 

[GP73LPC]

the whole system is fucked....

if i'm not pissed at republicans, i am pissed at dems...

let's vote the whole sorry lot out...

vote out all incumbents at every level, in every election....

 

[Guest304546]

the whole system is fucked....

if i'm not pissed at republicans, i am pissed at dems...

let's vote the whole sorry lot out...

vote out all incumbents at every level, in every election....

the thing is with the Democrats they want to convince you it's the governments job to take care of you, to make you weak and dependent on their largesse, to turn you into a victim that needs the government to take care of him, that way when election time comes around they hope you'll be this fat, lazy asshole sittin' around watchin' TV and waitin' for your welfare check and foodstamps to come in the mail so you'll be so weak and ignorant you'll vote to reelect these 'dogooders'!

at least with the Republicans you know their focus is on money, they want to get busy making money and they want you to take care of yourself so they don't have to pay for the foodstamps.

this kind of greed is understandable and manageable, the foodstamp mentality leads to disaster.

obviously we here are all free thinkers and already civilally disobedient so not likely to buy into the liberal bullshit, unless of course that liberal bullshit makes it possible for us to profit, that's part of the problem, too many selfserving people voting these dogooders into office to keep the masses weak and ignorant in order to protect their profits and customer base, which of course are those very same masses.

AD

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

As Carlin said

 

[Sessile G]

So the Republican controlled House passes an Audit the Federal Reserve bill. I bet Harry Reid does not even allow it to be brought up for a vote in the Democrat controlled Senate. Harry is to busy with tax returns.

on a side note from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and of course the Presidency and did nothing overall except make my dollar buying power go down. I'm getting less and paying more.

time to sign up for welfare under the new rules.

this bill has no chance in the senate. DOA.

 

[bentom187]

THIS IS WHY WE ARE CIRCLING THE DRAIN WAKE UP!!!
NO ONE IS FREE WE ARE ALL SLAVES WORKING FOR NOTHING OF VALUE.WE ARE SLAVES AND NOT FOR OURSELVES AND NOT FOR ANYONE LOOKING TO BE FREE.we work for phycopaths and dont seem to mind,its called stockholm syndrome-Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/general-orders-no-100-issued

The Union army issues General Orders No. 100, which provided a code of conduct for Federal soldiers and officers when dealing with Confederate prisoners and civilians. The code was borrowed by many European nations, and its influence can be seen on the Geneva Convention.

The orders were the brainchild of Francis Lieber, a Prussian immigrant whose three sons had served during the Civil War. One son was mortally wounded while fighting for the Confederacy at the Battle of Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1862. Lieber's other two sons fought for the Union. Lieber was a scholar of international law who took a keen interest in the treatment of combatants and civilians. He wrote many essays and newspaper articles on the subject early in the war, and he advised General Henry Halleck, general-in-chief of the Union armies, on how to treat guerilla fighters captured by Federal forces.

Halleck appointed a committee of four generals and Lieber to draft rules of combat for the Civil War. The final document consisted of 157 articles written almost entirely by Lieber. The orders established policies for, among other things, the treatment of prisoners, exchanges, and flags of truce. There was no document like it in the world at the time, and other countries soon adopted the code. It became the standard for international military law, and the Germans adopted it by 1870. Lieber's concepts are still very influential today.

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


http://waronyou.com/topics/the-liebe...senate-doc-43/

The Lieber Code.
HJR192. Senate Doc 43
From vterranova
3-1-9 Here’s the Coup de Gras on what is taking place right now, known as the Lieber Code. Remember, I told you we’ve been under military rule for at least 75 years or more since HJR 192 was implimented and they move re honest money was reduced to mere military scrip / Federal Reserve Notes. Lieber Code, General Orders No. 100 by Abraham Lincoln (04/24/1863) (Section II, Article 31: A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or that of its government all revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete.); http://www.ncrepublic.org/lieber.html Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. ”The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership”is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” (Emphasis added) The final move is taking place right now and the ultimate crash of the dollar (within weeks or months) with be consider the conquest as complete re the capture of America by the global banking elite and then America goes up for sale to the highest bidder, or simply turned over to those holding U.S. Treasury Bonds. Pass this one out right now.
-----------------------------------------

District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, formally An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia, is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia. Though Congress repealed the territorial government in 1874, the legislation was the first to create a single municipal government for the federal district.[1]


[edit] History

The passage of the Residence Act in 1790 created a new federal district that would become the capital of the United States. Formed from land donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia, the capital territory already included two large settlements at its creation: the port of Georgetown, Maryland and the town of Alexandria, Virginia. A new capital city named in honor of President George Washington was founded to the east of Georgetown in 1791.

Shortly after establishing operations in the new capital, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1801, which organized the federal territory. Congress allowed the cities of Washington and Georgetown to each maintain their own municipal governments. The remainder of the unincorporated territory within the federal district formed the new County of Washington, which was governed by a levy court consisting of three Justices of the Peace appointed by the President. The City of Alexandria and adjacent Alexandria County also maintained their own local governments but were returned by Congress to the state of Virginia in 1846.

The outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861 led to notable growth in the capital's population due to the expansion of the federal government and a large influx of freed slaves.[2] By 1870, the District's population had grown 75% to nearly 132,000 residents.[3] Growth was even more dramatic within County of Washington, where the population more than doubled as people escaped the crowded city.[4]

The individual local governments within the District were insufficient to handle the population growth. Living conditions were poor throughout the capital, which still had dirt roads and lacked basic sanitation. The situation was so bad that some lawmakers in Congress even suggested moving the capital out further west, but President Ulysses S. Grant refused to consider the proposals.[5]

Instead, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia.[6] The new government consisted of an appointed governor and 11-member council, a locally elected 22-member assembly, and a board of public works charged with modernizing the city.[7] The Seal of the District of Columbia features the date 1871, recognizing the year the District's government was incorporated.[8]

In 1873, President Grant appointed an influential member of the board of public works, Alexander Robey Shepherd, to the post of governor. Shepherd authorized large-scale municipal projects, which greatly modernized Washington. In doing so, however, the governor spent three times the money that had been budgeted for capital improvements, bankrupting the city.[9] In 1874, Congress replaced the District's quasi-elected territorial government with an appointed three-member Board of Commissioners. Direct rule by Congress would continue for nearly a century until the passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973.[10]
-------------------------------------
Federal district


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


For Federal capital districts, see Capital districts and territories.

Federal districts are a type of administrative division of a federation, under the direct control of a federal government. They often include capital districts and they exist in various countries and states all over the world.

[edit] United States

District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.)
The seat of the U.S. federal government in Washington is a federal district known as the "District of Columbia", which is not part of any state. In main addition, the U.S. government has several other kinds of "federal districts" which are not specifically related to a capital city:
The federal court system divides each state principal, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, into one or more federal judicial districts. A United States district court and a bankruptcy court are located in each. There are also regional federal judicial circuits, each consisting of a group of states (except for the District of Columbia Circuit, which consists only of the federal district, and the Federal Circuit, whose jurisdiction is based on specific subject matter instead of geography); Puerto Rico and the United States territorial courts are also assigned to circuits. Each circuit has a United States court of appeals.
The U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, consists of twelve banks located around the country; each of these banks serves a Federal Reserve district.

Collectively, such federally administered areas that are not part of any state are called federal enclaves.

[edit] Latin America


Argentine Capital District (Buenos Aires City)
The term Distrito Federal, meaning "Federal District" in both the Spanish and Portuguese languages, is used to refer to:
Argentine, Capital District, known as "Autonomous City of Buenos Aires" since 1994.
Federal District (Brazil)
Federal District (Mexico)
Venezuelan Capital District

[edit] Malaysia

In Malaysia, the term Federal Territory (Malay: Wilayah Persekutuan) is used for the three territories governed directly by the federal government, namely Kuala Lumpur (national capital), Putrajaya (federal government administrative centre) and Labuan Island (international offshore financial centre).

[edit] India

Andaman Islands, India
In India, the term Union Territory is used for the seven territories governed indirectly by the federal national government with its own Chief minister and governor of Delhi, others namely include - Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry. Of these Delhi and Pondicherry possess partial statehoods with their own elected chief ministers.

[edit] Pakistan

In Pakistan, the term Federal Territory is used for the five zones and 12 union councils of Islamabad governed directly by the state government as Islamabad Capital Territory.

[edit] Russia

There are eight Federal districts of Russia, which function as an additional administrative layer between other subdivisions and the Russian Federation as a whole state. But these have nothing to do with the territory surrounding a capital city. However, there are also two cities of federal significance, established by the Constitution - Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Each city is treated as separate subject of federation, and has its own legislative body. Such status is based on certain special functions which these two cities have, including location of federal government and federal judicial institutions.
---------------------------------------------
this site highlights the difference between the US civil flag of peace time and the flag of war and admirality law. http://www.barefootsworld.net/uscivilflag.html
---------------------------------------------
Sovereignty


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

"Sovereign" redirects here. For other uses, see Sovereign (disambiguation).

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (January 2011)


The frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, depicting the Sovereign as a massive body wielding a sword and crozier and composed of many individual people.
Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state.[2]

The concept of sovereignty has been discussed throughout history, from the time of the Romans through to the present day. It has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles:
territorial integrity
border inviolability
supremacy of the state (rather than the Church)
a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction.[citation needed]



[edit] History

[edit] Classical

The Roman jurist Ulpian observed that:[citation needed]
The imperium of the people is transferred to the Emperor,
The Emperor is not bound by the law,
The Emperor's word is law. Emperor is the law making and abiding force.

Ulpian was expressing the idea that the Emperor exercised a rather absolute form of sovereignty, although he did not use the term expressly. Ulpian's statements were known in medieval Europe, but sovereignty was not an important concept in medieval times. Medieval monarchs were not sovereign, at least not strongly so, because they were constrained by, and shared power with, their feudal aristocracy. Furthermore, both were strongly constrained by custom.[1]

[edit] Medieval

Sovereignty existed during the Medieval Period as the de jure rights of nobility and royalty, and in the de facto capability of individuals to make their own choices in life.[citation needed] In medieval times, sovereignty was seen as absoluteness of the state; this is according to Thomas Hobbes in his text,"Leviathan".

Around c. 1380–1400, the issue of feminine sovereignty was addressed in Geoffrey Chaucer's Middle English collection of Canterbury Tales, specifically in The Wife of Bath's Tale.[3]

A later English Arthurian romance, The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (c. 1450),[4] uses much of the same elements of the Wife of Bath's tale, yet changes the setting to the court of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The story revolves around the knight Sir Gawain granting to Dame Ragnell, his new bride, what is purported to be wanted most by women: sovereignty.


We desire most from men,
From men both lund and poor,
To have sovereignty without lies.
For where we have sovereignty, all is ours,
Though a knight be ever so fierce,
And ever win mastery.
It is our desire to have master
Over such a sir.
Such is our purpose.

—The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell (c. 1450), [4]

[edit] Reformation

Sovereignty reemerged as a concept in the late 16th century, a time when civil wars had created a craving for stronger central authority, when monarchs had begun to gather power into their own hands at the expense of the nobility, and the modern nation state was emerging. Jean Bodin, partly in reaction to the chaos of the French wars of religion; and Thomas Hobbes, partly in reaction to the English Civil War, both presented theories of sovereignty calling for strong central authority in the form of absolute monarchy. In his 1576 treatise Les Six Livres de la République ("Six Books of the Republic") Bodin argued that it is inherent in the nature of the state that sovereignty must be:[1]
Absolute: On this point he said that the sovereign must not be hedged in with obligations and conditions, must be able to legislate without his (or its) subjects' consent, must not be bound by the laws of his predecessors, and could not, because it is illogical, be bound by his own laws.
Perpetual: Not temporarily delegated as to a strong leader in an emergency or to a state employee such as a magistrate. He held that sovereignty must be perpetual because anyone with the power to enforce a time limit on the governing power must be above the governing power, which would be impossible if the governing power is absolute.

Bodin rejected the notion of transference of sovereignty from people to sovereign; natural law and divine law confer upon the sovereign the right to rule. And the sovereign is not above divine law or natural law. He is above (ie. not bound by) only positive law, that is, laws made by humans. The fact that the sovereign must obey divine and natural law imposes ethical constraints on him. Bodin also held that the lois royales, the fundamental laws of the French monarchy which regulated matters such as succession, are natural laws and are binding on the French sovereign. How divine and natural law could in practice be enforced on the sovereign is a problematic feature of Bodin's philosophy: any person capable of enforcing them on him would be above him.[citation needed]

Despite his commitment to absolutism, Bodin held some moderate opinions on how government should in practice be carried out. He held that although the sovereign is not obliged to, it is advisable for him, as a practical expedient, to convene a senate from whom he can obtain advice, to delegate some power to magistrates for the practical administration of the law, and to use the Estates as a means of communicating with the people.[citation needed]

With his doctrine that sovereignty is conferred by divine law, Bodin predefined the scope of the divine right of kings.[citation needed]

[edit] Age of Enlightenment

Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) introduced an early version of the social contract (or contractarian) theory, arguing that to overcome the "nasty, brutish and short" quality of life without the cooperation of other human beings, people must join in a "commonwealth" and submit to a "Soveraigne [sic] Power" that is able to compel them to act in the common good. This expediency argument attracted many of the early proponents of sovereignty. Hobbes deduced from the definition of sovereignty that it must be:[citation needed]
Absolute: because conditions could only be imposed on a sovereign if there were some outside arbitrator to determine when he had violated them, in which case the sovereign would not be the final authority.
Indivisible: The sovereign is the only final authority in his territory; he does not share final authority with any other entity. Hobbes held this to be true because otherwise there would be no way of resolving a disagreement between the multiple authorities.

Hobbes' hypothesis that the ruler's sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his maintaining their safety, led him to conclude that if the ruler fails to do this, the people are released from their obligation to obey him.

Bodin's and Hobbes's theories would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau's (1712–1778) definition of popular sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco Suárez's theory of the origin of power), which only differs in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign. Likewise, it is inalienable – Rousseau condemned the distinction between the origin and the exercise of sovereignty, a distinction upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are founded. Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of sovereignty.

The second book of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique (1762) deals with sovereignty and its rights. Sovereignty, or the general will, is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right, determined and limited in its power by the common interest; it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest, but though the general will is always right and desires only good, its judgment is not always enlightened, and consequently does not always see wherein the common good lies; hence the necessity of the legislator. But the legislator has, of himself, no authority; he is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose them.[citation needed]

Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract[5] argued, "the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government," with the understanding that the Sovereign is "a collective being of wonder" (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from "the general will" of the people, and that "what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law" (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, "there is no law without a sovereign."[6]

The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.

Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) defined sovereignty as "the power to decide the state of exception", in an attempt, argues Giorgio Agamben, to counter Walter Benjamin's theory of violence as radically disjoint from law. Georges Bataille's heterodox conception of sovereignty, which may be said to be an "anti-sovereignty", also inspired many thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Agamben or Jean-Luc Nancy.[citation needed]

[edit] Definition and types



“

There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.

”

— Lassa Oppenheim (30-03-1858 – 07-10-1919), an authority on international law[7]


[edit] Absoluteness

An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control. International law; policies and actions of neighboring states; cooperation and respect of the populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are factors that might limit sovereignty. For example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their children independent of societal regulation, and municipalities do not have unlimited jurisdiction in local matters, thus neither parents nor municipalities have absolute sovereignty. Theorists have diverged over the desirability of increased absoluteness.

[edit] Exclusivity

A key element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction. Specifically, the degree to which decisions made by a sovereign entity might be contradicted by another authority. Along these lines, the German sociologist Max Weber proposed that sovereignty is a community's monopoly on the legitimate use of force; and thus any group claiming the same right must either be brought under the yoke of the sovereign, proven illegitimate, or otherwise contested and defeated for sovereignty to be genuine.[8] International law, competing branches of government, and authorities reserved for subordinate entities (such as federated states or republics) represent legal infringements on exclusivity. Social institutions such as religious bodies, corporations, and competing political parties might represent de facto infringements on exclusivity.

[edit] De jure and de facto

De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory.

De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty.

It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition.[citation needed]

[edit] Internal

Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority? Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty).[citation needed]

With Sovereignty meaning holding supreme, independent authority over a region or state, Internal Sovereignty refers to the internal affairs of the state and the location of supreme power within it.[9] A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by the people and has the popular legitimacy. Internal sovereignty examines the internal affairs of a state and how it operates. It is important to have strong internal sovereignty in relation to keeping order and peace. When you have weak internal sovereignty organization such as rebel groups will undermine the authority and disrupt the peace. The presence of a strong authority allows you to keep agreement and enforce sanctions for the violation of laws. The ability for leadership to prevent these violations is a key variable in determining internal sovereignty.[10] The lack of internal sovereignty can cause war in one of two ways, first, undermining the value of agreement by allowing costly violations and second requiring such large subsidies for implementation that they render war cheaper than peace.[11] Leadership needs to be able to promise members, especially those like armies, police forces, or paramilitaries will abide by agreements. The presence of strong internal sovereignty allows a state to deter opposition groups in exchange for bargaining. It has been said that a more decentralized authority would be more efficient in keeping peace because the deal must please not only the leadership but also the opposition group. While the operations and affairs within a state are relative to the level of sovereignty within that state, there is still an argument between who should hold the authority in a sovereign state.

This argument between who should hold the authority within a sovereign state is called the traditional doctrine of public sovereignty. This discussion is between an internal sovereign or an authority of public sovereignty. An internal sovereign is a political body that possesses ultimate, final and independent authority; one whose decisions are binding upon all citizens, groups and institutions in society. Early thinkers believe sovereignty should be vested in the hands of a single person, a monarch. They believed the overriding merit of vesting sovereignty in a single individual was that sovereignty would therefore be indivisible; it would be expressed in a single voice that could claim final authority. An example of an internal sovereign or monarch is Louis XIV of France during the seventeenth century; Louis XIV claimed that he was the state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau rejected monarchial rule in favor of the other type of authority within a sovereign state, public sovereignty. Public Sovereignty is the belief that ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves, expressed in the idea of the general will. This means that the power is elected and supported by its members, the authority has a central goal of the good of the people in mind. The idea of public sovereignty has often been the basis for modern democratic theory.[12]

Modern Internal Sovereignty: Within the modern governmental system you usually find internal sovereignty in states that have public sovereignty and rarely find it within a state controlled by an internal sovereign. A form of government that is a little different from both is the UK parliament system. From 1790–1859 it was argued that sovereignty in the UK was vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Monarch in Parliament". This is the origin of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is usually seen as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. With these principles of parliamentary sovereignty majority control can gain access to unlimited constitutional authority, creating what has been called "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy". Public sovereignty in modern governments is a lot more common with examples like the USA, Canada, Australia and India where government is divided into different levels.[13]


[edit] External

See also: Sovereign state#Recognition

External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdom uses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;


“

"Sovereignty." A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country or a foreign sovereign state.

”
— (The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary


External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another's territory permissible?

Following the Thirty Years' War, a European religious conflict that embroiled much of the continent, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a norm of noninterference in the affairs of other nations, so-called Westphalian sovereignty, even though the actual treaty itself reaffirmed the multiple levels of sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire. This resulted as a natural extension of the older principle of cuius regio, eius religio (Whose realm, his religion), leaving the Roman Catholic Church with little ability to interfere with the internal affairs of many European states. It is a myth, however, that the Treaties of Westphalia created a new European order of equal sovereign states.[14]

In international law, sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. There is usually an expectation that both de jure and de facto sovereignty rest in the same organisation at the place and time of concern. Foreign governments use varied criteria and political considerations when deciding whether or not to recognise the sovereignty of a state over a territory.[citation needed] Membership in the United Nations requires that "[t]he admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."[15]

Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. The Holy See was in this position between the annexation in 1870 of the Papal States by Italy and the signing of the Lateran Treaties in 1929, a 59-year period during which it was recognised as sovereign by many (mostly Roman Catholic) states despite possessing no territory – a situation resolved when the Lateran Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the Vatican City. Another case, sui generis, though often contested, is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the third sovereign entity inside Italian territory (after San Marino and the Vatican City State) and the second inside the Italian capital (since in 1869 the Palazzo di Malta and the Villa Malta receive extraterritorial rights, in this way becoming the only "sovereign" territorial possessions of the modern Order), which is the last existing heir to one of several once militarily significant, crusader states of sovereign military orders. In 1607 its Grand masters were also made Reichsfürst (princes of the Holy Roman Empire) by the Holy Roman Emperor, granting them seats in the Reichstag, at the time the closest permanent equivalent to a UN-type general assembly; confirmed 1620). These sovereign rights never deposed, only the territories were lost. 100 modern states still maintain full diplomatic relations with the order[16] (now de facto "the most prestigious service club"), and the UN awarded it observer status.[17]

The governments-in-exile of many European states (for instance, Norway, Netherlands or Czechoslovakia) during the Second World War were regarded as sovereign despite their territories being under foreign occupation; their governance resumed as soon as the occupation had ended. The government of Kuwait was in a similar situation vis-à-vis the Iraqi occupation of its country during 1990–1991.[citation needed] The government of Republic of China was recognized as sovereign over China from 1911-1971 despite that its mainland China territory became occupied by Communist Chinese forces since 1949. In 1971 it lost UN recognition to Chinese Communist-led People's Republic of China and its sovereign and political status as a state became disputed and it lost its ability to use "China" as its name and therefore became commonly known as Taiwan.

Commonly mistaken to be sovereign, the International Committee of the Red Cross, having been granted various degrees of special privileges and legal immunities in many countries,[which?] that in cases like Switzerland are considerable,[18] which are described[by whom?] as amounting to de facto sovereignty, is a private organisation governed by Swiss law.[19]

[edit] Shared

Just as the office of head of state can be vested jointly in several persons within a state, the sovereign jurisdiction over a single political territory can be shared jointly by two or more consenting powers, notably in the form of a condominium.[citation needed]

[edit] Nation-states

A community of people who claim the right of self-determination based on a common ethnicity, history and culture might seek to establish sovereignty over a region, thus creating a nation-state. Such nations are sometimes recognised as autonomous areas rather than as fully sovereign, independent states.

[edit] Federations

In a federal system of government, sovereignty also refers to powers which a constituent state or republic possesses independently of the national government. In a confederation constituent entities retain the right to withdraw from the national body, but in a federation[citation needed] member states or republics do not hold that right.[dubious – discuss]

Different interpretations of state sovereignty in the United States of America, as it related to the expansion of slavery and Fugitive slave laws, led to the outbreak of the American Civil War. Depending on the particular issue, sometimes the North and other times the South justified their political positions by appealing to state sovereignty. Fearing that slavery would be threatened by federal election results, eleven states declared their independence from the federal Union and formed a new confederation.[20] The United States government rejected the secessions as rebellion, declaring that secession from the Union by an individual state was unconstitutional, as the states were part of an indissolvable federation.[citation needed]

[edit] Acquisition

Main article: Acquisition of sovereignty

A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have historically been recognised by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.[citation needed]

[edit] Justifications

There exist vastly differing views on the moral basis of sovereignty. A fundamental polarity is between theories that assert that sovereignty is vested directly in the sovereign by divine or natural right and theories that assert it originates from the people. In the latter case there is a further division into those that assert that the people transfer their sovereignty to the sovereign (Hobbes), and those that assert that the people retain their sovereignty (Rousseau).[citation needed]

Absolute monarchies are typically based on concepts such as the divine right of kings in Europe or the mandate of Heaven in China.

A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain sovereignty over the government and where offices of state are not granted through heritage.[21][22] A common modern definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch.[23][24]

Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. In a direct democracy the public plays an active role in shaping and deciding policy. Representative democracy permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to a legislative body or an executive (or to some combination of legislature, executive and Judiciary). Many representative democracies provide limited direct democracy through referendum, initiative, and recall.

Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the parliament is ultimately sovereign and not the executive power nor the judiciary.

[edit] Views on
Realists view sovereignty as being untouchable and as guaranteed to legitimate nation-states.[citation needed]
Rationalists see sovereignty similarly to Realists. However, Rationalism states that the sovereignty of a nation-state may be violated in extreme circumstances, such as human rights abuses.[citation needed]
Internationalists believe that sovereignty is outdated and an unnecessary obstacle to achieving peace, in line with their belief of a 'global community'. In the light of the abuse of power by sovereign states such as Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, they argue that human beings are not necessarily protected by the state whose citizens they are, and that the respect for state sovereignty on which the UN Charter is founded is an obstacle to humanitarian intervention.[14]
Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of sovereignty, such as the Anarch as a sovereign individual. Salvador Dalí, for instance, talked of "anarcho-monarchist" (as usual for him, tongue in cheek); Antonin Artaud of Heliogabalus: Or, The Crowned Anarchist; Max Stirner of The Ego and Its Own; Georges Bataille and Jacques Derrida of a kind of "antisovereignty". Therefore, anarchists join a classical conception of the individual as sovereign of himself, which forms the basis of political consciousness. The unified consciousness is sovereignty over one's own body, as Nietzsche demonstrated (see also Pierre Klossowski's book on Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle). See also self-ownership.
Imperialists hold a view of sovereignty where power rightfully exists with those states that hold the greatest ability to impose the will of said state, by force or threat of force, over the populace or other states with weaker military or political will. They effectively deny the sovereignty of the individual in deference to either the 'good' of the whole, or to divine right.[citation needed]

[edit] Relation to rule of law

Another topic is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d'état, regardless of the intentions.[citation needed]

[edit] Sovereign as a title

In some cases, the title sovereign is not just a generic term, but an actual (part of the) formal style of a Head of state.[citation needed]

Thus from 22 June 1934, to 29 May 1953, (the title "Emperor of India" was dropped as of 15 August 1947, by retroactive proclamation dated 22 June 1948), the King of South Africa was styled in the Dominion of South Africa: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India and Sovereign in and over the Union of South Africa." Upon the accession of Elizabeth II to the Throne of South Africa in 1952, the title was changed to Queen of South Africa and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, parallel to the style used in almost all the other Commonwealth realms. The pope holds ex officio the title "Sovereign of the Vatican City State" in respect to Vatican City.[citation needed]

The adjective form can also be used in a Monarch's full style, as in pre-imperial Russia, 16 January 1547 – 22 November 1721: Bozhiyeyu Milostiyu Velikiy/Velikaya Gosudar'/Gosudarynya Tsar'/Tsaritsa i Velikiy/Velikaya Knyaz'/Knyaginya N.N. vseya Rossiy Samodyerzhets "By the Grace of God Great Sovereign Tsar/Tsarina and Grand Prince/Princess, N.N., of All Russia, Autocrat
--------------------------------------------------------------
When Did I Sign This 'Social Contract'?
[YOUTUBEIF]nTqEePlZiqk[/YOUTUBEIF]
--------------------------------------------------------------

Personal jurisdiction


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's jurisdiction over the parties to a law suit, as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the determinations of law and fact to be made in the case or controversy). If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a party, its rulings or decrees cannot be enforced as to that person, otherwise than by comity, that is to the extent the sovereign that does have jurisdiction upon the person allows the court to. Personal jurisdiction means the power of the court to decide a dispute, as against a particular person. The concept of personal jurisdiction finds its origin in the idea that the power of the King vests in his Sceptre[1]. The King could not possibly exercise power over persons or property situate outside of his kingdom. Slowly this was adopted in law. Soon after, there were problems because of persons who owned land or property and were not 'present' at the time they were sued, or had died, or had left the kingdom. The courts then culled out another means to get jurisdiction, called quasi in rem, that is, over the land in and of itself, even if the person who owned the land was not there. However this was limited to the discharge of debts owed by the owner of the land. In the United States, the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a court must both comport with Constitutional limitations, and be authorized by a State statute. In the United Kingdom, the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not need a statutory basis, since the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution.

Contents
[hide] 1 Fundamental Principles of Personal Jurisdiction in the United States 1.1 Consent
1.2 Power
1.3 Notice

2 Historical Background: Territorial Jurisdiction 2.1 Difficulties in Applying Pennoyer Territorial Jurisdiction

3 Modern Constitutional Doctrine: International Shoe Doctrine
4 Statutory Authorization
5 Relationship to venue
6 Notes
7 See also
8 External links


[edit] Fundamental Principles of Personal Jurisdiction in the United States

Three fundamentals of personal jurisdiction constrain the ability of courts in the United States to bind individuals or property to its decisions: consent, power, and notice.[2]

[edit] Consent

The United States legal system is an adversarial system. Civil suits are not initiated by third parties, but must be filed by the party who seeks initial redress. Generally, the action is initiated in the jurisdiction where the event occurred, where the defendant can be served or where the parties may have agreed to have the case located. The filing of a complaint or prayer for relief is a voluntary action by the person aggrieved, and as a necessity of this request, the person seeking relief consents to be bound by the judgment of the court. The doctrine of consent is also extended to defendants who attend and litigate actions without challenging personal jurisdiction. Consent may also derive from a pre-litigation agreement by the parties, such as a forum selection clause in a contract (not to be confused with a choice of law clause). Doctrines such as claim preclusion prevent re-litigation of failed complaints in alternative forums. claim preclusion does not however prevent the litigation of a claim that was filed in a court that did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Consent cannot always be a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. (Citation needed.)

[edit] Power

Where a defendant challenges jurisdiction, courts may still exercise personal jurisdiction when they have independent power to do so.[citation needed] This power is founded in the inherent nature of state sovereignty over the affairs within its territory.

[edit] Notice

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution preserve the due process rights of individuals. Due process requires that notice be given in a manner "reasonably calculated" to inform a party of the action affecting them. Originally, notice (and power) manifested more viscerally, where the defendant in a civil case could be seized and brought before the court under the writ of capias ad respondendum. Notice is inferred from consent, however when exercising power over an individual without consent, notice is most often effected by service of process.

[edit] Historical Background: Territorial Jurisdiction

Originally, jurisdiction over parties in the United States adhered to strict interpretation of the geographic bounds of each state's sovereign power. In Pennoyer v. Neff, the Supreme Court discussed that though each state ceded certain powers (e.g. foreign relations) to the Federal Government or to no entity at all (e.g. the powers that are eliminated by the protections of the bill of rights), the states retained all the other powers of sovereignty, including the exclusive power to regulate the affairs of individuals and property within its territory.[3] Necessarily following from this, one state's exercise of power could not infringe upon the sovereignty of another state.[4] Thus, Constitutional limitations applied to the validity of state court judgments.

Three types of jurisdiction developed, collectively termed territorial jurisdiction because of their reliance upon territorial control: in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, and quasi in rem jurisdiction. Some sources refer to all three types of territorial jurisdiction as personal jurisdiction, since most actions against property (in rem jurisdiction) bear, in the end, upon the rights and obligations of persons.[5] Others continue to recognize the traditional distinction between personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction over property, even after Shaffer v. Heitner (discussed below).[6]

In personam jurisdiction referred to jurisdiction over a particular person (or entity, such as a company). In personam jurisdiction, if held by a state court, permitted that court to rule upon any case over which it otherwise held jurisdiction. Under territorial jurisdiction, pure in personam jurisdiction could only be established by serving notice upon the individual while that individual was within the territory of the state.[7]

In rem jurisdiction referred to jurisdiction over a particular piece of property, most commonly real estate or land. Certain cases, notably government suits for unpaid property taxes, proceed not against an individual but against their property directly. Under territorial jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction could be exercised by the courts of a state by seizing the property in question. Since an actual tract of land could not literally be brought into a courtroom as a person could, this was effected by giving notice upon the real property itself. In rem jurisdiction was thus supported by the assumption that the owner of that property, having a concrete economic interest in the property, had a duty to look after the affairs of their property, and would be notified of the pending case by such seizure. In rem jurisdiction was limited to deciding issues regarding the specific property in question.

Quasi in rem jurisdiction involved the seizure of property held by the individual against whom the suit was brought, and attachment of that property to the case in question. This form of territorial jurisdiction developed from the rationale of in rem jurisdiction, namely that seizure of the property was reasonably calculated to inform an individual of the proceedings against them.

Once a valid judgment was obtained against an individual, however, the plaintiff could pursue recovery against the assets of the defendant regardless of their location, as other states were obligated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to recognize such a judgment (i.e. had ceded their power to refuse comity to fellow states of the Union). Violations by a rogue state could be checked via collateral attack: when a plaintiff sought recovery against a defendant's assets in another state, that state could refuse judgment on the grounds that the original judgment was invalid.

Difficulties in Applying Pennoyer Territorial Jurisdiction

Following Pennoyer, extreme applications of territorial jurisdiction revealed imperfections in the doctrine, and societal changes began to present new problems as the United States' national economy became more integrated by increasingly efficient multi-state transportation technology and business practices.

While determining the physical location of an individual for the purposes of in personam jurisdiction was easy enough, applying the same principle to non-physical entities became difficult. Courts were presented with the question of where a company was present and amenable to service for the purpose of in personam jurisdiction over the company.

Extension of quasi in rem jurisdiction led to extreme results that threatened the justification for the jurisdiction. Bearing in mind that territorial jurisdiction existed in a pre-industrial society where transportation across the country was difficult, long, and potentially treacherous, and consider the hypothetical wherein A owes B money, and B owes C, a resident of New York, money. C seeks to recover on B's debt to C, however cannot do so because B avoids C by travelling to California. A, however, happens to travel through New York. C serves notice upon A, and attaches A's debt to B (considered to be property within the state) to the proceeding. A can no more certainly provide notice to B in California than C could provide, and the transient and involuntary exposure of B to being haled into court in New York by this attachment seems to erode the original rationale of quasi in rem jurisdiction.

The US Supreme Court, largely abolished the exercise of jurisdiction on the basis of 'quasi in rem' in Shaffer v. Heitner, except in exceptional circumstances, which sometimes would arise while dealing with real property such as land, and when the owner of the land cannot be found.

[edit] Modern Constitutional Doctrine: International Shoe Doctrine

In the modern era, the reach of personal jurisdiction has been expanded by judicial re-interpretation and legislative enactments. Under the new and current doctrine, a state court may only exert personal jurisdiction over an individual or entity with "sufficient minimal contacts" with the forum state such that the particular suit "does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and justice.'"[8] The "minimum contacts" must be purposefully directed towards the state by the defendant.[9] This jurisdiction was initially limited to the particulars of the International Shoe Co. v. Washington holding, that is to jurisdictional inquiries regarding companies,[10] but was soon extended to apply to all questions of personal jurisdiction.[11] When an individual, or entity, has no "minimum contacts" with a forum State, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits that State from acting against that individual, or entity. The lack of "minimum contacts" with the owner of property also constitutionally prohibits action against that property (in rem jurisdiction) even when the property is located within the forum state.[12]

What constitutes sufficient "minimum contacts" has been delineated in numerous cases which followed the International Shoe decision. For example, in Hanson v. Denckla, the Court proclaimed the "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application of that rule will vary with the nature and quality of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege or conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws."[13]

The additional requirement of "'purposeful availment' ensures that a defendant will not be hauled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random, 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts, [citations omitted] or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person [citation omitted][14] Jurisdiction may, however, be exercised, under some circumstances, even though the defendant never physically entered the forum State.[15]

In another recent case of Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown Justice Ginsberg held that for the exercise of general jurisdiction in personam, the defendant must be 'essentially at home'. This applies when the defendant has contacts with the forum state, but the claim that arises is not related to those contacts. For example, if Harrods (UK) sets up an office in California, to export and sell goods there and because of that someone gets injured, it would be amenable to suit in California for that injury. But, on the other hand if someone is injured in Harrods, London and for some reason finds that California law is more favorable decides to sue in California, the suit would not be maintainable since the contacts that Harrods have is not continuous and systematic, and they are not 'essentially at home' in California.

[edit] Statutory Authorization

While the Pennoyer and later Shoe Doctrines limit the maximum power of a sovereign state, courts must also have authorization to exercise the state's power; an individual state may choose to not grant its courts the full power that the state is Constitutionally permitted to exercise.[16] Similarly, the jurisdiction of Federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) are statutorily-defined. Thus, a particular exercise of personal jurisdiction must not only be permitted by Constitutional doctrine, but be statutorily authorized as well. Under Pennoyer, personal jurisdiction was authorized by statutes authorizing service of process,[17] but these methods of service often lacked because they required such service to be effected by officers of the state, such as sheriffs – an untenable method for defendants located outside of the state but still subject to jurisdiction due to their contacts with the state. Subsequent to the development of the Shoe Doctrine, states have enacted so-called long-arm statutes, by which courts in a state can serve process and thus exercise jurisdiction over a party located outside the state. The doctrine of International shoe applies only in cases where there is no presence in the forum state. For example, if A committed a tort in State X. He is sued by B and B serves him with process just before he leaves State X before the flight was took off, the service would be valid and State X would have jurisdiction over A. If A did not comply with the final judgement passed by the courts of State X, B could enforce that judgement in the state where A resides under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. There was one case where a defendant was served while the airplane was in the air over the forum State, and the US Supreme Court held that this was valid service, since at law the territory of a state includes the airspace above the State.
Edit Report
08-08-2012 08:45 PMbentom187
Relationship to venue

Venue and personal jurisdiction are closely related for practical purposes. A lawyer should usually perform joint analysis of personal jurisdiction and venue issues. Personal jurisdiction is largely a constitutional requirement, though also shaped by state long-arm statutes and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while venue is purely statutory.

It is possible for either venue or personal jurisdiction to preclude a court from hearing a case. Consider these examples:
Personal jurisdiction is the limiting factor. In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,[18] the plaintiffs sued, in an Oklahoma state court, an automobile dealership based in New York for damages from an explosion that occurred on June 11, 1977, as the plaintiffs drove the car through Oklahoma. Had the plaintiffs sued in U.S. federal court sited in Oklahoma, personal jurisdiction against the dealership would have been unavailable, as the dealership did not have minimum contacts with the forum state. Venue, however, would have been proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the general federal venue statute, because Oklahoma was a state in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. However, the United States Supreme Court found that the defendants (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.) did not have the minimum contacts with Oklahoma necessary to create personal jurisdiction there. [World-Wide Volkswagen was one of the "defendants"; the case cited is WWV Corp (original defendant) v. Woodson (the Oklahoma state judge) ]
Venue is the limiting factor. Suppose Dale resides in California. Peter from Nevada wants to sue Dale for battery which Dale committed against Peter in California. Peter knows Dale is going to a week-long conference in South Carolina. Peter realizes that Dale would settle a suit that would take place in South Carolina, because it would be too expensive to defend. So, during Dale's trip, Peter serves Dale with process for an action filed in South Carolina federal court. The federal court has personal jurisdiction, based on Dale's presence in South Carolina at the time process was served (transient service of process). However, venue is improper under § 1391.

[edit] Notes

1.^ Fundamental law in English constitutional history By John Wiedhofft Gough Pg. 52
2.^ Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714; Yeazell, Stephen C. (2008) (in English). Civil Procedure (7th ed.). p.71: Aspen Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7355-6925-6.
3.^ Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722.
4.^ Pennoyer, 95 U.S. at 722.
5.^ See e.g., Friedenthal, Kane & Miller, Civil Procedure, ¶ 3.14 at 150 (Minneapolis: West Publishing 1985) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 207, fn. 22 (1977)).
6.^ See e.g., Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1144 (Minneapolis: West Publishing 1990).
7.^ 95 U.S. at 724.
8.^ International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316.
9.^ 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945).
10.^ See 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
11.^ See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977).
12.^ See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 212 (1977).
13.^ 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).
14.^ .See Burger King v. Rudzewicz.471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).
15.^ See e.g., Quill v. Heitkamp, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (finding that Quill Corp. purposefully directed its activities at the State's residents and the tax imposed was related to the benefits it received in doing so).
16.^ Yeazell, Stephen C. (2008) (in English). Civil Procedure (7th ed.). p.154: Aspen Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7355-6925-6.
17.^ Id.
18.^ 444 U.S. 286 (1980).
----------------------------------------------------------------
June 5, 1933 [H.J.Res. 192]
To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States.
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision in contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is hereby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law. (b) As used in this resolution, the term "obligation" means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the Untied States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term "coin or currency" means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations. SEC. 2. The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled "An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes", approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows: "All coins and currencies of the United States (included Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight." Approved, June 5, 1933, 4.40 p.m.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Hope this helps

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_yo...#ixzz22zseq5e9
------------------------------------------------------------

 

[bentom187]

i forgot this.

District of Columbia Home Rule Act


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search






The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is a United States federal law passed on December 24, 1973 which devolved certain congressional powers of the District of Columbia to local government, furthering District of Columbia home rule. In particular, it includes the District Charter (also called the Home Rule Charter), which provides for an elected mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia. The council is composed of a chairman elected at large and twelve members, four of whom are elected at large, and one from each of the District's eight wards. Council members are elected to four-year terms.

Under the "Home Rule" government, Congress reviews all legislation passed by the council before it can become law and retains authority over the District's budget. Also, the president appoints the District's judges, and the District still has no voting representation in Congress. Because of these and other limitations on local government, many citizens of the District continue to lobby for the greater autonomy, such as full statehood.

The Home Rule Act specifically prohibits the Council from enacting certain laws that, among other restrictions, would:[1]
lend public credit for private projects;
impose a tax on individuals who work in the District but live elsewhere;
make any changes to the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910;
pass any law changing the composition or jurisdiction of the local courts;
enact a local budget that is not balanced; and
gain any additional authority over the National Capital Planning Commission, Washington Aqueduct, or District of Columbia National Guard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[erictheoldfart]

Bentom..your posts are far and away the most intensely researched, eloquently posted, and long-winded of any on this web-site! (NO offense intended) Your "opener" on your most recent post is a real eye-opener. Stockholm Syndrome..indeed. I know what it is, have seen instances of it in the past (Patty Hearst), but had NEVER crossed my mind to associate our "allegiance" to party or country to be founded in that circumstance. This thought merits HEAVY consideration.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Bentom says it

"We are slaves working for nothing."

This could not be more accurate. The dollar will not be worth shit when it crashes and all the billionaires with huge gold investments will be sitting pretty. Ron Paul knows this and it is why he wants to audit the fed.

Furthermore in the eyes of the plutocracy we are but dogs and the measly dollars we make are like dog treats. The masters will never let us have the ribeye. We have to jump on the table and take it.

This is why I am a weed growing ski bum that ditches the shitty parts of the system. Most millionaires wish they had the time and freedom I do. I am not rich at all, but I have enough money to get a season pass and stay in a good pair of powder skis, and eat what ever I want. Life is good, and I have no official schedule other than cut my shit down for harvest. I also have enough to make donations to my cancer patients and never charge them. I could not live a life this good even if I did decide to be a millionaire advertising executive. This grower/ ski bum life, is the life for me, and all the money in the world is not gonna cover the USA in snow in august for me........

 

[bentom187]

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." ~ Abraham Lincoln (the tyrant and enslaver of the whole country)

none taken,it wasnt founded on any social alleigence infact,we are told to abolish the whole thing if it ever went to hell,this was a experiment in freedom,the only one but since almost the begining we have been doing the will of the bank not of freemen who own their bodies and are sovereign onto themselves,and can partipate or not,its their choice,unfortunatley this isnt the case anymore and we are just serf's now.
they are our slave masters and the ones taking rights and property and dipensing them to particular classes of people.
and when they drum up support for who gets the scraps we get a election year,and essentially a version stockholm syndrome.

things are this bad.
[YOUTUBEIF]XhGjgVw9NfM[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[bentom187]

Bentom says it

This could not be more accurate. The dollar will not be worth shit when it crashes and all the billionaires with huge gold investments will be sitting pretty. Ron Paul knows this and it is why he wants to audit the fed.

Furthermore in the eyes of the plutocracy we are but dogs and the measly dollars we make are like dog treats. The masters will never let us have the ribeye. We have to jump on the table and take it.

This is why I am a weed growing ski bum that ditches the shitty parts of the system. Most millionaires wish they had the time and freedom I do. I am not rich at all, but I have enough money to get a season pass and stay in a good pair of powder skis, and eat what ever I want. Life is good, and I have no official schedule other than cut my shit down for harvest. I also have enough to make donations to my cancer patients and never charge them. I could not live a life this good even if I did decide to be a millionaire advertising executive. This grower/ ski bum life, is the life for me, and all the money in the world is not gonna cover the USA in snow in august for me........

i live a similar life,iplay sports nothing mainstream but more mountainbiking, martial arts and the gym,just maintaining my health. and smoke weed and dont hurt anyone,all i need is a roof and familiy and a few good friends.but this banking cartel seems to think i need to be a slave.

buddha- “The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed.”

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." ~ Abraham Lincoln (the tyrant and enslaver of the whole country)

none taken,it wasnt founded on any social alleigence infact,we are told to abolish the whole thing if it ever went to hell,this was a experiment in freedom,the only one but since almost the begining we have been doing the will of the bank not of freemen who own their bodies and are sovereign onto themselves,and can partipate or not,its their choice,unfortunatley this isnt the case anymore and we are just serf's now.
they are our slave masters and the ones taking rights and property and dipensing them to particular classes of people.
and when they drum up support for who gets the scraps we get a election year,and essentially a version stockholm syndrome.

things are this bad.
[YOUTUBEIF]XhGjgVw9NfM[/YOUTUBEIF]

^this AWESOME video embodies why I find it immoral to even pay a dollar in federal taxes.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

While you guys are busy reading, check out some history of the US National Bank. Anybody imagining going back to the old way is willing to learn history - the second time. Anybody willing to see for the first time what lies beyond is even less curios than the guy willing to repeat history.

 

[bentom187]

what if the first time was correct (the people were correct when they realized they've been robbed for fiat paper) and the runs on the early banks was do to their amount of reserves,10% requirment and people realize they coudnt get their deposits on demand because 90% was lent out at intrest(a scetchy balance of time and demand). they realized their money wasnt whare housed, its invested at a risk.the hope from the bank is not everyone comes back to demand their deposit,with the the use of a FDIC sticker. wich you may receive more federal reserve notes based on future debt if things go wrong,but the country is no less enslaved.
you cant pay a debt with a debt. thats common sense you end up with nothing. the govt cardinally decrees our paper is woth somthing , in reality its just future debt(taxes) because its based on labor wich tends to consume your life(slavery) when your paying national debt and whimsical deficit spending, and voting for rights that the cartel stripped from you with "democracy" and installing people (presidents/congress) to watch over their debt investment and that we slave(taxes) to pay them back .

 

[Plant Early]

 

[bigdrov1x]

A must read is The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. This exposes the fed for what it really is. Should be required reading in school. Take the red pill!!!!!

 

[Guest304546]

we don't have the power to abolish the race but we can damned sure stop running in it!

peace, AD

Radically sustainable, off-grid living