Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg








Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum





ARE WE 'FEDERAL CHILDREN' OWNED BY GOVERNMENT?





Posted By: hobie


Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2002, 3:40 p.m.





Found posted at RMNEW DAILY EMAILS,





http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/message/27182





-----





From: "A Voice For Children"


Date: Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:33 am


Subject: Are We "Federal Children" owned by the Government?





-----Original Message-----





From: Charles Stewart


Subject: Are We "Federal Children" owned by the Government?


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:41:33 -0500


From: "Beaver Cole"


Reply-To: "Beaver Cole"


Organization: Cole Publications





Provided By: Dave Champion


Are we "Federal Children," owned by the Government?





In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth


"registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was


known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a


law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health


of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other


purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to


cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and


expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry


which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under


the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children


as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public


school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most


aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated


into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do


all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in


what is called a "free country."





Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered


into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These


records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as


"official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering


the births and names of their children with the government of the state


in which they were born, even though there is no federal law requiring


it. The state tells you that registering your child?s birth through the


birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the United


States, thereby making him/her a United States citizen. For the past


several years a social security number was mandated by the federal


government to be issued at birth.





In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors


of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their


states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from


the Federal Reserve system.





To wit: "Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. Sec. 1,


requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had


by law or usage of state of it?s origin. That foreign statutes are to


have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that


a judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive


effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage


in the state from whence taken.





Black?s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. Cites omitted.





The state claims an interest in every child within it?s jurisdiction.


The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights


and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children.





The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a


valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable


assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who


have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the


trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security


number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the


assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your


child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children,


are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now


designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born


every year."





In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the


administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state,


to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the


act was unconstitutional, and that it?s purpose was to induce the States


to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal


Constitution?s 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government,


and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the


several States, held, that, as the statue does not require the plaintiff


to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than


that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants,


who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the


complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has


usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the


statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without


their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of


the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury


et. Al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for


the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To wit:





I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the


Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters


relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of


federal funds for the purposes of the act.





Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in


Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED


REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF


EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE


SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to


which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be


subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out


of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY.


THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT


TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.





By section 4 of the act, the Children?s Bureau is given all necessary


power to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the


act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the


plans submitted to it, and for than purpose by its agents to go into the


several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may


provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are


the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN


EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT


OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF


HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE


GRANTED BY THE ACT.





(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress


and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316,


405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.





In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits


to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on


one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the


reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face


detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the


States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be


passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v.


Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v.


Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.





The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to


be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for


Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers


reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe,


May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot?s Debates, p. 525; Pollard?s Lessee v. Hagan, 3


How.212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221


U.S.559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390





(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal


option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth


Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act.





A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege,


to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison


v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke


Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.





(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by


cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States,


not provided by the Constitution.





Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the


States the power to make laws for the United States. In reference


Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;


Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.





The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been


found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set


up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated


authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once


declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the


past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution


hasn?t changed. What has changed is the way this government views human


life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by


government.





The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked.


Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional


anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the


several states does not exist and if defended properly would never


survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected


public servants won?t save us when we all know their agenda does not


include serving those who place them in power. Perhaps the 10th


amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will,


when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will


not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government.





If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the


right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will


in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the


documents to prove their authority to demand or legislate for it. If


our God given rights to liberty and freedom which were the foundation


upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and


freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer,


then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell it?s


people. If we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg


our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are


not free, then perhaps it?s time to let the final chapter of the Great


American Revolution now be written........





More Info at: http://www.christiancommonlaw-gov.org/








Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg








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








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





-->