Chapter 5: The Con of the Constitution
The very first settlers, we are led to believe, came over here on the Mayflower in 1620. However, this is not the truth. The following excerpt is from a book called Pandora’s Box by Alex Christopher:
“The story we are told, is that in 1619, a group of people (commonly referred to as “Pilgrims”) got together to try to find the new world in the west that had been described by Columbus 127 years previously. They had had enough of England’s problems. They were tired of the political conditions, the pseudo-feudal system, and most of all, they were tired of the Roman Catholic Church and the wild perpetrations done in the name of God and the church. They decided to leave England to find and create a new freedom for themselves and their church in the new world. They formed two companies (groups) and sailed for Hayden in Holland in two boats, the Speedwell, and the Mayflower. On the voyage, the Speedwell developed problems and had to be left behind when, in September, 1620, the Mayflower with 102 people aboard left Hayden bound for the new world and freedom. The voyage took about sixty days, with the Mayflower arriving in Cape Code in November of 1620. On the 11th of November the elders and leaders of the pilgrims met and publicly declared their intentions and desires for the running of their new colony founded in Virginia. They drew up a document, called the Mayflower Compact, the 41 men present signing it. The pilgrims sailed from Cape Code to Plymouth harbor, arriving there on December 21, 1620. Just in time for Christmas. The Mayflower served as their headquarters while they built their houses on the shore, and she finally left then and sailed back to England the following spring.” (1)
This is the story we are taught, but it is not even close to the real truth. It is actually an outright lie to keep American’s ignorant as to the true ownership of the land and corporations in this country. Here is what Alex Christopher has to say: “The Mayflower people were of the second corporation. They were not the first settlers to arrive on the shores of America. People had been settling for 15 years before under the auspices of the first company, and by 1620, more than 2000 people had already inhabited various plantations and colonies on the North American continent.” … “The debaters of the issue of the Mayflower will argue that the Mayflower Compact was the basis for the formation for the type of constitutional government enjoyed in America today, while remaining either blissfully ignorant of the existence at that time of the two corporations mentioned earlier, and, if not ignorant of their existence, then at least ignorant as to the fact that the Charters of these two Corporations and Bodies Politic, and the constitutions of some of the earlier colonists are the real basis for today’s American government, it’s Executive, Judicial, and Legislative structure, and the country’s social, and to some extent, it’s economic structure.” … “The Mayflower was the first sailing to the new world of the people of the second of the two Corporations and Bodies Politic which was known as the ‘New England Company’; it had only been created 5 months previously. The First Corporation which had been formed almost fifteen years earlier and had already been colonizing America for that same number of years before the Mayflower ever sailed was called ‘The Virginia Company’.” (2)
Going back a couple of chapters in her book to a chapter titled, “The Virginia Company,” I will quote some valuable information, which also related to the way the laws were originally set up in this country:
“The Charter to the Virginia Company granted by King James provided for the incorporation of two companies: the London Company and the Plymouth Company. It was the London Company that established the first permanent English colony in America; the expedition of 120 settlers who left England in December, 1606, made their first landfall at Cape Henry, April 29, 1607, and planted a colony at Jamestown May 14.”
“As is always the case, the passage of time and the development of the technology of the times gradually brought the prospect of travel to the New World closer to the average man on the street.”
“In anticipation of the flood of people to the New World which was, in a time not too far off, inevitable, and in order to take advantage of the possibilities for trade and commerce which would then be afforded, in 1604, a group of prominent statesmen, businessmen, merchants, financiers, and manufacturers assembled in Greenwich, in the County of Kent, England, to create and form a Corporation, Joint Stock Company and Body Politic which was to be known as and called ‘The Virginia Company’ …
(1) Pandora’s Box, Alex Christopher, 1993, p. 125
(2) ibid, p. 126-27
“Given that the New World was an extension of the British Empire across the sea, and the colonies formed therein were operating under the auspices of the Virginia Company, the criminal courts in the new colonies were therefore and thereby to operate under Admiralty Law (the law of the sea). The Civil Courts (those of Chancery and Equity) were to operate under Common Law (the law of the land).”
“The Criminal Courts of the United States still operate today under Admiralty Law.”
“As are all corporations and business organizations, the Virginia Company was formed for several purposes, the primary one of which was to make a profit. Other secondary purposes were to afford various and sundry people from royalty to commoner the opportunity to invest in the shares of the corporation in the hope of making a profit (by dividend or capital gain, or simply the enjoyment of the fruits of their labors), and the opportunity and vehicle for the raising of venture capital to support various adventure oriented enterprises of exploration and settlement.”
“The Virginia Company, given that its primary stockholder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was none other than the King (James I) King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland on the date of April 10, 1606, had at its disposal all kinds and types of legal, commercial, and other experts and consultants who were ready and willing to offer their services in the service of the company (and therefore the Crown)” … “The original charter of the Virginia Company was written and completed by April 10, 1606, as has already been stated, but later, to afford change to meet the varying environmental circumstances, two subsequent Charters were developed and adopted, and in addition, several sets of Royal orders, ordinances and constitutions were also interspersed.” (3)
Then the author goes on to document each of the original Charters, which I won’t take the time or space to do here, as it is unnecessary. But I will quote a couple of paragraphs relating to laws, criminal and civil in the “Royal Orders of November 20, 1606,” from the chapter entitled, “The Virginia Company”:
“All criminal offences or offences against the state or the King, were tried, as has been said before, under Admiralty Law.”
“Those offences of tumults, rebellions, conspiracies, mutiny, and sedition which ‘may be dangerous to the estate there’(the degree of ‘dangerousness’ being decided by the local Council of authority), and murder, manslaughter, rape, incest and adultery were all punishable by death, and except on the case of manslaughter, the convict was not to be allowed the ‘benefit of the clergy’.”
“All cases were to be tried by the Council of authority before a jury of twelve honest and indifferent persons, who were to either convict or acquit the accused. Should the accused confess to the crime, or remain mute in answer to his accusers, then he would be convicted as if the jury had deliberated and convicted him.” (4)
It should be pointed out perhaps, that these were in fact, Catholic backed corporations and the Founding Fathers were setting up a government which would have no Catholic support or influence. They were also not affiliated with the Anglican Church of England and the lost Ten Tribes of Israel. This should be kept in mind, while considering the direction law took, as well as the direction of the country, before and after the Revolution in 1776.
A little further on, Christopher discusses Civil Law: “Any civil complaint registered by the members of either colony were to be taken care of by the respective Colonial Councils ‘as near to the common laws of England and the equity thereof as may be,’ and the local Council ‘shall have power and authority… to hear all and every other wrongs, trespass, offences and misdemeanors whatsoever…upon accusation of any person and proof made thereof by sufficient witness upon oath,’ and the Councils were granted the authority to punish the offenders ‘by reasonable corporal punishment and imprisonment or else by a convenient fine, awarding damages, or other satisfaction to the party aggrieved,’ the Council determining the amount and severity of the punishment ‘having regard to the quality of the offence or the state of the cause.’ … Any and all judgments and sentences, whether criminal or civil, were to be registered in a book created and maintained for that specific purpose…” (5)
(3) Pandora’s Box, p. 105-106
(4) Pandora’s Box, p. 109
(5) ibid. p. 110
Now, I would like the reader to take particular note of two very important points which we just read through. One, civil complaints which were misdemeanors had to be sworn upon by a witness who had taken an oath not to perjure themselves. Even a civil matter could not be brought before a court unless upon signed and sworn oath and affirmation. Also, note that last sentence of Christopher’s which I just referred to. I will repeat it here, because it is so important. — [Any and all judgments and sentences, whether criminal or civil, were to be registered in a book created and maintained for that specific purpose.]
Now that you have just read that last sentence, it would be a perfect time for the next topic which Christopher covers, however, keep in mind that she is still relating to the same “Royal Orders of November 20, 1606.”:
–“Warehouses”— “For the first five years immediately after the initial settlement, the colonists were to bring all their produce and place it in a warehouse specifically constructed for the purpose. In addition to the local produce, everything thereafter brought to the Colonies from England was also to be placed in the warehouse.” …“Each year the Council was to elect a Warehouseman, named the ‘Treasurer’ or ‘Cape Merchant’ to take charge of and manage the commodities stored in his care. This person could be re-elected by the Council upon the expiration of his one-year term of office. In addition, two bookkeepers were to be appointed, each also for a term of one year, one to keep a register of all things being brought into the warehouse, and one to keep a similar book of all things being removed from it.” (Accounting in [credits] / Accounting out [debits])
Now, Christopher discusses “Warehouse Receipts.” Remember to pay particular attention to this info, as it will come in handy in understanding the last chapters of this book. Alex Christopher goes on to say: “To assist in trading to, from and by this one warehouse, every one of the colonies, for the first five years, shall “trade together all in one stock.” This meant that they were given Royal orders to adopt a form of ‘warehouse banking,’ where the individual would take his product to the warehouse, and place it on deposit there, receiving in return a receipt, which receipt could be readily traded for other goods or services. This was the original form of paper currency and it greatly facilitated growth in the formative years of colonial existence.” (5)
Most people are aware of the fact that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, but most people are not aware of several events surrounding this document and what exactly inspired it. Like, for instance, the fact that it was not the tax on tea that the colonists were rebelling against. It had more to do with the fact that England had passed legislation forbidding the colonies from issuing their own Colonial Script. (Currency).
The first law was passed in 1751 called the Currency Act, and then completed by a more restrictive law in 1764, the Currency-Stamp Act.
Franklin, when questioned why Parliament had lost respect among the people of the Colonies, had answered: “To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions.” (6)
The Currency Act of 1764, and was the primary cause of the Revolutionary War. It is said that the American Revolution started in 1765. Upon learning that the People of America had learned the secret of money, the Bank of England through the Crown declared war on the Colonies. Originally, King George was a stockholder of the Bank of England. Although he lost the war with the United States, he stood to gain shortly with the re-establishment of a Central Bank in the United States. Before this happened, the colonies were prosperous. They were too prosperous for Great Britain.
At the beginning of the War at Lexington and Concord, in 1775, the Colonies had been drained of all their Gold and Silver by heavy taxation. The Continental government had to print money to finance the war. At the beginning of the war the U.S. money supply was at 12 Million Dollars, but by the end of the war, it was 500 Million dollars, thereby making the colonists money virtually worthless.
(6) Benjamin Franklin, His Autobiography: With a Narrative of His Public Life, 1859
At the conclusion of the war. Thomas Jefferson was quoting as saying the following:
“But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.” Extract from Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia [Query XVII, “Religion”]
The Constitution was not a document “for the people,” at all! It was in fact, a tool, for the Crown to usurp the power of the Colonies. This may seem like a broad assumption at first, however, most American’s have never stopped to think that the Constitution was put into place in 1787, 11 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. Well, what happened between those 11 years and how did the people function without a government in place. How did people get along? Why was there such a time lapse between the time of the signing of the Declaration and the time of the signing of the Constitution? What about the Articles of Confederation? What exactly was the difference, and why was it replaced? These are the next questions we will look at closely.
The American Revolution lasted from 1765 to 1883 and ended with the Treaty of Peace. The Articles were drafted during the Revolutionary War, as it was drawing to a close, in 1781.
The Articles of Confederation were very important and we rarely hear of them in American history classes. The Articles of Confederation were ratified on March 1, 1781. The first Articles are important to understand. I have them presented here;
The Stile of this confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
At the end of Article IV, we read that;
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.
Article VI is very important, as it shows how the country was on high concern that Titles of Nobility would be bestowed upon any member of the government.
No state, without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference agreement, alliance or treaty with any King prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state; nor shall the united states in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
In Article IX, we read that commissioners could not be rewarded for sitting in judgment:
“… provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the cause shall be tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection or hope of reward.”
The original plan for the Articles of Confederation
“Indeed, the question whether the Constitution should permit Congress to employ state governments as regulatory agencies was a topic of lively debate among the Framers. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority in most respects to govern the people directly. In practice, Congress “could not directly tax or legislate upon individuals; it had no explicit ‘legislative’ or ‘governmental’ power to make binding ‘law’ enforceable as such.” (7)
The inadequacy of this governmental structure was responsible in part for the Constitutional Convention. Alexander Hamilton observed: “The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contra-distinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of whom they consist.” – The **2422 Federalist No. 15, p. 108 (8)
As Hamilton saw it, “we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and a government; we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens-the only proper objects of government.” Id., at 109. The new National Government “must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations…. The government of the Union, like that of each State, must be able to address itself immediately to the hopes and fears of individuals.” Id., No. 16, at 116.
Once should immediately take notice that the term “citizens” is not used exclusively here. The term used is “persons of citizens,” which I interpret to mean the corporations of individuals, or the corporate citizenry, since it could never apply to the people who created the government, the actual sovereigns or freemen. The use of the word “of the” implies something which belongs to, a part of something. The person belongs to the citizen, it is a part of his production. We will investigate the meaning of the term “person” more closely in an upcoming chapter.
Returning to Eustace Mullins book, The Rape of Justice, the author addresses this particular topic:
“After the American Revolution, an adept combination of Calvinist and Masonic influences was brought to bear on the Constitution Convention. Although the principles of Sir Edward Coke had been a contributing influence to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and survived in the Bill of Rights, which was a belated edition to the Constitution, the Convention itself was dominated by Episcopalians, that is, for all intents and purposes, by a branch of the Anglican Church, and by a strong Jesuit presence. However, the guiding principles of the convention were laid down by Freemasons, many of whom were also members of the other dominant groups. Bradford notes that Daniel Carroll represented the State of Maryland at the convention. He was the brother of the Archbishop of Baltimore, and was a Mason, as well as a Catholic.” …”The Convention purported to draft the Constitution as the final protector of the rights of independent citizens against any oppressive force of government. However, as we have previously noted, the Bill of Rights was added, not as an afterthought, but as a device to insure the adoption of the Constitution. Much of the work of the convention was mere window dressing to conceal its real purpose, which was to establish a strong central government with legal authority to provide repayment of loans made to the Americans by British financiers, principally those who were also stockholders of the Bank of England. The new government was also commissioned to insist upon the repayment of mortgages to British lenders, which the post-revolution courts, notably led by George Wythe, a drafter of the Constitution, and called the father of our legal system, duly demanded from the debtors.” (9)
(7) Amar, Of Sovereignty and Federalism, 96 Yale L.J. 1425, 1447 (1987) (Not Verified, Reputable source)
(8) C. Rossiter ed. 1961
(9) Rape of Justice, p. 48-49
This is interesting to note because a lot of people are not aware that we were in debt to the French at the time of the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, and on through the time of the creation of the Constitution. The entire essence of this book deals with contracts, debts, obligations, and so forth, so it would be good to understand that this is a very important fact. I will interject here, some information which can be found on the Yale University Website. It is from “The Avalon Project” and shows that loans were made to the Colonies immediately after the war. It reads:
“—Contract Between the King (of France) and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782. — The King having been pleased to attend to the requests made to him in the name and on behalf of the united provinces of North America for assistance in the war and invasion under which they had for several years groaned; and His Majesty, after entering into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the said confederated provinces on the 6th of February, 1778, having had the goodness to support them, not only with his forces by land and sea, but also with advances of money, as abundant as they were effectual in the critical situation to which their affairs were reduced; it has been judged proper and necessary to state exactly the amount of those advances the conditions on which the King made them, the periods at which the Congress of the United States have engaged to repay them to His Majesty’s royal treasury, and, in fine, to state this matter in such a way as for the future to prevent all difficulties capable of interrupting the good harmony which His Majesty is resolved to maintain and pre-serve between him and the said United States. For executing so laudable a purpose, and with a view to strengthen the bands of amity and commerce which subsist between His Majesty and the said United States, we, Charles Gravier de Vergennes, etc., Counselor of the King in all his Councils, Commander of his Orders, Minister and Secretary of State, and of his Commands and Finances, vested with full powers of His Majesty to us given for this purpose. –
And we, Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of North America, in like manner vested with full powers of the Congress of the said States for the present purpose, after duly communicating our respective powers, have agreed to the following articles:
It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit:” —
And then it goes on to show the receipts and figures of the loans. This can be further researched, of course at the website. What most people fail to realize is that the Founding Fathers, mostly Masons, themselves were landowners in Great Britain, and all the vessels traveling back and forth doing the exchange in commerce were British merchant trading ships. In order for the colonies to succeed, they had to relinquish control of the monetary supply, and continue borrowing from the King of England, or rather, the Bank of England, and their Masonic brethren back on the Motherland. From this point onward, French Freemasonry would continue to counter English Freemasonry through the Grand Orient lodges, creating a balance between world powers.
Returning to The Rape of Justice:
“On July 9, 1778, meeting in Philadelphia, Congress had approved the Articles of Confederation, which then became the ruling body of law for the young nation. These articles established the principles of state’s rights, and effectively ruled out the possibility of a strong central government, a federal power. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia on May 27, 1787, its secret agenda was to emasculate the Articles of Confederation, and to authorize the establishment of a strong federal government. The delegate who was entrusted with carrying out this secret mission was Edmund Randolph. During the previous year, Randolph had been elected Grand Master of the Masonic Lodges of Virginia. His father, a leading Tory and King’s Attorney, had returned to England at the outbreak of the American Revolution.
Con’t: “He never returned to America.”… ”Randolph’s proposals received strong and concerted support from his fellow Masons at the convention. He then worked out a Constitution which largely scrapped the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with a Constitution which authorized a strong centralized federal government. A cloak of concealment was thrown over this creation by the hasty addition of a ‘Bill of Rights,’ intended as a sop to those who otherwise would never have voted for ratification. Well-hidden within the basic framework of the Constitution were Masonic plans and authorizations for a national judiciary power, which would exercise final authority in disagreements between the branches of government, while the national executive power was given little opportunity to enforce the Bill of Rights.” (10)
Of course, the first court decisions in this country were also influenced by Masons in high positions and the same is still true today. Mullins goes on to talk about the beginning of the judiciary in America and the first Supreme Court decisions: “During the first few years of the Republic, the national judiciary was discreetly quiet. The Supreme Court met in a basement room and appeared to be little more than an ornamental power within the government. However, it asserted itself sharply when John Marshall became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He had recently succeeded Edmund Randolph as Grand Master of the Virginia Lodges (Masons), which have played a major political role ever since. Marshall made his first bold bid in 1803, in the well-known case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall’s court ruled that the judiciary has the power to strike down any law”…. “Marshall’s decision created the precedent for the supremacy of the federal power.”
“On September 3, 1807, Marshall delivered another famous ruling, in U.S. v. Burr, as reported by Mr. Ritchie. He declared that ‘the laws of the several states could not be regarded as rules of decision in trials for offences against the United States, because no man could be condemned or imprisoned in the federal courts under a state law.’ This legal decision came about because of Marshall’s role as ‘one of the usual suspects’ (Masons). For many years Aaron Burr had been one of the active Masonic conspirators in the new Republic. He had plotted to set up a separate and independent republic in the states bordering the Mississippi River. When Burr was charged with treason for this plot, he was defended by his attorney, Edmund Randolph, a former Grand Master of the Lodges of Virginia.(Masons) The decision was a foregone conclusion, because Masonic law decrees that a Mason must always rule in favor of a fellow Mason, due to his ‘obligations’.” (11)
The Northwest Ordinance, adopted July 13, 1787, by the Confederation Congress, chartered a government for the Northwest Territory, provided a method for admitting new states to the Union from the territory, and listed a Bill of Rights guaranteed in the territory. The Native Americans were to be treated with respect and the right to Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury were guaranteed. This is good reading. Here are the first few Articles:
Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person’s property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.
(10) Rape of Justice, p. 49-50
(11) Rape of Justice, p. 51-52
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.
Interestingly, Article 6 reads: “There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always, that any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service aforesaid.”
I bring this up because not many people are aware of the fact that the original government being set up had intended to remove slavery as a status.
The following case demonstrates the ideas of “sovereignty” which were laid down as the principles of common law in the beginning of this country.
This Case deals with the liability of the state in assumpsit. (Only extracted for relevant sections, not to prove a point in the case) Decision was overruled but does not affect the principles of the extracted paragraphs. This is Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419 (1793). This is a very long case to read, so this is summarized best as I can. There are many cases in this book, and I have done my best to bring the reader only the relevant sections:
“The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different. But it is certain that, in regard to any common law principle which can influence the question before us, no alteration has been made by any statute which could occasion the least material difference, or have any partial effect. No other part of the common law of England, it appears to me, can have any reference to this subject but that part of it which prescribes remedies against the Crown. Every State in the Union, in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, I consider to be as completely sovereign as the United States are in respect to the powers surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them. Of course, the part not surrendered must remain as it did before.
“The word ‘corporations,’ in its largest sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate), whether its power be restricted or transcendant, is in this sense “a corporation.” The King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation. 10 Co. 29b. So also, by a very respectable author (Sheppard, in his abridgement, 1 Vol. 431) is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not only each State singly, but even the United States may without impropriety be termed ‘corporations.’ I have therefore, in contradistinction to this large and indefinite term, used the term “subordinate corporations,” meaning to refer to such only (as alone capable of the slightest application, for the purpose of the objection) whose creation and whose powers are limited by law.
“The differences between such corporations and the several States in the Union, as relative to the general Government, are very obvious in the following particulars. 1st. A corporation is a mere creature of the King, or of Parliament; very rarely of the latter, most usually of the former only. It owes its existence, its name, and its laws, (except such laws as are necessarily incident to all corporations merely as such) to the authority which create it. A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: the voluntary and deliberate choice of the people. 2nd. A corporation can do no act but what is subject to the revision either of a court of justice or of some other authority within the Government.
Pages 33, 34, 35, 36, Not Included in Free Edition – To Order the FULL Version in either Softcover or E-Book, Please Visit the Store.