In a recent January 16 Article on News With Views,  writer J.B. Williams has penned yet another article addressing natural born citizen titled, “TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE ENDLESS NATURAL BORN DEBATE.”  Unfortunately nowhere in Williams article is there anything resembling facts, much less truthful ones.

Williams’ article actually misrepresents the #1 terms for natural born citizen, when it is solely his own distorted cherry-picking of Vattel’s writing, in which Williams entirely bypasses Vattel’s  explicit and clear definition of natural born stated in  § 212 of Law of Nations, and instead extracts only the immediately following reference to paternalism, and the father determining the citizenship of the offspring.  It is this reference that Williams represents as the legitimate definition of natural born, despite it being one recognized by only Williams himself.  Talk about “truth”…

As far as the actual definition provided by Vattel, Williams presents this as his #3 recognition of natural born, but dishonestly impugns this as only the “birther” definition. Williams then proceeds to blame those birthers for focusing on McCain, and thereby allowing Obama to remain unchallenged in office.   Notably, by this specious rationale, Williams has revealed the motivation for his extensive abuse of Vattel as being  an underlying prejudice to validate only one individual – John Sydney McCain.

All the evidence, as provided by Williams himself,  clearly indicates Williams’ own prejudicial determination  to recognize John McCain as a natural born citizen, even while still condemning Obama, with the difference between the two being the status of the fathers. Therefore Williams reprehensibly pushed past Vattel’s clear and concise definition of natural born, onto the irrelevant narrative of about paternalism.

READ MORE AT LIBERTY BORN:

JB WIlliams';Endless Natural Born Citizen Nonsense

Given that the legitimate powers of the federal government are constrained only to specific areas described in the Enumerated Powers detailed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is not surprising that the violation of this limited authority is falsely justified by corruptions to various clauses  within those Enumerated Powers.

The three clauses commonly corrupted and abused to falsely validate the overreach of federal authority within those Enumerated Powers are:

1)  The General Welfare Clause, indicated in the preamble of the enumerated powers:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;..."

2)   The Interstate Commerce Clause, within those enumerated powers.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

3)  The Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause),  the final enumerated power in Article 1, Section 8.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

As a result of the deliberate abuse of these clauses,  an  accurate understanding of their true original intent must be established.

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE:

General Welfare is not itself a specifically enumerated power of the Constitution, but rather a general reference in the preamble to the enumerated powers that follow.   The General Welfare clause does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country, nor to expend whatever money it cares  on any "general welfare" but rather has applicability as determined by the enumerated powers that follow.   Unfortunately this clause has been so abused by Progressive ideology that we have a major breach of federal authority and drain on the economy from the "Welfare" state, specifically named to falsely  this clause in the Constitution, and yet dedicated to individual welfare, not "general" at all.

The so-called "general Welfare" introductory preamble preceding the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8:

Each one of the enumerated powers that follow this introduction begin with the "To", indicating that this preceding introductory paragraph is entirely and exclusively applicable "TO" those subsequent specific powers, with the conclusion of the above paragraph being a semicolon to further indicate that general authority is linked to and contingent upon the enumerated powers.

Madison and Hamilton directly address the general Welfare clause, and specifically describe the claim that it is any sort of general plenary power as an "absurd" "misconstruction".

Madison, in Federalist #41, addressed the abuses of Article 1, Section 8 we now commonly see today, before ratification and describes this claims as "misconstruction":

Madison even directly addresses that "semicolon" which I previously referenced, indicating:

The "general phrase", above, which is referring to the general Welfare clause, is the introduction of the powers, a "preamble" and entirely applicable to, and "qualifying" that general expression by those enumerated powers, or "particulars", which follow.

Without this being the case, those enumerated powers which follow would serve no valid purpose, being entirely superfluous, as all those powers, and more, would be assumed in a boundless field of power.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE:

Abuse of the Commerce Clause has been so severe that it was a major contributing factor to the Civil War, with Congress having violated over decades its federal obligation to to maintain a regular and unbiased commerce between the States, by instituting a series of trade embargoes and regulations preferential to the North, and debilitating to the South.  Today we have been so habituated to the long-growing corruption of the Commerce Clause that we often forget it's intent was to remove animosities between the several states as a result of trade advantages allowing one state to benefit at the cost of other states, thereby creating a cause for warfare among the States.   That purpose was not to give the federal government any authority within those States.

The original meaning of "regulate" in "regulate interstate commerce" was to "regularize", make regular, or make uniform.  The first affirmation of the intent of the Commerce Clause is indicated the preamble to the enumerated powers which concludes with, " but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Further indication of the intent of the Commerce Clause is found in Article 1, Section 9, Prohibitions to Congress:

Here the obvious intent is to prohibit the federal government from legislation preferential to any one state, and thereby more harmful to others by relative comparison. The only legitimate application of "duties" would be on cargo entering the country, with the further application of duties from interstate traffic being prohibited.

This is further supported by Article 1, Section 10, "Limits on States" themselves:

This not only prohibits any states from any imposts or duties without the Consent of Congress, but also removes any profit incentive from the practice by having any proceeds from those that are necessary beig the property of the U.S. Treasury. Thus, there is further evidence that the ability to "regulate" commerce is intended to prohibit any imbalance between the states - again to "make regular".


The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as used by the Founders during the framing and ratification process , as the exchange of goods between between point A and B. In effect Congress was solely given the power in question so as to to insure free trade among the States --- an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.. or again "make the trade regular".

This is a far cry from how Congress now abuses the Commerce Clause in a way to inhibit or even prohibit trade commerce.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) hinted at the original intent of the Commerce Clause in its decision:

The real problem resides not just with the state legislation, but with the expansion of federal legislation, when it really had no authority to apply that legislation under the "interstate commerce" clause, and a falsely claimed authority beyond that, when in truth the federal government has no constitutional authority to apply legislation within the territory of the States themselves, not anywhere, under any terms.

Madison clarified the original intent of Interstate Commerce in Federalist #42:

Once again we see the intent of the Interstate Commerce clause being to "make regular" (or "uniform") the commerce between the states, so as to prohibit hostility between them, even preventing a cause for war.  Most certainly the "Civil War" was indeed a "serious interruption of the public tranquility". However the federal government's actual actions leading up to the Civil War were quite contrary to the Founder's intent, with these grossly violating both Congress' constitutional limitations and obligations, and are still creating conflict within the country to this day, even now.

Prior to reaching the "first century" of U.S. history, Congress was already abusing its obligation to "make trade regular" between the states by introducing a series of tariffs and embargoes over more than 20 years that were prejudicial against the South's agriculture, and preferential to budding North's industry, particularly textiles, giving rise to the Civil War.

However the real abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause began after the Civil War opened the floodgates, with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887), and then gross abuse later under the Progressive's expansion with the New Deal (1936) under Roosevelt.

NECESSARY & PROPER CLAUSE (Elastic Clause)

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the "Elastic Clause", is the last of the enumerated powers, and specifically indicates its applicability to only those "foregoing Powers", previously enumerated:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Given the clear and specific reference of applicability being to those "foregoing Powers", the Necessary and Proper clause can not be viewed as any sort of broad, plenary power legitimizing Congress to act on anything it deems to be both "necessary" and "proper" for the nation. .   Many recognize the Necessary and Proper Clause as being the primary means by which the Executive and Legislative branches  have validated their gross overreach of power, resulting in the restriction of rights.

The first test of the Necessary and Proper Clause came in 1791, with Alexander Hamilton's proposal of a national bank,  as Secretary of the Treasury under Washington.   Hamilton defended the bank's legitimacy under the Constitution, indicating that:

“If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.”

Notice that Hamilton is relying in this argument on the specific negative prohibitions (i.e. "forbidden)  to the federal government, rather than the positive limit of the specifically enumerated powers.  Hamilton is relying on the federal government's  authority to collect taxes, and to expend those taxes in on necessary ends, results in the necessity of a national bank not relying on any private bank.  

Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Randolph and James Madison  were unified in opposition to a national bank both because they did not believe it would be beneficial and because it was not “necessary and proper.”    Jefferson submitted an official cabinate paper to President Washington, at Washington's request:At President Washington’s request:

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution."

“[The Constitution authorizes Congress] to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the union.”

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

“Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them."

Today we suffer under the burden of Congress believing it is no longer limited by the enumerated powers, nowhere recognizing the limitations of those specific powers, instead doing whatever it deems to be "necessary and proper", essentially whatever evil they please,  even resulting in the gross breach and denial of our freedoms.

INTRO: With "common law" grand juries currently gaining popular attention,and various attempts to "institute" and apply these occurring across the country, these issues are obviously increasing in frequency, and should be examined.   Some current examples are the case in Dixie County Florida, where Terry Trussell is facing 14 felony charges for "Impersonating a Pubic Officer" and "Unlawful Use of Simulated Legal Process", among other charges, now facing the possibility of the remainder of his life behind bars, or the Nevada common law grand jury claiming to have proved the "missing" 13th Titles of Nobility amendment was actually ratified by Virginia and thereby an actual amendment to the Constitution, or  National Liberty Alliance's own "Quo Warranto" (pdf) petition to various federal judges.

ARE SO-CALLED "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURIES VALID?

Some have claimed that Common Law Grand Juries are supported by the Constitution itself, and even cite  Supreme Court decisions, particularly United States v Williams (1992), as supporting these ad hoc common law grand juries.  However these claims do not appear to have any actual truth to them.

The only place the U.S. Constitution specifically references "common law" is the 7th Amendment, where it is an incidental reference in regard to legal suits, and then is only to affirm the right to trial by jury, not affirming the "common law" as any sort of guiding philosophy of this country, nor referencing "common law" grand juries in any way.

In 1992, Antonin Scalia made citations to the Grand Jury in United States v Williams, and referenced a few Supreme Court cases in doing so:

Of note, all of the above references are specifically to “Grand Jury” and nowhere particularly indicating “common law grand jury”, thereby not serving to validate those common law grand juries, contrary to claims.   In fact the idea of an ad hoc common law grand jury being formed entirely independently of the the judicial system is undermined by Scalia’s above statement, “in the courthouse and under judicial auspices”.  These Supreme Court references in no way serve to validate “common law grand juries”, as they are currently being envisioned and formed, but rather provide cause to question their validity.

The claim is made that these common law grand juries actually have precedent in American history, which is somewhat true, but overall inaccurate.  During America's early history, when there were municipalities or districts without any established court of their own, circuit judges would indeed travel from district to district and rely on the presentment "charges" of such common law grand juries in order to hold trials.  However these grand juries were not formed from hand-picked jurors, resulting in a stacked jury, nor did they involve claims of absolute authority above any existing courts, as is currently being done.  There is no validation for what is currently being done in America's past, or Britain's common law either. 

Attorney Leo Donofrio, who led two of the earliest court challenges to Obama's qualification to hold the Presidency in New Jersey and Connecticut, has also been an early proponent of using Grand Juries to pursue government wrong-doing. In fact Donofrio wrote an early article titled "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government", in which citizens use these Grand Juries to counter and correct government wrong-doing and corruption. However Donofrio later removed that article from his blog when a Georgia Grand Jury, allegedly inspired by Donofrio himself, indicated it had authority to confiscate people's property, and even take their homes, which would be criminal acts.


That article is still available on the Internet "Wayback" archive site here:
 The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

Take note, in that article title Donofrio specifies that it is the "Federal" Grand Jury that is the 4th branch of government, not just any Grand Jury, and notably not "common law".

Donofrio then wrote an article titled, "The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned" in which Donofrio made the following clarification of his previous discussion of FEDERAL Grand Juries:

Here Donofrio indicates that there is no such authority for people to independently form their own "common law" Grand Jury, under the belief they might prosecute "at will".

Unfortunately we have very extreme, ill-formed, and even dangerous beliefs held by these common law grand jury proponents, none of which are valid. 

The  National Liberty Alliance indicates (pdf) that the source of authority for these common law grand juries is the common law itself, stating, ""The Common Law is the jurisdiction that our founders set in motion when creating the United States of America" and "Common Law is Natural Law, America was founded on Common Law."  None of these claims are even remotely true.  This country's original foundation in British common law, did not involve any separate jurisdiction, and that common law was not actually relied on by the Constitution, which brought the United States of America into existence, but rather profoundly rejected by that Document.  Furthermore, "common law" is not at all the same thing as Natural Law and, in fact, the two considerations are entirely separate from one another, even by definition!  While the States originally utilized some terms, principles and practices inherited from British common law, that common law was never a founding principle of this country, and the Constitution in no way relied on common law.

Perhaps the biggest irony of NLA's "Quo Warranto" asking "by what authority" those federal judges act, is questioning the very authority by which NLA itself demands those judges fill out their questionnaire, and demands they provide a "surety bond", or else provide their detailed financial statement, with the obvious presumption being that NLA itself will act entirely illegally to confiscate that bond, or those financial assets, when NLA deems they have not adhered to unspecified common law principles that do not exist, and are not a part of this country!

The Nevada "Superior Court Common Law Venue" indicates its own jurisdiction to to be "Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction", and prominently declares ahead of its findings that, "Its decision cannot be reviewed by any other court of the land."  Oh really? It is impossible that a grand jury formed in 2014, without any authority under law, to have any "original" jurisdiction at all, much less "exclusive" jurisdiction.  Furthermore, every single American should be disturbed by any group willing to declare itself entirely UN-contestable, above any law and court, and unable to even be questioned, much less challenged.

"COMMON LAW" VERSUS "NATURAL LAW"

There is a gross misunderstanding of what the "common law" is on the National Liberty Alliance site, and by "common law grand jury" proponents generally.  The Common Law is not something sacrosanct in this country, and is NOT at all synonymous with our own understanding of Natural Law unalienable rights. 

British common law is nothing more than the cumulative decisions, practices and general principles of the British courts that were never codified into law.  That's it!

In fact that British common law is founded on Feudal philosophy of noblesse oblige wherein a person is born into a position in society with obligation to those above them. British common law actually also uses the term "Natural Law", in representing this "natural" feudal obligation to those above oneself in society, as discussed at length in Lord Coke's decision in Calvin's Case, 1608.  It is "natural" for persons to be subservient to those above them.   These feudal common law principles result in the doctrine of "Perpetual Allegiance," an indelible obligation to  Crown, country and one's superiors that can never be broken, never severed by one's own choice, unless by death itself.   As Americans, we specifically rejected that feudal common law doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance in the War of 1812.

These  common law foundations are entirely antithetical to our own Natural Law understanding of rights being innate to the individual, unalienable, and coming from "Nature's God", certainly not allowed us by others in a caste society. 

Under British common law, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man from that divine Crown through the judiciary. The King is viewed as both head of the Anglican church and state as well.   By this,  under common law,  anyone in disagreement with the state is viewed as a hostile, with Jews being recognized as enemies with no real standing in Court, and having little assurance as to property rights. 

Natural Law is recognized, by definition, as being entirely outside of man-made Positive Law.  That man-made Positive Law consists of "statute", those laws that are codified and written down, and those things that are not codified as any singular law but still recognized as directing principle, "case law", with this generally including what is referenced as "common law." However "common law" is not necessarily recognized as being binding.  Common Law is a part of that man-made Positive Law, and entirely outside of Natural Law.

Natural Law and Common Law really have nothing to do with one another.

Given these facts, the claim that "common law" grand juries have some overriding authority, and are founded in American principles protecting individual rights, is a stunning ignorance demonstrating a failed understanding of both this country, as well as the issues these groups claim authority regarding.

IMPLICATIONS OF "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURIES BEING VALID

If such a thing were ever recognized, it would eventually result in citizen's grand juries being formed at a whim, and "stacked" with people intending to reach a pre-ordained conclusion, resulting in presentments or indictments for things that really are not all that legitimate.   Someone might even be criminally charged for eating a pastry into the shape of a gun. 

Then there's always the old cliche, "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich."

Imagine the pure Hell that would be unleashed if the angry mobs in Ferguson could legitimately form their own "common law Grand Jury", and then pronounce a true bill presentment charging Officer Wilson with First Degree Murder, overruling the previous Grand Jury, and  the Missouri State Attorney would then be obligated to follow up on that charge, by arresting and trying Wilson for his very life. This could still happen despite a Grand Jury having already resolved that there was no evidence to charge Wilson.

Why wouldn't a grand jury formed by and from the angry mobs of Ferguson be valid? There is no special process involved in forming or validating those "common law" grand juries, and certainly everything inviting them to be "stacked" with people of whatever belief. That "angry Ferguson mob" could form their own "common law" grand jury, every bit as legitimate as any other common law grand jury.

Seriously, pause and consider if this were true,  any group of people could go off and form their own legitimate "common law" grand jury, and suddenly you yourself might have to answer to that jury's charges in an official court of law.

Or WORSE!  If they can do their own charges (presentments), why not their own convictions too?  We might have to answer to some unknown body of people, formed under unknown terms, acting entirely outside of the legal system, perhaps not even convening inside a courthouse, perhaps with a serious grudge against us for whatever reason, and they would be able to actually put us on trial for  something, anything, perhaps having us fight in their fabricated court for our very lives!

If such things were allowed, none of us, not-a-one, would ever be safe from wild charges coming out of nowhere, or trials for our very life, liberty, and property in "no holds barred" makeshift courts in the middle of nowhere. No one would ever be truly safe.

This is not how we fix things. It is how the justice system and society itself would become forever broken, subject to mob rule, and America lost in absolute Anarchy, never to be a Republic again.