Re: contracts

"power was to be granted by the individual to the government"

certain powers were delegated to the national government, not by the individuals, but by the states, as specified in the const. No individual is a party to the const. The const. is an agreement between the several States only, which agreement created a new entity. All remaining powers not explicitly granted to the new entity, were reserved to the states (10th amend).

Under this arrangement, the people at large had essentially no dealings with the national government, except maling letters, and were quite insulated. They did not vote in presidential elections, nor for their state senators, who were elected by their state legislators. They did vote for their House member. The Senate was originally intended to represent the commercial interests of each state sending the senators, and the House was intended to represent the voice of the people. This changed with the 17th amendment, which was supposedly enacted alongside the federal reserve act and the 16th amendment, even though the validity of the 17th remains quesitonable.

It's like , Cheezron and Taxico, two corporations, get together and form Cheezron-Taxico, a joint venture (JV), for the sole purpose of exploring for uranium in Hawaii. Cheezron-Taxico is granted certain powers by its makers. If Cheezron-Taxico undertakes an activity that is outside of its delegated authority, such as clamdigging, it is acting ultra-vires, and would breach the contract unless clamdigging were allowed by the contract. Since each party has unlimited right to contract, they can put whatever they want in the contract, provided it is legal and enforceable. Cheezron and Taxico each retain all rights they had previously, except those spelled out in the contract for the formation of the JV.

Art. 1, Sec. 10 acknowledges the individual's unlimited Right to contract. This means a person is free to voluntarily exchange some of their rights, for the ability to receive a benefit. Congress has the authority to coin money, but the people are not encumbered in the least from choosing what they accept to use as money in trade. I can trade my donkey for a dog and some biscuits, or I could use federal reserve notes to buy a loaf of bread if I like.

It is maxim that jurisdiction in rem depends solely upon the physical control of the res by the sovereign exercising jurisdiction. Well over 99% of the people residing within the 50 states today have transferred the situs of their res to the District of Columbia, in exchange for the ability to receive a benefit therefrom at some point in time. This is in accordance with their unlimited right to contract under Art. 1, Sec. 10. By gaining the ability to receive a benefit, they must then abide by the contract, otherwise they are in breach, and may be compelled to perform or pay the penalty for any breaches they make. I'm not a lawyer.


Tweet