[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Amish Exempted from (Obama) Soetoro Care
Source: WND
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=137221
Published: Apr 7, 2010
Author: Zahn
Post Date: 2010-04-07 06:07:03 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 601
Comments: 47

Does your faith free you from forced Obamacare? Why Amish won't have to purchase insurance, but Muslims will cry foul Posted: April 06, 2010 8:34 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn © 2010 WorldNetDaily

President Obama signing health-care reform bill at the White House (White House photo)

The recent health-care reform legislation carries a controversial mandate that all Americans obtain health insurance, but careful study of the passed law reveals there are some groups – the Amish, for example – that can obtain an exemption.

For devout Muslims, however, whose religious beliefs forbid purchasing insurance, the mandate is still binding, religion or not. And most other religious, political or conscientious objectors will similarly find themselves out of luck if they hope to be excused from the requirement.

There is a clause in the fine print, however, that could provide an out for those willing to take it.

Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adds a new chapter to the Internal Revenue Code mandating all "applicable" individuals either obtain health insurance that meets the bill's "minimum essential coverage" standards or pay a penalty on tax day.

Like to remind congressional leaders of the rules they're supposed to follow? Send Congress copies of the Constitution today!

Section 1501 also spells out exceptions, those who are not considered "applicable" individuals, both for the mandate and for the penalty. Illegal aliens, foreign nationals and incarcerated prisoners, for example, are exempt from the mandate. The extreme poor and members of Indian tribes, while not exempt from the requirement, are nonetheless excused from paying the penalty.

But section 1501 also carries a pair of "religious exemptions" that will allow the Amish to escape the mandate but require Muslims and other religious objectors to get creative.

(Story continues below)

The law creates a religious exemption for those who are members and faithful adherents of a "recognized religious sect or division" with "established tenets or teachings" barring the "acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance."

For individuals who do not belong to a denomination with specific bans on insurance, therefore, personal religious objections will not exempt them from the mandate.

But even for Muslims, who may belong to a sect with clearly established teachings banning insurance, the bill still presents a problem.

For many Muslims, conventional health insurance is considered forbidden, because it is based on a system of uncertain outcomes akin to gambling on the future and the charging of interest.

The health-care reform bill's language, however, specifically states that for a sect to qualify for the religious exemption, it must fall within the definitions of section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. That section requires a sect to have been in constant existence since at least Dec. 31, 1950, and requires the sect to reject not only insurance but also have sworn off receiving all benefits from the U.S. Social Security system.

According to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies website, traditional Amish groups may dodge the mandate because they have been exempted from participating in Social Security for decades.

"The Amish viewed it as a form of commercial insurance, which they opposed," explains the website produced by Elizabethtown College in the Plain People country of Lancaster County, Pa. "They believe that members of the church should care for each others' physical and material needs. Thus, most of them do not pay into Social Security or receive payments from it. In some states, the Amish have also been exempted from workers compensation (insurance for on-the-job injuries) for the same reason."

For Muslims, however, Social Security is considered a form of caring for the poor, rather than an insurance gamble. While refusing typical insurance is common in Muslim circles, participation in the Social Security system is more widely accepted.

Most of the Amish, therefore, will qualify for the religious exemption, while most other Christians, Muslims and people of other religions will not.

Conscientious objectors to the mandate, also excluded from any exemption, have already voiced their intent to challenge the law because they don't think the requirement is legal.

"If [the Amish] can do it for religious objection, well, I have a different type of objection," Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute told Fox News. "I think I'm being coerced into doing something against my will, and so the challenge would be from a different perspective."

Outside of court battles, however, this is one more way certain religious individuals may be able to slip out of the mandate.

How the non-Amish might still obtain an exemption

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides a second form of religious exemption, one for those who are members of "of a health-care sharing ministry," which is defined as a non-profit, health-insurance alternative program, where members typically pay in regular dues and then contribute toward one another's medical costs.

To qualify for the exemption, the Act requires a sharing ministry to meet the following conditions:

* It must be a qualifying 501(c)(3) organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a)

* It's members must "share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the state in which a member resides or is employed"

* Its members must retain their memberships, even after developing medical conditions

* The sharing ministry or its predecessor must have been in existence at all times since Dec. 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members must have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least Dec. 31, 1999

* It must conduct annual audits made available to the public on request and performed by an independent certified public accounting firm.

The Amish – thus double qualifying for exemption from the mandate – have participated in such co-ops for years. But there are also several such ministries established in the U.S. for people of other faiths and denominations.

Christian Healthcare Ministries, for example, is a 501(c)(3) cost-sharing ministry that claims its more than 100,000 members have shared more than $500 million in medical bills over the last 20 years.

"Christian Healthcare Ministries is not a health-insurance company," the group's website explains. "Rather, we are a group of thousands of Christians across the United States and around the world who share each other's burdens in the area of health-care costs. We also pray for and encourage one another."

Among similar groups are Medi-Share and Samaritan Ministries.

Muslims have also developed similar programs in line with the Islamic principal of takaful, or mutual sharing of one another's needs. Dozens of these programs have sprung up throughout Arab nations since the 1960s but have been a newer phenomenon in the U.S. and are difficult to find. WND contacted several Islamic relations and education organizations as well as financial institutions and was unable to find a takaful-insurance program covering medical expenses for American Muslims.


Poster Comment:

All of you that receive or expect (hahaha) to receive SS benefits are "subjects" of Obama and obligated to the healthcare scam. Amerika, Love it or Love it. (Subjects have limited options and leaving it ain't one of em).

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.

#31. To: noone222 (#0)

Hi Boys & Girls,

It's funny to think of the squabble this Health Care Act has caused and is much the same as the SS Act of 1935, no American (or very few) is required to participate.

At H. R. 3590—142 we see an exit:

SEC. 1555. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS. No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

Some definitions are also helpful to better understand the jurisdictional claim of referenced Health Care Act:

H. R. 3590—547 ‘‘(E) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. (NO MENTION OF ANY UNION state!!!)

Let's compare how this term "State" is employed in other laws that are employed to deceive the American people:

federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 USC Sec. 921): the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) and is identical to The State of Illinois definition of “State” found at 5 ILCS 70 Statute on Statutes. To wit:

GENERAL PROVISIONS (5 ILCS 70/) Statute on Statutes. (5 ILCS 70/0.01) (from Ch. 1, par. 1000) Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Statute on Statutes. (Source: P.A. 86 4; 86 451.) (5 ILCS 70/1.14) (from Ch. 1, par. 1015) Sec. 1.14. "State," when applied to different parts of the United States, may be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" may be construed to include the said district and territories. (Source: Laws 1945, p. 1717.)

How are Union states defined in law vs a federal State?

Federal “territories” and “States” are synonymous as per 4 U.S.C. §110(d). Keep in mind also that Indian reservations, while considered “sovereign nations” are also federal “States”:

4 U.S.C. §110(d)

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4 - THE STATES

Sec. 110. Same; definitions (d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(36)

(a) Definitions

(36) State [Aliens and Nationality]

The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(10)

(a) Definitions

(10)State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

28 U.S.C. 1332(d)

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > Sec. 1332. [Judiciary and Judicial Procedure]

Sec. 1332. - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

(d) The word ''States'', as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Social Security Act of 1935, Section 1101:

Social Security Act of 1935, Section 1101

“The term State (except when used in section 531) includes Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.”

[Social Security Act of 1935, Section 1101]

42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1): Current Social Security Act

“(1) The term ‘State’, except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in titles IV, V, VII, XI, XIX, and XXI includes the Virgin Islands and Guam. Such term when used in titles III, IX, and XII also includes the Virgin Islands. Such term when used in title V and in part B of this title also includes American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Such term when used in titles XIX and XXI also includes the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. In the case of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, titles I, X, and XIV, and title XVI (as in effect without regard to the amendment made by section 301 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972[3]) shall continue to apply, and the term ‘State’ when used in such titles (but not in title XVI as in effect pursuant to such amendment after December 31, 1973) includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Such term when used in title XX also includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Such term when used in title IV also includes American Samoa.”

[42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1)]

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Section 9 -102 (76)

(76) "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

PDF Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)

(d) the word "States", as used in this section [Title 28 §1332 as amended in 1958] includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

It is to be noted that the statute differentiates between States of the United States and foreign states by the use of the capital S for the word when applied to a State of the United States."

[Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)]

Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1; 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831):

"The Cherokee Nation is not a foreign state, in the sense in which the term 'foreign state' is used in the Constitution of the United States."

"The Cherokees are a State."

"The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a State, and the courts are bound by those acts."

[Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1; 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831)]

49 U.S.C. §13102: Definitions

(18) State. - The term ''State'' means the 50 States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(5)

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter B > § 6103

§ 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

(b) Definitions For purposes of this section—

(5) State The term “State” means—

(A) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and (B) for purposes of subsections (a)(2), (b)(4), (d)(1), (h)(4), and (p) any municipality—

(i) with a population in excess of 250,000 (as determined under the most recent decennial United States census data available),

(ii) which imposes a tax on income or wages, and

(iii) with which the Secretary (in his sole discretion) has entered into an agreement regarding disclosure.

U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875):

The word 'State' 'describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government. It is not difficult to see, that, in all these senses, the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the State. . . . In the Constitution, the term 'State' most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such States under a common constitution which forms the distinct and greater political unit which that constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and States which compose it one people and one country.' Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 720, 721.

That the word 'State' is not confined in its meaning to the legislative power of a community is evident, not only from the authority just cited, but from a reference to the various places in which it is used in the Constitution of the United States. A few only of these will be referred to.

[U.S. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875)]

Words and Phrases, Vol. 40, p. 20:

United States

"The classical designation to clearly indicate the states as individual governmental entities making up the United Nation, dating form the Constitution and coming down through various acts of Congress and pronouncements of the courts, is the word "states". Twin Falls County v. Hulbert, 156 P.2d 319, 324, 325, 66 Idaho 128.

"Generally the word "state" when used by court or Legislature [in federal statutes, for instance, of which the Internal Revenue Code is a part] denotes one of the members of the federal Union. Twin Falls County v. Hulbert, 156 P.2d 319, 324, 235, 66 Idaho 128."

"The word "state" is generally used in connection with constitutional law in United States as meaning individual states making up the Union in contradistinction to United States as a nation, but United States is a "state" as such word is frequently used in international law, or to carry out legislative intent expressed in statute. McLaughlin v. Poucher, 17 A.2d 767, 770, 127 Conn. 441."

[Words and Phrases, Vol. 40, p. 20]

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

It is sufficient to observe in relation to these three fundamental instruments [Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, and the Treaty of Peace with Spain], that it can nowhere be inferred that the *251 territories were considered a part of the United States. The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states; and even the provision relied upon here, that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform ‘throughout the United States,’ is explained by subsequent provisions of the Constitution, that ‘no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state,’ and ‘no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.’ In short, the Constitution deals with states, their people, and their representatives.

[. . .]

"The earliest case is that of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 2 L. ed. 332, in which this court held that, under that clause of the Constitution limiting the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to controversies between citizens of different states, a citizen of the District of Columbia could not maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States. It was argued that the word 'state.' in that connection, was used simply to denote a distinct political society. 'But,' said the Chief Justice, 'as the act of Congress obviously used the word 'state' in reference to that term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution , . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.' This case was followed in Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that 'neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.' In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181, and in Miners' Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. 867, it was held that under the judiciary act, permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the contemplation of Congress."

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Judiciary Act of 1789: "State"

The sentence found in the Historical and Revision Notes under 28 U.S.C. Chapter 5 say the following:

“Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,”

This tells the reader that there is something to be learned in sections 81-131. What is to be learned is the same thing that was presented in the Judiciary Act of 1789 in section two:

SEC . 2. And be it further enacted, That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows, to wit: one to consist of that part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called Maine District; one to consist of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called New Hampshire District; one to consist of the remaining part of the State of Massachusetts, and to be called Massachusetts district; one to consist of the State of Connecticut, and to be called Connecticut District; one to consist of the State of New York, and to be called New York District; one to consist of the State of New Jersey, and to be called New Jersey District; one to consist of the State of Pennsylvania, and to be called Pennsylvania District; one to consist of the State of Delaware, and to be called Delaware District; one to consist of the State of Maryland, and to be called Maryland District; one to consist of the State of Virginia, except that part called the District of Kentucky, and to be called Virginia District; one to consist of the remaining part of the State of Virginia, and to be called Kentucky District; one to consist of the State of South Carolina, and to be called South Carolina District; and one to consist of the State of Georgia, and to be called Georgia District.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was enacted on September 24, 1789 when only 11 States had ratified this Constitution. Notice, however, that the Act creates 13 districts. The Maine District is created from part of the State of Massachusetts and the Kentucky District was created from the “remaining part of the State of Virginia.” Kentucky became a State on June 1, 1792 and Maine was admitted into the Union on March 15, 1820. These facts prove that the State of Massachusetts and the State of Virginia are something other than States even though the Judiciary Act of 1789 says they are part of the United States.

Title 28 U.S.C. was enacted into positive law in 1948. In order for the “judicial” law enacted by the Congress of the United States to be positive law, it had to conform to Section 2 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and other “judicial” legislation. The sentence: “Sections 81-131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,” was added by the Law Revision Counsel so that it would conform to all prior statute law that concerned the federal judiciary and judicial procedure.

Albert J. Nock, America Mercury Magazine, march 1939:

"[T]he State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation -- that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class -- that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient."

[Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), Source: The Criminality of the State, America Mercury Magazine, March, 1939]

BACKGROUND ON "STATE" FROM THE PREFACE OF THE GREAT IRS HOAX:

State — in the context of federal statutes, federal court rulings, and this book means a federal State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Marina Islands, and includes areas within the external boundaries of a state owned by or ceded to the United States of America. Federal “States” are defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10). In the context of the U.S. Constitution only, “State” means a sovereign “state” as indicated below. The reason the constitution is different is because of who wrote it. The states wrote it so they are capitalized. Federal statutes are not written by the sovereign states so they use the lower case “state” to describe the sovereign 50 union states, which are foreign to the federal government and outside its territorial jurisdiction.

“It is to be noted that the statute differentiates between States of the United States and foreign states by the use of a capital S for the word when applied to a State of the United States” Eisenberg v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 189 F.Supp. 500 (1960)

state — in the context of federal statutes, federal court rulings, and this book means a sovereign state of the Union of America under the Constitution for the United States of America 1789-1791. In the context of the U.S. Constitution only, “State” means a sovereign “state” as defined here. Below is a further clarification of the meaning of “states” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933), where they define what is not a “state”:

After an exhaustive review of the prior decisions of this court relating to the matter, the following propositions, among others, were stated as being established:

'1. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states;

'2. That territories are not states within the meaning of Rev. St. 709, permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question;

'3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property;

'4. That the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.'

(http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/State.htm)

P.H. believes that most "Talking Heads" and the majority of Americans have been duped into agreeing with Federal Jurisdiction when there is no Lawful requirement to do so.

For those who have not read the referenced exclusively Federal Health Care Act, please see below: (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf)

Warm Regards,

P.H.

PatrickHenry  posted on  2010-04-07   10:58:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: PatrickHenry (#31)

Bookmarked, exceptional post !

noone222  posted on  2010-04-07   11:49:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 35.

        There are no replies to Comment # 35.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]