Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power.

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:20 pm

Making legislation about some possible future state of affairs is absurd. I'd find it hard to believe that it was even lawful, presuming that the constitution would be ratified, when it had not been written yet. The intent, in 1787, was to change the AOC: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc03225))

Just for the sake of fluent discussion, can we stick with the time period before the constitution for now? Not jump to the middle and make predictions and presumptions?
"A term commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states."

As for the Federal Union... wasn't the Confederation of States a federal union in a general sense? Union yes, federal no. It is a union/confederation of free and independent States. Under a federal union they are not free and independent.
Yep, a federal union by definition. Not THE "Federal Union" but a federal union nevertheless.
AOC III.

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, 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 pretense whatever.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:49 pm

I deleted my original post and replaced it with this one.
notmartha wrote:Making legislation about some possible future state of affairs is absurd. I'd find it hard to believe that it was even lawful, presuming that the constitution would be ratified, when it had not been written yet. The intent, in 1787, was to change the AOC: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc03225)) The link is broken. It is not absurd that George Washington and his ilk created, with the resolutions, the means to create a Constitutional dictatorship.

Just for the sake of fluent discussion, can we stick with the time period before the constitution for now? Not jump to the middle and make predictions and presumptions? Where are these predictions and assumptions that you think I am making? How can I predict or presume that which has already transpired. When you go to the resolutions that you posted and read them in order, they show that the intent was to rid the United States of the AOC because it is a total limitation on government. The United States has no authority to make law in the perpetual Union -- in fact does not, and that is why George Washington, and the other federalists, wanted the Constitution. They used the NWO, the culmination of the resolutions you linked, to create States of the United States, combined with the original States of The United States of America, to create a Dictatorship, euphemistically called a Republic.
"A term commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states."

As for the Federal Union... wasn't the Confederation of States a federal union in a general sense? Union yes, federal no. It is a union/confederation of free and independent States. Under a federal union they are not free and independent.
Yep, a federal union by definition. Not THE "Federal Union" but a federal union nevertheless.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Confed ... Federation
By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not.

Sometimes confederation is erroneously used in the place of federation. Some nations which started out as confederations retained the word in their titles after officially becoming federations, such as Switzerland. The United States of America was a confederation before it became a federation with the ratification of the current U.S. constitution in 1788. The United States of America remains a Confederation, the States of its territory United States is a federation. If the Constitution replaced or somehow repealed the AOC, The United States of America, the Confederacy, would no longer exist.
Comparison Chart.png
Comparison Chart.png (67.54 KiB) Viewed 19466 times
AOC III.

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, 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 pretense whatever.
Confederation is NOT defined as federal, and I think you are inserting a definition that's not there. Yes, they are a union, a confederation, not federal anything. The States under the Constitution are a federal union, the second union.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:48 pm

The intent, in 1787, was to change the AOC: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... it(jc03225)) The link is broken. It is not absurd that George Washington and his ilk created, with the resolutions, the means to create a Constitutional dictatorship.
Please try to copy and paste the link. The hyperlink cuts off the parenthesis at the end for some reason.

I guess it is more speculation and presumption than prediction. It is probably just better to stick to facts rather than presume you know what was going on in their heads, KWIM? You could very well be right about their intentions, based on their fruits, (I tend to believe the whole deal, including DOI and AOC, were designed to fail, kinda like the controlled opposition) but think of the ramifications of giving something that does not yet exist authority. Are you saying that the “United States” in the AOC is also referring to a not-yet-in-existence entity? I believe that whatever “United States” is in the AOC is the “United States” referred to up till the “more perfect union” “United States” was created in the constitution. Has your position changed? Some of your posts have been edited, and it seems that you are now saying that the AOC morphed into the constitution, and that the “perpetual union” morphed into the “more perfect union”. Is this what you are saying?
Confederation is NOT defined as federal, and I think you are inserting a definition that's not there. Yes, they are a union, a confederation, not federal anything. The States under the Constitution are a federal union, the second union.
Thank you for the chart differentiating between confederate and federal. I agree those are the applicable meanings in today's usage. As the meanings of words are constantly changing, I try to use dictionaries from as close to the time period of the writing that I can find. As you read these definitions in chronological order, you will see how they changed. In 1828, there was little if any difference between confederation and federation. In fact, the root word con means union and federatio means league, so confederacy directly means federal union. By 1856 new definitions were added, and by the 20th century “confederacy” is a negative thing, actually called a “conspiracy”.

Webster’s 1828 –

Confederacy, n. –
[From con (union) and federatio, a league. See Federal and Wed.]
1. A league, or covenant; a contract between two or more persons, bodies of men or states, combined in support of each other, in some act or enterprise; mutual engagement; federal compact.
2. The persons, states or nations united by a league.
3. In law, a combination of two or more persons to commit an unlawful act.

Confederate, a. –
1. United in a league; allied by treaty; engaged in a confederacy.

Confederate, n. –
1. One who is united with others in a league; a person or nation engaged in a confederacy; an ally.

Confederation, n. –
1. The act of confederating; a league, a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.
2. The United States of America are sometimes called the confederation.

Federal, a. –
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
3. Friendly to the constitution of the United States.

Federal, n. –
1. An appellation in America, given to the friends of the constitution of the United States, at its formation and adoption, and to the political party which favored the administration of President Washington.

Federate, a. –
1. Leagued; united by compact, as sovereignties; states or nations; joined in confederacy; as federate nations or powers.

Federation, n. –
1. The act of uniting in a league.
2. A league; a confederacy.

Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856:

CONFEDERACY, intern. law.
1. An agreement between two or more states or nations, by which they unite for their mutual protection and good. This term is applied to such agreement between two independent nations, but it is used to signify the union of different states of the same nation, as the confederacy of the states.
2. The original thirteen states, in 1781, adopted for their federal government the "Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States," which continued in force until the present constitution of the United States went into full operation, on the 30th day of April, 1789, when president Washington was sworn into office. Vide 1 Story on the Const. B. 2, c. 3 and 4.

CONFEDERACY, crim. law.
An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act, which though not unlawful in itself, becomes so by the confederacy. The technical term usually employed to signify this offence, is conspiracy. (q. v.)

CONFEDERATION, government.
1. The name given to that form of government which the American colonies, on shaking off the British yoke, devised for their mutual safety and government.
2. The articles of confederation, (q. v.) were finally adopted on the 15th of November, 1777, and with the exception of Maryland, which, however, afterwards also agreed to them, were speedily adopted by the United States, and by which they were formed into a federal bod y, and went into force on the first day of March, 1781; 1 Story Const. §225; and so remained until the adoption of the present constitution, which acquired the force of the supreme law of the land on the first Wednesday of March, 1789. 5 Wheat. R. 420. Vide Articles of Confederation.

FEDERAL, government.
1. This term is commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states.
2. In the United States the central government of the Union is federal. The constitution was adopted "to form a more perfect union" among the states, for the purpose of self protection and for the promotion of their mutual happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991

Confederacy –
1. The association or banding together of two or more persons for the purpose of committing an act or furthering an enterprise which is forbidden by law, or which, though lawful in itself, becomes unlawful when made the object of the confederacy. More commonly called a “conspiracy.”
2. A league or agreement between two or more independent states whereby they unite for their mutual welfare and the furtherance of their common aims. The term may apply to a union so formed for a temporary or limited purpose, as in the case of an offensive and defensive alliance; but it is more commonly used to denote that species of political connection between two or more independent states by which a central government is created, invested with certain powers of sovereignty (mostly external), and acting upon the several component states as its units, which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some others.

Confederation –
A league or compact for mutual support, particularly of nations or states. Such was the colonial government during the Revolution.

(there are more Black's definitions but I got tired of typing... :D )

Here are some examples of federal union used in a general sense. A federal union was not always something to be despised, as you can see in Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge. I'm not including these excerpts to start a debate about the Reformist theology (we'll save that for another day :lol: ) but just as points of interest.

Part 2, Chapter 8, section 9:
That which is adopted by Protestants generally, as well Lutherans as Reformed, and also by the great body of the Latin Church is, that in virtue of the union, federal and natural, between Adam and his posterity, his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the penalty threatened against him coming also upon them. This is the doctrine of immediate imputation. The union between Adam and his posterity which is the ground of the imputation of his sin to them, is both natural and federal.

Part 3, Chapter 3, section 4:
The Scriptures teach that the Logos is everlasting life, having, life in Himself, and the source of life, physical, intellectual, and spiritual. They further teach that his incarnation was the necessary condition of the communication of spiritual life to the children of men. He, therefore, is the only Saviour, the only source of life to us. We become partakers of this life, by union with Him. This union is partly federal established in the councils of eternity; partly vital by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and partly voluntary and conscious by faith.

Part 3, Chapter 7, section 6:
No doctrine of the Bible, relating to the plan of salvation, is more plainly taught or more wide reaching than that which concerns the union between Christ and his people. That union, in one aspect, was from eternity, we were in Him before the foundation of the world; given to Him of the Father, to redeem from the estate of sin and misery, into which it was foreseen our race would by transgression fall. It was for the accomplishment of this purpose of mercy that He assumed our nature, was born of a woman, and did and suffered all that He was called upon to do and to endure in working out our salvation. He did not, therefore, come into the world for Himself. It was not to work out a righteousness of his own to entitle Him to the exaltation and power which in our nature He now enjoys. In virtue of the Godhead of his personality, He was of necessity infinitely exalted above all creatures. He came for us. He came as a representative. He came in the same relation to his people, which Adam, in the original covenant, bore to the whole race. He came to take their place; to be their substitute, to do for them, and in their name, what they could not do for themselves. All He did, therefore, was vicarious; his obedience and his sufferings. The parallel between Adam and Christ, the two great representatives of man, the two federal heads, the one of all his natural descendants, the other of all given Him by the Father, is carried out into its details in Romans 5:12-21. It is assumed or implied, however, everywhere else in the sacred volume. What Adam did, in his federal capacity, was in law and justice regarded as done by all whom he represented. And so all that Christ did and suffered as a federal head, was in law and justice done or suffered by his people. Therefore, as we were condemned for the disobedience of Adam, so we are justified for the obedience of Christ. As in Adam all died, so in Christ are all made alive. Hence Christ’s death is said to be our death, and we are said to rise with Him, to live with Him, and to be exalted, in our measure, in his exaltation. He is the head and we are the body. The acts of the head, are the acts of the whole mystical person. The ideas, therefore, of legal substitution, of vicarious obedience and punishment, of the satisfaction of justice by one for all, underlie and pervade the whole scheme of redemption. They can no more be separated from that scheme than the warp can be separated from the woof without destroying the whole texture.

Part 3, Chapter 8, Section 2:
Another argument is derived from the nature of the union between Christ and his people. The Bible teaches,
(1.) That a certain portion of the human race were given to Christ.
(2.) That they were given to Him before the foundation of the world.
(3.) That all thus given to Him will certainly come to Him and be saved.
(4.) That this union, so far as it was from eternity, is not a union of nature, nor by faith, nor by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It was a federal union.
(5.) That Christ, therefore, was a federal head and representative.
As such He came into the world, and all He did and suffered was as a representative, as a substitute, one acting in the place and for the benefit of others. But He was the representative of those given to Him, i.e., of those who were in Him. For it was this gift and the union consequent upon it, that gave Him his representative character, or constituted Him a federal head. He was therefore the federal head, not of the human race, but of those given to Him by the Father. And, therefore, his work, so far as its main design is concerned, was for them alone. Whatever reference it had to others was subordinate and incidental. All this is illustrated and proved by the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21, in the parallel which he draws between Adam and Christ. All mankind were in Adam. He was the federal head and representative of his race. All men sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression. The sentence of condemnation for his one offence passed upon all men. In like manner Christ was the representative of his people. He acted for them. What He did and suffered in their place, or as their representative, they in the eye of the law, did and suffered. By his obedience they are justified. As all in Adam died, so all in Christ are made alive. Such is the nature of the union in both cases, that the sin of the one rendered certain and rendered just the death of all united to Adam, and the righteousness of the other rendered certain and just the salvation of all who are in Him.

Part 3, Chapter 16, section 8:
The first effect of faith, according to the Scriptures, is union with Christ. We are in Him by faith. There is indeed a federal union between Christ and his people, founded on the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son in the counsels of eternity. We are, therefore, said to be in Him before the foundation of the world.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:41 pm

If the Articles of Confederation were in fact a conspiracy, do you really want to be part of that and take any claim to them? Have you read what the Bible has to say about confederations?
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:55 pm

notmartha wrote:
The intent, in 1787, was to change the AOC: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... it(jc03225)) The link is broken. It is not absurd that George Washington and his ilk created, with the resolutions, the means to create a Constitutional dictatorship.
Please try to copy and paste the link. The hyperlink cuts off the parenthesis at the end for some reason.

I guess it is more speculation and presumption than prediction. Speculation? All you need to do is read and you will clearly see the intent. There is no speculation about it.It is probably just better to stick to facts rather than presume you know what was going on in their heads, KWIM? When people write something, did that something come from their head? What was intended was put in writing, there is no presumption, and why do you keep bringing that up? You could very well be right about their intentions, based on their fruits, (I tend to believe the whole deal, including DOI and AOC, were designed to fail, kinda like the controlled opposition) but think of the ramifications of giving something that does not yet exist authority. Who's doing that? The AOC puts the government in chains, the Constitution of the United States does not limit government in any way, and is a total scam. It does not matter that you call it the Constitution for the United States of America as amended A.D. 1791, which, by the way, was never adopted, therefore does not exist.Are you saying that the “United States” in the AOC is also referring to a not-yet-in-existence entity? That is not what I am saying at all. The United States is not the perpetual Union States in the AOC, but it the governing body over the territories belonging to The United States of America.I believe that whatever “United States” is in the AOC is the “United States” referred to up till the “more perfect union” “United States” was created in the constitution. United States in the AOC is the same entity as in the ConstitutionHas your position changed? Some of your posts have been edited, and it seems that you are now saying that the AOC morphed into the constitution, and that the “perpetual union” morphed into the “more perfect union”. Is this what you are saying? The original thirteen united States of America, the first union, were joined together with the States of the United States (Northwest Territory) under the Constitution thereby deceiving the people into believing the Constitution applies everywhere in The United States of America, which is a total lie.

I had hoped you would be a little more knowledgeable, but I can see you really don't have a grasp on the four organic laws or what George Washington and the other federalists have done to attempt to destroy The United States of America, and the people thereof.

Confederation is NOT defined as federal, and I think you are inserting a definition that's not there. Yes, they are a union, a confederation, not federal anything. The States under the Constitution are a federal union, the second union.
Thank you for the chart differentiating between confederate and federal. I agree those are the applicable meanings in today's usage. As the meanings of words are constantly changing, I try to use dictionaries from as close to the time period of the writing that I can find. As you read these definitions in chronological order, you will see how they changed. In 1828, there was little if any difference between confederation and federation. In fact, the root word con means union and federatio means league, so confederacy directly means federal union. By 1856 new definitions were added, and by the 20th century “confederacy” is a negative thing, actually called a “conspiracy”.

Webster’s 1828 –

Confederacy, n. –
[From con (union) and federatio, a league. See Federal and Wed.]
1. A league, or covenant; a contract between two or more persons, bodies of men or states, combined in support of each other, in some act or enterprise; mutual engagement; federal compact.
2. The persons, states or nations united by a league.
3. In law, a combination of two or more persons to commit an unlawful act.

Confederate, a. –
1. United in a league; allied by treaty; engaged in a confederacy.

Confederate, n. –
1. One who is united with others in a league; a person or nation engaged in a confederacy; an ally.

Confederation, n. –
1. The act of confederating; a league, a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.
2. The United States of America are sometimes called the confederation.

Federal, a. –
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
3. Friendly to the constitution of the United States.

Federal, n. –
1. An appellation in America, given to the friends of the constitution of the United States, at its formation and adoption, and to the political party which favored the administration of President Washington.

Federate, a. –
1. Leagued; united by compact, as sovereignties; states or nations; joined in confederacy; as federate nations or powers.

Federation, n. –
1. The act of uniting in a league.
2. A league; a confederacy.

Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856:

CONFEDERACY, intern. law.
1. An agreement between two or more states or nations, by which they unite for their mutual protection and good. This term is applied to such agreement between two independent nations, but it is used to signify the union of different states of the same nation, as the confederacy of the states.
2. The original thirteen states, in 1781, adopted for their federal government the "Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States," which continued in force until the present constitution of the United States went into full operation, on the 30th day of April, 1789, when president Washington was sworn into office. Vide 1 Story on the Const. B. 2, c. 3 and 4. The first part of this is true the AOC was for the government, its very limited powers. The last part is a lie. The AOC is still the law of the perpetual Union. Many people are confused about this due to indoctrination.

CONFEDERACY, crim. law.
An agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or an act, which though not unlawful in itself, becomes so by the confederacy. The technical term usually employed to signify this offence, is conspiracy. (q. v.)

CONFEDERATION, government.
1. The name given to that form of government which the American colonies, on shaking off the British yoke, devised for their mutual safety and government.
2. The articles of confederation, (q. v.) were finally adopted on the 15th of November, 1777, and with the exception of Maryland, which, however, afterwards also agreed to them, were speedily adopted by the United States, and by which they were formed into a federal bod y, and went into force on the first day of March, 1781; 1 Story Const. §225; and so remained until the adoption of the present constitution, which acquired the force of the supreme law of the land on the first Wednesday of March, 1789. 5 Wheat. R. 420. Vide Articles of Confederation.

FEDERAL, government.
1. This term is commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states.
2. In the United States the central government of the Union is federal. The constitution was adopted "to form a more perfect union" among the states, for the purpose of self protection and for the promotion of their mutual happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991

Confederacy –
1. The association or banding together of two or more persons for the purpose of committing an act or furthering an enterprise which is forbidden by law, or which, though lawful in itself, becomes unlawful when made the object of the confederacy. More commonly called a “conspiracy.”
2. A league or agreement between two or more independent states whereby they unite for their mutual welfare and the furtherance of their common aims. The term may apply to a union so formed for a temporary or limited purpose, as in the case of an offensive and defensive alliance; but it is more commonly used to denote that species of political connection between two or more independent states by which a central government is created, invested with certain powers of sovereignty (mostly external), and acting upon the several component states as its units, which, however, retain their sovereign powers for domestic purposes and some others.

Confederation –
A league or compact for mutual support, particularly of nations or states. Such was the colonial government during the Revolution.

(there are more Black's definitions but I got tired of typing... :D )And all the dfinitions you gave are after the Constitution of the United States was supposedly adopted? Some, wrongly I might add, give the appearance that the Confederation is a federal union, but this is not the case. In fact

Again, the Confederation of free and independent Sovereign States known as The United States of America is NOT a federal Union. Those definitions above that contain the word federal in it does not mean the Confederacy, The United States of America, is a federal union. Of course the so-called PTB want you to believe Confederacy is a negative thing. Why not make people believe this lie and keep them in the dark about the truth. Truth is not for everyone, only those that have been given eyes and ears. The last part of your post has no relevance to how the term "federal" is being used re The United States of America, so I will not address them.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:10 pm

notmartha wrote:If the Articles of Confederation were in fact a conspiracy, do you really want to be part of that and take any claim to them? Have you read what the Bible has to say about confederations?
LOL!!! Sorry, but you know not what you are talking about. What is a conspiracy? Is it always a bad thing? People conspire to do good things all the time.

BTW, the AOC does not bind me, only government. I am self governing, only subject to my heavenly Father.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:24 pm

You said:
The United States of America was a confederation before it became a federation with the ratification of the current U.S. constitution in 1788.
This sounds to me like you believe that the constitution changed The United States of America from a confederation to a federation. You sound uncertain of what you yourself actually believe.

Words have meaning. You told me that
Confederation is NOT defined as federal, and I think you are inserting a definition that's not there.
and I showed that they are in fact defined the same.

It matters not to me what knowledge you think I do or don't have. I posted the definitions as is. I never claimed they were true. In fact, I believe they are filled with propaganda. By my thoughts are really irrelevant. The facts are the facts, and Confederation is defined as federal.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:28 pm

iamfreeru2 wrote:
notmartha wrote:If the Articles of Confederation were in fact a conspiracy, do you really want to be part of that and take any claim to them? Have you read what the Bible has to say about confederations?
LOL!!! Sorry, but you know not what you are talking about. What is a conspiracy? Is it always a bad thing? People conspire to do good things all the time.

BTW, the AOC does not bind me, only government. I am self governing, only subject to my heavenly Father.
I didn't make statements, only asked questions. Yes I know what a conspiracy is. In the definitions provided a confederation is a conspiracy involving unlawful acts.
iamfreeru2
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by iamfreeru2 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:40 pm

notmartha wrote:You said:
The United States of America was a confederation before it became a federation with the ratification of the current U.S. constitution in 1788.
I said not such thing. That is a quote form the link I provided, that I put in red so as to make it stand out and I addressed it in blue. If you had gone to the link and read you would have seen this.

This sounds to me like you believe that the constitution changed The United States of America from a confederation to a federation. You sound uncertain of what you yourself actually believe.

Words have meaning. You told me that
Confederation is NOT defined as federal, and I think you are inserting a definition that's not there.
and I showed that they are in fact defined the same. Ok, let me clarify, the Confederacy, The United States of America, is NOT federal, and any definition you find that says such, is a lie, plain and simple.

It matters not to me what knowledge you think I do or don't have. I posted the definitions as is. I never claimed they were true. In fact, I believe they are filled with propaganda. By my thoughts are really irrelevant. The facts are the facts, and Confederation is defined as federal.
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Proof that the federal courts are without judicial power

Post by notmartha » Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:20 pm

Mine in black, Michael's in red:
“Them” qualifies “United States” as plural, referring to the independent states as a collective. It may be plural, but the fact remains that this is not talking about the free and independent States of the Perpetual Union If they do not refer to the collective of the perpetual union/confederation of independent states, which collective of states do you think they refer to? The future States of the United States under the NWO and Constitution.
Just a bit of digging and the truth (assuming the Journals are accurate) is revealed. The "United States" were not some "future States" as Michael claims.

RESPUBLICA v. SWEERS 1 U.S. 41 (1779)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

In 1778, defendant was charged with defrauding the United States by forging two bills. Defendant’s claim was that the United States did not yet exist as a matter of law. This was the court’s reply:
The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.' But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created.
The United States existed as a body corporate from the time the colonies banded together in association on October 20 , 1774.
The foregoing association being determined upon by the Congress, was ordered to be subscribed by the several members thereof; and thereupon, we have hereunto set our respective names accordingly.
In Congress, Philadelphia, October 20, 1774.
Signed,Peyton Randolph, President.
New Hampshire
• Jno. Sullivan
• Nathel. Folsom
Massachusetts Bay
• Thomas Cushing
• Saml. Adams
• John Adams
• Robt.Treat Paine
Rhode Island
• Step. Hopkins
• Sam: Ward
Connecticut
• Elipht Dyer
• Roger Sherman
• Silas Deane
New York
• Isaac Low
• John Alsop
• John Jay
• Jas. Duane
• Phil. Livingston
• Wm. Floyd
• Henry Wisner
• S: Boerum
New Jersey
• J. Kinsey
• Wil: Livingston
• Stepn. Crane
• Richd. Smith
• John De Hart
Pennsylvania
• Jos. Galloway
• John Dickinson
• Cha Humphreys
• Thomas Mifflin
• E. Biddle
• John Morton
• Geo: Ross
The Lower Counties New Castle
• Cæsar Rodney
• Tho. M: Kean
• Geo: Read
Maryland
• Mat Tilghman"
• Ths. Johnson Junr.
• Wm. Paca
• Samuel Chase
From Bouvier’s 1856:
" A corporation, or body politic, or body incorporate, is a collection of many; individuals united in one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law, with a capacity of acting in several respects as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued; of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."
Post Reply