Friday, December 5, 2025
Thursday, December 4, 2025
Religious Liberty. The putative right to chose against God. Is that good or bad ? (part 2)
VEHEMENTER NOS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE FRENCH LAW OF SEPARATION
To Our Well-beloved Sons, Francois Marie Richard, Cardinal Archbishop of Paris; Victor Lucien Lecot, Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux; Pierre Hector Couillie, Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons; Joseph Guillaume Laboure, Cardinal Archbishop of Rennes; and to all Our Venerable Brethren, the Archbishops and Bishops, and to all the Clergy and People of France.
Venerable Brethren, Well Beloved Sons, Health and the Apostolic Benediction.
Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and Our heart overflows with grief, when Our thoughts dwell upon you. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her and ever to be lamented?
That is, beyond question, an event of the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all the right-minded, for it is as disastrous to society as it is to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren, it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to time by the public authority at religion.
You have seen the sanctity and the inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the schools and hospitals laicized; clerics torn from their studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to military service; the religious congregations dispersed and despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the last stage of destitution.
Other legal measures which you all know have followed: the law ordaining public prayers at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session and of the assizes has been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy, and in a word from all public establishments.
These measures and others still which, one after another really separated the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.
2. On the other hand the Holy See has spared absolutely no means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It has then reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last to relinquish their designs.
But all has been in vain - the attentions, good offices, and efforts of Our Predecessor and Ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all who think rightly. At a moment of such gravity for the Church, therefore, filled with the sense of Our Apostolic responsibility, We have considered it Our duty to raise Our voice and to open Our heart to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people - to all of you whom We have ever cherished with special affection but whom We now, as is only right, love more tenderly than ever.
3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.
Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul. - Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur."He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. - Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."[1]
4. And if it is true that any Christian State does something eminently disastrous and reprehensible in separating itself from the Church, how much more deplorable is it that France, of all nations in the world, would have entered on this policy; France which has been during the course of centuries the object of such great and special predilection on the part of the Apostolic See whose fortunes and glories have ever been closely bound up with the practice of Christian virtue and respect for religion. Leo XIII had truly good reason to say: "France cannot forget that Providence has united its destiny with the Holy See by ties too strong and too old that she should ever wish to break them. And it is this union that has been the source of her real greatness and her purest glories.... To disturb this traditional union would be to deprive the nation of part of her moral force and great influence in the world."[2]
5. And the ties that consecrated this union should have been doubly inviolable from the fact that they were sanctioned by sworn treaties. The Concordat entered upon by the Sovereign Pontiff and the French Government was, like all treaties of the same kind concluded between States, a bilateral contract binding on both parties to it. The Roman Pontiff on the one side and the Head of the French Nation on the other solemnly stipulated both for themselves and their successors to maintain inviolate the pact they signed. Hence the same rule applied to the Concordat as to all international treaties, viz., the law of nations which prescribes that it could not be in any way annulled by one alone of the contracting parties. The Holy See has always observed with scrupulous fidelity the engagements it has made, and it has always required the same fidelity from the State. This is a truth which no impartial judge can deny. Yet today the State, by its sole authority, abrogates the solemn pact it signed. Thus it violates its sworn promise. To break with the Church, to free itself from her friendship, it has stopped at nothing, and has not hesitated to outrage the Apostolic See by this violation of the law of nations, and to disturb the social and political order itself - for the reciprocal security of nations in their relations with one another depends mainly on the inviolable fidelity and the sacred respect with which they observe their treaties.
6. The extent of the injury inflicted on the Apostolic See by the unilateral abrogation of the Concordat is notably aggravated by the manner in which the State has effected this abrogation. It is a principle admitted without controversy, and universally observed by all nations, that the breaking of a treaty should be previously and regularly notified, in a clear and explicit manner, to the other contracting party by the one which intends to put an end to the treaty. Yet not only has no notification of this kind been made to the Holy See, but no indication whatever on the subject has been conveyed to it. Thus the French Government has not hesitated to treat the Apostolic See without ordinary respect and without the courtesy that is never omitted even in dealing with the smallest States. Its officials, representatives though they were of a Catholic nation, have heaped contempt on the dignity and power of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Supreme Head of the Church, whereas they should have shown more respect to this power than to any other political power - and a respect all the greater from the fact that the Holy See is concerned with the eternal welfare of souls, and that its mission extends everywhere.
7. If We now proceed to examine in itself the law that has just been promulgated, We find, therein, fresh reason for protesting still more energetically. When the State broke the links of the Concordat, and separated itself from the Church, it ought, as a natural consequence, to have left her independence, and allowed her to enjoy peacefully that liberty, granted by the common law, which it pretended to assign to her. Nothing of the kind has been done. We recognize in the law many exceptional and odiously restrictive provisions, the effect of which is to place the Church under the domination of the civil power. It has been a source of bitter grief to Us to see the State thus encroach on matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church; and We bewail this all the more from the fact that the State, dead to all sense of equity and justice, has thereby created for the Church of France a situation grievous, crushing, and oppressive of her most sacred rights.
8. For the provisions of the new law are contrary to the constitution on which the Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors (I Ephes. iv. II sqq.) - a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging (Matt. xxviii. 18-20; xvi. 18, 19; xviii. 17; Tit. ii. 15; 11. Cor. x. 6; xiii. 10. & c.) It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. St. Cyprian, Martyr, expresses this truth admirably when he writes: "Our Lord, whose precepts we must revere and observe, in establishing the episcopal dignity and the nature of the Church, addresses Peter thus in the gospel: Ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, etc. Hence, through all the vicissitudes of time and circumstance, the plan of the episcopate and the constitution of the Church have always been found to be so framed that the Church rests on the Bishops, and that all its acts are ruled by them. - Dominus Noster, cujus praecepta metuere et servare debemus, episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem disponens, in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro: Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, etc.... Inde per temporum et successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio et Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur et omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur" (St. Cyprian, Epist. xxvii.-xxviii. ad Lapsos ii. i.) St. Cyprian affirms that all this is based on Divine law, divina lege fundatum.The Law of Separation, in opposition to these principles, assigns the administration and the supervision of public worship not to the hierarchical body divinely instituted by Our Savior, but to an association formed of laymen. To this association it assigns a special form and a juridical personality, and considers it alone as having rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the law in all matters appertaining to religious worship. It is this association which is to have the use of the churches and sacred edifices, which is to possess ecclesiastical property, real and personal, which is to have at its disposition (though only for a time) the residences of the Bishops and priests and the seminaries; which is to administer the property, regulate collections, and receive the alms and the legacies destined for religious worship. As for the hierarchical body of Pastors, the law is completely silent. And if it does prescribe that the associations of worship are to be constituted in harmony with the general rules of organization of the cult whose existence they are designed to assure, it is none the less true that care has been taken to declare that in all disputes which may arise relative to their property the Council of State is the only competent tribunal. These associations of worship are therefore placed in such a state of dependence on the civil authority that the ecclesiastical authority will, clearly, have no power over them. It is obvious at a glance that all these provisions seriously violate the rights of the Church, and are in opposition with her Divine constitution. Moreover, the law on these points is not set forth in clear and precise terms, but is left so vague and so open to arbitrary decisions that its mere interpretation is well calculated to be productive of the greatest trouble.
9. Besides, nothing more hostile to the liberty of the Church than this Law could well be conceived. For, with the existence of the associations of worship, the Law of Separation hinders the Pastors from exercising the plenitude of their authority and of their office over the faithful; when it attributes to the Council of State supreme jurisdiction over these associations and submits them to a whole series of prescriptions not contained in the common law, rendering their formation difficult and their continued existence more difficult still; when, after proclaiming the liberty of public worship, it proceeds to restrict its exercise by numerous exceptions; when it despoils the Church of the internal regulation of the churches in order to invest the State with this function; when it thwarts the preaching of Catholic faith and morals and sets up a severe and exceptional penal code for clerics - when it sanctions all these provisions and many others of the same kind in which wide scope is left to arbitrary ruling, does it not place the Church in a position of humiliating subjection and, under the pretext of protecting public order, deprive peaceable citizens, who still constitute the vast majority in France, of the sacred right of practicing their religion? Hence it is not merely by restricting the exercise of worship (to which the Law of Separation falsely reduces the essence of religion) that the State injures the Church, but by putting obstacles to her influence, always a beneficent influence over the people, and by paralyzing her activity in a thousand different ways. Thus, for instance, the State has not been satisfied with depriving the Church of the Religious Orders, those precious auxiliaries of hers in her sacred mission, in teaching and education, in charitable works, but it must also deprive her of the resources which constitute the human means necessary for her existence and the accomplishment of her mission.
10. In addition to the wrongs and injuries to which we have so far referred, the Law of Separation also violates and tramples under foot the rights of property of the Church. In defiance of all justice, it despoils the Church of a great portion of a patrimony which belongs to her by titles as numerous as they are sacred; it suppresses and annuls all the pious foundations consecrated, with perfect legality, to divine worship and to suffrages for the dead. The resources furnished by Catholic liberality for the maintenance of Catholic schools, and the working of various charitable associations connected with religion, have been transferred to lay associations in which it would be idle to seek for a vestige of religion. In this it violates not only the rights of the Church, but the formal and explicit purpose of the donors and testators. It is also a subject of keen grief to Us that the law, in contempt of all right, proclaims as property of the State, Departments or Communes the ecclesiastical edifices dating from before the Concordat. True, the Law concedes the gratuitous use, for an indefinite period, of these to the associations of worship, but it surrounds the concession with so many and so serious reserves that in reality it leaves to the public powers the full disposition of them. Moreover, We entertain the gravest fears for the sanctity of those temples, the august refuges of the Divine Majesty and endeared by a thousand memories to the piety of the French people. For they are certainly in danger of profanation if they fall into the hands of laymen.
11. When the law, by the suppression of the Budget of Public Worship, exonerates the State from the obligation of providing for the expenses of worship, it violates an engagement contracted in a diplomatic convention, and at the same time commits a great injustice. On this point there cannot be the slightest doubt, for the documents of history offer the clearest confirmation of it. When the French Government assumed in the Concordat the obligation of supplying the clergy with a revenue sufficient for their decent subsistence and for the requirements of public worship, the concession was not a merely gratuitous one - it was an obligation assumed by the State to make restitution, at least in part, to the Church whose property had been confiscated during the first Revolution. On the other hand when the Roman Pontiff in this same Concordat bound himself and his successors, for the sake of peace, not to disturb the possessors of property thus taken from the Church, he did so only on one condition: that the French Government should bind itself in perpetuity to endow the clergy suitably and to provide for the expenses of divine worship.
12. Finally, there is another point on which We cannot be silent. Besides the injury it inflicts on the interests of the Church, the new law is destined to be most disastrous to your country. For there can be no doubt but that it lamentably destroys union and concord. And yet without such union and concord no nation can live long or prosper. Especially in the present state of Europe, the maintenance of perfect harmony must be the most ardent wish of everybody in France who loves his country and has its salvation at heart. As for Us, following the example of Our Predecessor and inheriting from him a special predilection for your nation, We have not confined Ourself to striving for the preservation of full rights of the religion of your forefathers, but We have always, with that fraternal peace of which religion is certainly the strongest bond ever before Our eyes, endeavored to promote unity among you. We cannot, therefore, without the keenest sorrow observe that the French Government has just done a deed which inflames on religious grounds passions already too dangerously excited, and which, therefore, seems to be calculated to plunge the whole country into disorder.
13. Hence, mindful of Our Apostolic charge and conscious of the imperious duty incumbent upon Us of defending and preserving against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, We do, by virtue of the supreme authority which God has confided to Us, and on the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted in France for the separation of Church and State, as deeply unjust to God whom it denies, and as laying down the principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her liberty; as destroying justice and trampling underfoot the rights of property which the Church has acquired by many titles and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of this Apostolic See, to Our own person, to the Episcopacy, and to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, We protest solemnly and with all Our strength against the introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law, declaring that it can never be alleged against the imprescriptible rights of the Church.
14. We had to address these grave words to you, Venerable Brethren, to the people of France and of the whole Christian world, in order to make known in its true light what has been done. Deep indeed is Our distress when We look into the future and see there the evils that this law is about to bring upon a people so tenderly loved by Us. And We are still more grievously affected by the thought of the trials, sufferings and tribulations of all kinds that are to be visited on you, Venerable Brethren, and on all your clergy. Yet, in the midst of these crushing cares, We are saved from excessive affliction and discouragement when Our mind turns to Divine Providence, so rich in mercies, and to the hope, a thousand times verified, that Jesus Christ will not abandon His Church or ever deprive her of His unfailing support. We are, then, far from feeling any fear for the Church. Her strength and her stability are Divine, as the experience of ages triumphantly proves. The world knows of the endless calamities, each more terrible than the last, that have fallen upon her during this long course of time - but where all purely human institutions must inevitably have succumbed, the Church has drawn from her trials only fresh strength and richer fruitfulness. As to the persecuting laws passed against her, history teaches, even in recent times, and France itself confirms the lesson, that though forged by hatred, they are always at last wisely abrogated, when they are found to be prejudicial to the interests of the State. God grant those who are at present in power in France may soon follow the example set for them in this matter by their predecessors. God grant that they may, amid the applause of all good people, make haste to restore to religion, the source of civilization and prosperity, the honor which is due to her together with her liberty.
15. Meanwhile, and as long as oppressive persecution continues, the children of the Church, putting on the arms of light, must act with all their strength in defense of Truth and justice - it is their duty always, and today more than ever. To this holy contest you, Venerable Brethren, who are to be the teachers and guides, will bring all the force of that vigilant and indefatigable zeal of which the French Episcopate has, to its honor, given so many well-known proofs. But above all things We wish, for it is of the greatest importance, that in all the plans you undertake for the defense of the Church, you to endeavor to ensure the most perfect union of hearts and wills. It is Our firm intention to give you at a fitting time practical instructions which shall serve as a sure rule of conduct for you amid the great difficulties of the present time. And We are certain in advance that you will faithfully adopt them. Meanwhile continue the salutary work you are doing; strive to kindle piety among the people as much as possible; promote and popularize more and more the teaching of Christian doctrine; preserve the souls entrusted to you from the errors and seductions they meet on all sides; instruct, warn, encourage, console your flocks, and perform for them all the duties imposed on you by your pastoral office. In this work you will certainly find indefatigable collaborators in your clergy. They are rich in men remarkable for piety, knowledge, and devotion to the Holy See, and We know that they are always ready to devote themselves unreservedly under your direction to the cause of the triumph of the Church and the eternal salvation of souls. The clergy will also certainly understand that during the present turmoil they must be animated by the sentiments professed long ago by the Apostles, rejoicing that they are found worthy to suffer opprobrium for the name of Jesus, "Gaudentes quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine Jesu contumeliam pati" (Rom. xiii. 12). They will therefore stoutly stand up for the rights and liberty of the Church, but without offense to anybody. Nay more, in their earnestness to preserve charity, as the ministers of Jesus Christ are especially bound to do, they will reply to iniquity with justice, to outrage with mildness, and to ill-treatment with benefits.
16. And now We turn to you, Catholics of France, asking you to receive Our words as a testimony of that most tender affection with which We have never ceased to love your country, and as comfort to you in the midst of the terrible calamities through which you will have to pass. You know the aim of the impious sects which are placing your heads under their yoke, for they themselves have proclaimed with cynical boldness that they are determined to "de Catholicise" France. They want to root out from your hearts the last vestige of the faith which covered your fathers with glory, which made your country great and prosperous among nations, which sustains you in your trials, which brings tranquillity and peace to your homes, and which opens to you the way to eternal happiness. You feel that you must defend this faith with your whole souls. But be not deluded - all labor and effort will be useless if you endeavor to repulse the assaults made on you without being firmly united. Remove, therefore, any causes of disunion that may exist among you. And do what is necessary to ensure that your unity may be as strong as it should be among men who are fighting for the same cause, especially when this cause is of those for the triumph of which everybody should be willing to sacrifice something of his own opinions. If you wish, within the limits of your strength and according to your imperious duty, to save the religion of your ancestors from the dangers to which it is exposed, it is of the first importance that you show a large degree of courage and generosity. We feel sure that you will show this generosity; and by being charitable towards God's ministers, you will incline God to be more and more charitable toward yourselves.
17. As for the defense of religion, if you wish to undertake it in a worthy manner, and to carry it on perseveringly and efficaciously, two things are first of all necessary: you must model yourselves so faithfully on the precepts of the Christian law that all your actions and your entire lives may do honor to the faith you profess, and then you must be closely united with those whose special office it is to watch over religion, with your priests, your bishops, and above all with this Apostolic See, which is the pivot of the Catholic faith and of all that can be done in its name. Thus armed for the fray, go forth fearlessly for the defense of the Church; but take care that your trust is placed entirely in God, for whose cause you are working, and never cease to pray to Him for help.
18. For Us, as long as you have to struggle against danger, We will be heart and soul in the midst of you; labors, pains, sufferings - We will share them all with you; and pouring forth to God, who has founded the Church and ever preserves her, Our most humble and instant prayers, We will implore Him to bend a glance of mercy on France, to save her from the storms that have been let loose upon her, and, by the intercession of Mary Immaculate, to restore soon to her the blessings of calm and peace.
19. As a pledge of these heavenly gifts and a proof of Our special predilection, We impart with all Our heart the Apostolic Benediction to you, Venerable Brethren, to your clergy and to the entire French people.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, on February 11 in the year 1906, the third of Our Pontificate.
PIUX X
1. Ency. Immortale Dei Nov. 1, 1885.
2. Allocution to the French pilgrims, April 13, 1888.
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
Religious Liberty Is the putative "right" to chose against God. Is that good or bad? (Part 1)
Is such an orientation part of Tradition? |
Friday, November 21, 2025
A certain group of foreigners steal and control your money
Transcript of Dr. Edwin Vieira's Presentation at the National Press Club, June 29, 2000
[Bob Schulz introduction} Dr. Edwin Vieira is a graduate of Harvard College, the Harvard Graduate School of Arts & Sciences and Harvard Law School. He is an attorney specializing in constitutional law; he is the author of "Pieces of Eight, the Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," published in 1983, and a revised version of "Pieces of Eight" is scheduled for publication later this year. Let's welcomed Dr. Edwin Vieira.
(Dr. Vieira) Thank you, Bob, ladies and gentlemen. My pleasure to be here. I'm billed, on your program, with talking about the money issue. But I've been talking about the money issue and writing about the money issue for so long that I'm thoroughly bored with it. And when this book, this revised book comes out, if you pick that up at the library, if I can somehow wangle libraries into putting it on their shelves, and you read it, you'll be mightily bored with the issue too.
So, I'm not going to talk about that, I'm going to talk, in general, about some of the problems that I see from a constitutionalist' perspective with the 16th Amendment and the wonderful work that Bill Benson has done, and that Larry Becraft and others have followed up on.
Now, one of the things, though, that I would like to raise as an issue, for your consideration, is a peculiarity that I see between the two subject matters; one, the money issue, the Federal Reserve, if you will, on the one hand, and the income tax on the other hand. I've studied the money issue, case law, statutory law, historical descriptions of what went on, from, I don't know, the Middle 1600's in England up until now. And one of the things you discover, or at least I have discovered, going through all of that, is that the powers that be, very systematically changed the laws as they went along, or they wrote the court opinions in such a way as to rationalize, perhaps not justify, but at least to rationalize, what they were doing.
So you can see a kind of logical progression or degeneration in the statutory and case law from the early days, from the Constitution, from 1789, up until the present time. And they really didn't hide any of this. It's there if you're willing to look. Fascinating thing is, most people aren't willing to look. But, it's not a deep, dark secret.
Whereas, in the area of the income tax, there seems to be, at least to my mind, anomaly. That is, if I were in charge, politically, of this system, and I had a vast mass of people out there believing that they had to pay these taxes and they had to file these forms and keep these records and perform all of these various functions, even if I knew that the 16th Amendment hadn't been ratified or that there was some other basic constitutional flaws in what I was doing, it really wouldn't bother me too much, to write the tax statutes and regulations consistently with what the masses of people thought those statutes and regulations said. Why would I care? It's all a con game anyway, right? I'm lying left and right, I can lie in this statute as well I lie in this statute, what difference does it make? Why would I not write the tax code and the tax regulations in the way everybody believes the tax code and the tax regulations are already written?
And I leave that with you, because I think that's a fascinating psychological problem.
The more interesting psychological problem, and I think it's a problem also of political philosophy, that I want to talk about today, is why we are even bothering to be here. Why Bill Benson had to bother, trudging all over the country, to collect those, what, 17,000, plus or minus, probably plus, probably a low estimate, 17,000 certified pages of public records. It seems to me that, if we're all not embarked on kind of fools errand, that, certainly, this group has undertaken a task that, in any kind of free and rationale society, it should never have been called upon to start, and certainly shouldn't have to complete.
None of the business that the various speakers this morning have laid on the table before you folks, would be necessary, if all of those foxes in charge of the henhouse in Washington and the state capitols, all of those years since 1913, had been acting according to their legal duties, instead of behaving according to their political natures. Now, I know, just as everyone else here, that I really swoon with patriotic ardor, and swell with party pride, when I hear the revered names of our leaders, past and present.
Nevertheless, it seems to me, that the conclusion to which I come, from history, at least, is that all of them, to the last man and woman, minus one or two exceptions, haven't done their duty, they're not doing their duty, they have no intention of doing their duty, and no really, no piling up of petitions or pleas or kowtowing or begging, will ever cause them to do their duty, or to accomplish anything other than aiding their critics to establish a record of their willful and persistent derelictions of duty. Now, some of you may blanch at that, the severity and the sweep of this indictment, for lawyers are good at making indictments. But, I'll let you be the judges.
Now, I just should backtrack once, because I always tell some kind of a story about lawyers, being one, for my sins.
Plane goes down, in the Caribbean. Three survivors. Dr. Kildare, Lawyer Mouthpiece, and Father O'Flaherty. And they swim to this little island. Get there, they're completely dog tired. And there's nothing, just sand and rock. But, across a little lagoon, there's another island, and it has palm trees, and, apparently, fresh water. Well, they have to get to it. And they see that one of the rafts from the plane has washed up on that island. Now that,. . but they're too tired to swim, so they say one of us has got to go and get that raft. But the water is full of sharks. Well, Dr. Kildare, he's really the strongest of the three, says "I'll go." The other two say, "No, Doctor, no, you know if things come, bad comes to worse, we're going to need you." Father O'Flaherty says "Well, it's really my responsibility, my sons, I'll go." They say, "No, Father, if things really come worse to worse, we may need you even more than Dr. Kildare." So that leaves, of course, the lawyer. Nobody can figure out a reason why he shouldn't go. So, he goes off and plunges into the water, and all of a sudden, instead of devouring him, the tiger sharks line up and form a bridge and he can actually walk right across to the other side. And Father O'Flaherty looks at Dr. Kildare and says, "It's a miracle, a miracle." And Dr. Kildare turns back and says, "No, just professional courtesy." (Audience laughter and applause.)
Well, let me be a little shark-like in terms of analyzing this situation, historically. You know, with all deference to Bill, the question of the invalidity of the 16th Amendment wasn't broached yesterday, it wasn't even broached in 1985, really. Because all of the primary evidence has been a matter of public record since 1913. 1913, until the early 1980's, well before Bill Benson and Red Beckman ever started out on their trek, it was there. Now, Bill published that book, "The Law That Never Was," 1985, (Bill in background saying "April 4th") ok, April 4th, 1985, 15 years ago.
The evidence that was catalogued and reproduced in "The Law That Never Was" was filed and the argument against the 16th Amendment was presented in numerous Federal court income tax cases, or at least they tried to present it. I remember one of those was in Kalamazoo, Michigan, I was there testifying on another subject, on the money issue, Bill was there, Larry Becraft was there, and there was Judge Ensle, who was the ringmaster in that little circus. And what was interesting in that case, just as an aside, they were so afraid of having the money issue, forget the 16th Amendment, they were so afraid of having the money issue presented to the jury, that they had to have my testimony off the record, at night, in the court house, with no one present, other than the lawyers, and the court clerk and the judge, and the poor witness. That was Judge Ensle, fine example.
Bill Benson and Larry Becraft, as I understand, sent copies of "The Law That Never Was" to every member of Congress. (In the background, Bill said "I did.") You did, ok, and that was when, the middle 1980's? (Bill in background "'87, and their names were embossed on the bottom of the book in gold, just like the book is [couldn't understand Bill's last word here]") Ok, 1980, 1987. And subsequently, and even to this very day, the charge that the 16th Amendment is invalid has appeared in all sorts of publications, and you can find it spread in the global village on the Internet. People in Bangladesh know this. Alright. And of course, very recently, this group, Bob Schulz, presented the issue (to) the White House, right, with the results that you all know. But nothing has been done, in all these years, by all of these people in authority. And, there is the interesting question, "Why not?".
Well, to answer that question, I think you first have to investigate how these people have shirked their duties and failed their country, and, if Shakespeare' ghost will forgive me, I would ask the question, "How do I fault thee? Let me count the ways."
First, the judiciary. Ah, the judiciary. The inferior Federal courts, I'm not saying that to be derogatory, that's the constitutional term, right? The inferior courts . . . say that the invalidity of the 16th Amendment raises a political question which is not justiciable, but belongs exclusively to Congress. Well, that's rather a highly questionable, you know, or even question-begging conclusion. As many as you . . . as many of you probably know, the term "political question", or even any words or phrases that intimate that kind of a doctrine, do not appear in the Constitution. The doctrine of political questions is another of those rather imaginative patterns that the courts have cut from whole cloth in order to avoid being confronted with issues that they would rather not hear.
Now, in some very narrow context, that idea may serve a practical purpose. But in this particular context, it makes no sense at all. If you recall, the theory of judicial review, which is the basis for the Supreme Court and the other courts deciding on the constitutional questions of statutes that come before them, that was first excogitated in the case of Marbury v. Madison by John Marshall, long, long, ago [5 U.S. 137, 173, 176 (1803)], and it says that because of their oaths or affirmations of office to support this Constitution, in any case or controversy that comes before the judges, they must put the Constitution ahead of any mere statute or other action by public officials.
So, no matter what Congress or the President or the States may say some provision of the Constitution means to them, the judges must decide the matter for themselves. In fact, they have a saying, which is attributed usually to Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that encapsulates this sort of unbridled power that they have: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." Well, of course, that's nonsense! But let's take them at their word, and see where that leads. If the judges' oaths or affirmations require them to decide for themselves what some provision of the Constitution means, why then do those same oaths or affirmations not equally compel them to decide the even more consequential matter of whether some alleged provision of the Constitution actually exists? Alright? Existence usually precedes meaning, one would hope. No matter what Congress or the Secretary of State or the President or the States may say, or not say.
Are we supposed to believe that this doctrine of judicial review is so inconsistent in its logic, and so porous in its coverage, that, on the one hand, the courts will not suffer Congress, the President or the States, to make the least little mistake about some provision or amendment of the Constitution, what those mean, let alone to lie about it? But, on the other hand, the courts will allow Congress, the Secretary of the State, the President, the States, whomever, to lie or to make glaring mistakes about whether a particular amendment actually exists is rather an implausible theory.
Are we further to believe that the courts will not allow Congress to lie or to make a glaring mistake about whether an Amendment actually exists, but then will also suffer themselves to be perverted as willing tools to convict, fine, or incarcerate people, who, if the Amendment doesn't exist, are innocent of any crime? That strikes me as even less likely.
Now, it's possible that judges with straight faces, and maybe quiet consciences, might refuse to hear the argument that the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified. If Congress, the Secretary of State, the President and the States that supposedly ratified the Amendment, had all affirmatively passed on that question in light of the evidence that has now been exposed through Bill Benson's work. But as every judge in this country knows, neither Congress, nor the Secretary of State, nor the President, nor any of the States that supposedly ratified that Amendment, have, in fact, passed on the deficiencies that Bill has cataloged. And these deficiencies quite glaringly show that the Secretary of State and the state legislatures that supposedly ratified the Amendment knew, or should have known, from the very beginning, that those ratifications were highly questionable. But they did nothing.
So, it strikes me that no judge can honestly say that this is a matter that Congress or other political branches of the government, national or state, have somehow put to rest. Neither can any judge say that this is a matter that only Congress can or should put to rest. Or at least no judge can say this, when a defendant stands before him charged with some criminal violation of a statute, the validity of which depends on the existence of the Amendment. Self-evidently, if Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, and the States, refuse to come to grips with the issue, the obligation to decide the invalidity of the 16th Amendment necessarily falls back on each individual judge, in each case that comes before him, perforce of Marbury v. Madison. Their own Supreme Court is telling them to do this.
Now, whether the ratification of the 16th Amendment arose out of a fraud perpetrated by Philander Knox, at least in my view, is not the controlling issue in this kind of analysis. Although, obviously, a charge of fraud renders the matter that much more serious. The Amendment would be unconstitutional even is Knox's certification of its supposed ratification, had resulted from his merely honest stupidity, insouciance, or blunders. Either the Amendment was ratified in the form required by law in 1913, or it was not. If it was not so ratified, it did not then become, and is not now, and cannot part of the Constitution, no matter how many mistakes office holders may have made in good faith in saying the opposite.
We the People's lives, liberty, and property, cannot be held hostage to our representatives negligence. And any judicial doctrine that holds otherwise, is itself such a [sound interrupted for approximately 7 seconds ]. But I don't believe an honest mistake explains why judges so readily employ their doctrine of political questions. [sound interrupted for thirteen seconds] alleged Amendment, and its invalidity would be a political question if it dealt, not with the income tax, which is a cornerstone of the modern administrative state, but with some other matter that threatened the establishment's power.
Imagine, or instance, that for... as they used to say in Camelot, a single shining moment occurred, and We the People actually gained control of Congress and the state Legislatures and pushed through a new amendment. A new patriotic amendment, that cut back on the, for instance, the judiciary's wild misinterpretations of the First Amendment. An amendment that allowed states and localities to ban pornographic writings, theatrical performances, movies, lewd displays, whatever. I don't have to specify anymore. All the elements of the sexually degenerate cutting edge of the cultural revolution that the Establishment is waging against this country. Would the courts interpose the doctrine of political questions to prevent the peddlers of smut from stripping that Amendment of its validity if they had the evidence that Bill Benson produced against the 16th Amendment?
Or imagine that this new Amendment allowed or even required the states to ban abortion, uh! God forbid! Would the courts energize the doctrine of political questions to suction the abortions out of the courtroom doors?
Or imagine this new Amendment prohibited the national government from owning any wilderness areas, parks, or other lands or facilities, other than those specified in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution, and required the government to sell what it holds to the private sector. Would the courts snarl at the radical environmentalists to stop badgering the judges and instead hunt for relief from Congress?
Or imagine that this Amendment reaffirms, in utterly clear terms, that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees and protects the private ownership of all types of firearms suitable for people's militia, from handguns to fully automatic rifles and submachine guns. Would the courts unholster the doctrine of political questions to shoot down the lawsuits of the gun control fanatics? Would Rosie O'Donnell be told to go to Congress, or some other place where she ought to go? [Audience laughter and applause]
Could anyone here believe for one minute, for one second, that in each of these situations, the Establishment's courts would not leap into the legal fray and declare any of these supposed Amendments invalid, notwithstanding all the arguments about political questions that the proponents of the Amendments might make? Well, I leave that you, that's rather self-evident.
Now, let's look at the Department of Justice, so-called. If judges are responsible for whatever injustices are being perpetrated under the 16th Amendment because the courts serve as the venues for prosecutions, certain people of the Department of Justice, perhaps even more culpable, because they bring those persecutions in the first instance. Now, doubtlessly, the government attorneys involved in the initial cases in which was introduced evidence from "The Law That Never Was," reported all of this back to their superiors. Then what did they, their colleagues, and their superiors do? Well, there's a division in the Department of Justice that decides whether or not to pursue each and every income tax prosecution, at least that used to be the law. In making those decisions in the cases that followed publication of "The Law That Never Was," did the responsible officials or the prosecuting attorneys or anyone else in that bureaucratic rabbit warren investigate the invalidity of the 16th Amendment? Did the Attorney General, who is ultimately responsible for everything that transpires in the Department of Justice, do anything?
If they did, what did they do? What did they discover? What did they determine? If it was that the 16th Amendment was validly ratified, why has someone at the Department of Justice not communicated this conclusion in eighteen point type to the American people, so the matter could finally be closed? What would cause the people in that department to keep such a congenial conclusion secret? Surely not their personal self-interests, or the self-interests of the political machinery in they are the cogs.
On the other hand, if they did not investigate, why not? Did they act then? Are they acting now, in reckless disregard of what an investigation would prove? Well now, you know most of these machinskies are attorneys. They're members of the bar, and officers of the courts. As such, they have certain ethical, believe it or not, they have certain ethical obligations, in addition to the legal responsibilities that their bureaucratic positions impose on them.
Now, those of you who are attorneys or might have had the misfortune to deal with attorneys, should ponder the following little scenario that I've drawn up, and the questions that might be used at what we lawyers call "a continuing legal education seminar on lawyers' ethics." And here's the scenario. Attorney Shyster represents a major corporation that has a number of lawsuits being threatened and prosecuted against it. During the first of these cases that goes to trial, the CEO of Shyster's client provides him with a document that, the CEO says, will win the case. Well, dutifully Shyster introduces the document as evidence. Over the opposing party's objection, Judge Goofball accepts it. On the basis of this evidence, Shyster's client prevails. Later, information comes to Shyster showing that the supposed evidence is, or very well may be, in fact, false, and perhaps even fraudulent.
Question. Does Shyster have an ethical obligation to investigate the matter?
Question. Until that investigation is completed, has been completed, may Shyster ethically introduce the document in other trials, simply because Judge Goofball was possibly deceived in the first trial by Shyster himself?
Question. What if the CEO of Shyster's client orders Shyster not to investigate, but to cover up the whole matter, and to continue to use the phony evidence in other trials? Should Shyster refuse or merely raise his fee? [Audience laughter]
Question. Would your answer to the preceding question be different if the CEO also promises to use his political influence to see that Shyster is appointed to a Federal judgeship?
Well, one need not be an expert in legal ethics or even a lawyer to know how to answer these questions, especially the last one. But the question is really, which way should they be answered?
Well now, let's take a look at Congress. Congress's responsibility for this state of affairs is multi-fold.
Number one. Congress originally accepted Philander Knox's certification that the 16th Amendment had been validly ratified, without, as far as we know, any legislative investigation of the accuracy or good-faith of his certification. Correct? Didn't even look at it! Well if this was culpable negligence at that time, is open to debate. No longer arguable is that such uncritical acceptance today sinks to a level far below mere negligence.
Second. Based on its original uncritical acceptance of the 16th Amendment, since 1913 Congress has enacted numerous income tax statutes and licensed the IRS to promulgate countless regulations under color of which trillions of dollars of wealth have been extracted from the American people, and who can say how many individuals have been fine, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized and punished for violating various code provisions or regulations. This looting and persecution continues unabated, not only within Congress's view, and not only to its financial benefit, but also with its acquiescence, approval, and no less than aid and comfort.
For point three, Congress has always enjoined the constitutional power, and faced with the documentation that the 16th Amendment was not lawfully ratified, has the constitutional duty to initiate an inquiry into the legal basis for the present income tax statutes and regulations,.it doesn't need Bill Benson to petition it. Doesn't need this group of people to meet here. It's always had that responsibility and that power. And not in some vaguely theoretical way either. Because court after court, in the last few years, has actually held, not merely suggested, that whether the 16th Amendment was validly ratified, is a political question for Congress alone to decide. So the Judiciary has officially dumped this issue in the Legislature's lap. And every American knows how punctilious and scrupulous Congress is in following Judicial decisions.
Which brings me to point four. If Congress would've determined that officials in the Judicial and Executive branches of the government have convicted and imprisoned innocent individuals under color of tax statutes, notwithstanding that those officials were on notice, and knew, or should have known, of the invalidity of the 16th Amendment, then it seems that Congress would be at least morally required to impeach and remove from office each and everyone of those officials, preliminary to the imposition of more drastic punishments.
Well, Congress has done none of those things either. That brings us to the Secretary of State. Now the present Secretary of State, and I should backtrack one step. The law has changed. The Secretary of State no longer certifies the ratification of constitutional amendments. But, in this particular case, I believe the present Secretary of State, the sitting Secretary of State, retains responsibility because her predecessor, Philander Knox, certified the 16th Amendment had been validly ratified. And if Knox's act under color of his position of Secretary was erroneous, or worse yet, fraudulent, it would appear legally incumbent, as well as morally compulsive, upon Knox's successor in office, to correct the error or expose the fraud, because that really was an error of the Department of State. Of course, nothing being there. . . being done there now, the present Secretary of State is more interested in bombing wogs and fuzzy wuzzys in foreign countries than in dealing with issues of freedom of the American people.
Well, that brings us to the President, (Bill Clinton) or as they like to say, this President [audience laughter], to distinguish him from all the other Presidents [more laughter], for whatever reason may strike your fancy, this President.
On entering his office, even this President swore or affirmed that he, quote "will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," and it may be true that he's doing it to the best of his ability [audience laughter and applause]. Because if Congress won't call him a perjurer, I certainly don't want to. And among this President's duties is the requirement that, quote, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." No doubt depending on what he thinks "faithfully" means [audience laughter], because we know how he interprets that word in other contexts [more laughter].
How can anyone fulfill these mandates who does not know, or worse yet, does not care what the Constitution actually prescribes? So, now that the President does know, along with everyone else in the global village, for which we can thank Al Gore, right? [audience laughter]. As long as he knows that the ratification of the 16th Amendment may have been false or fraudulent, his duties should be diligently to inquire into the matter so that he could be sure of what the laws are, that he must take care to faithfully execute. And while the investigation proceeds, he could also order the Department of Justice not to prosecute any more criminal income tax cases, let them be put on hold, for heaven's sakes. And he could even pardon those people who were convicted while the courts and everyone else in positions of authority in the Federal apparatus refused to address this issue. He could, be he isn't, and he hasn't, and he won't.
Well, that brings us to the states. Glory be, the 10th Amendment, the states. The states that claimed to Secretary of State Knox that they had ratified the 16th Amendment obviously share an especially weighty responsibility for everything that has transpired since 1913. Partly because they, perhaps more than anyone else, are, or should be aware of the many manifest and arguably fatal deficiencies of their supposed ratifications. So now that this question has been squarely presented, the Legislatures of those states should conduct their own investigations into the sufficiency of their ratifications. And perhaps their courts should entertain lawsuits to test that sufficiency. Moreover, what about those three solitary states, the three musketeers of constitutionalism, that refused to ratify the 16th Amendment? Connecticut, the Constitution state. Rhode Island, where they had the first incendiary tax protest, they burned the Gasby, British tax schooner.
And Utah. Rhode Island, where they had the first incendiary tax protest, they burned the Gasby, British tax schooner. And Utah. Those states could bring an action in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, attacking the faulty ratification of the Amendment. And this would have the inestimable value of forcing the "gang of nine" to take a public position, that they will obviously never do because they will always deny writs of certiorari in any of these tax cases that come up through the lower courts.
So, in sum, much could be done by many doers with legal and moral responsibility for doing something who all have some power to do it. But, in fact, nothing has been done by the Judiciary, except to dodge the issue as a political question. And nothing has been done in any way, shape, or form, by Congress, the Department of Justice, Secretary of the State, the President or the states. Now were this a matter, not of constitutional law, which is one of my areas of interest, but of labor law, which is another of my areas of interest, I might draw the conclusion that I would have to identify all of these political deadbeats as charter members of Local Number One of the Shirkers, Snivelers, Shovel-Leaners, and Standers-By International Union [audience laughter and applause]. Any of you who have teen-age or near teen-age children know about that union because I think children sign up for that at birth, alright. Try to get them to do anything around the house.
Or, if this were a matter of criminal law, which in the fulness of time it may yet become, the conclusion would be that as government officials, these people knowingly, intentionally and wilfully have enforced an arguably invalid Amendment with reckless disregard of its invalidity and therefore should be held criminally liable as violators of American civil rights [audience applause]. Title 18, United States Code, section 241, seems to have been written with them in mind. Perhaps more interestingly, though, to me at least, is to view this spectacle through the lens of political science, or political philosophy. I don't think this is much a matter of legal craft as it is of soul craft, if you know my meaning.
The failure to act on the part of all of these individuals in high office for so many decades, and especially during the last fifteen years, during which they have been on repeated notice of the documentation compiled in "The Law That Never Was," must have had some reason other than mere sloth. For, according to their own press releases, and their political propaganda, these people are the very best and the brightest of all Americans. They are uniquely qualified by their intellects, their experiences, their motivations, their qualities of leadership, ad nauseam, to fill the highest offices of the land. That's why they run for office, for heaven's sakes! And surely, political psychology tells us that the most plausible reason for the inactivity of such men and women must be their own self-interest, which, no doubt, they know better than anything else.
Now, the American people must ask themselves, "What is the self-interest of political officials sworn to support this Constitution, to preserve and protect the Constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, what is the self-interest of those individuals who would maintain this country in subservience to an income tax Amendment they know, should know, and have every good reason to know, was never ratified, and is therefore not part of the Constitution, and not a law, to be faithfully executed or even to be executed in any way, shape or form?"
Clearly, it is not the self-interest of true and honest agents of average American men and women. For in no rational sense could such deceitful and disloyal officials, behaving in such a lawless manner, be considered the people's representatives. Then who or what have they been representing all of these years? And more to the present purpose, who or what are they representing now?
Realistic political science teaches that there are two, and only two, kinds of government. One, is what the ancient Romans called, "a race publica," a public thing, a government for the people. Not necessarily a democracy, because ancient Rome was not a democracy. And not necessarily a republic, because the ancient Romans from time to time appointed dictators, with good reason. And one can even imagine an aristocracy or a monarchy that would put the public interest, the general welfare, the common good of every citizen, ahead of all narrow special interests. Well that's one form of government.
The other is a government of, by, and for a self-selected, self-perpetuating, crew of elitists. This is not "a race publica," a public thing. It is La Cosa Nostra, "our thing." [audience laughter and applause]. That is, gangster government. And such is precisely the nature of what passes for the government today in Washington. And in the states, and the counties, and the cities. It's just a different 'family,' depending on where you are.
This explains what is going on with the 16th Amendment far better than any legal mumbo jumbo such as the doctrine of political questions. America's gangster government does not give a rotten fig what the law actually is. Because law is just a camouflage, or a cover story, for the gang's looting and oppression of the rest of society [audience applause]. America's gangster government operates under what it's legal mouthpieces called a "living Constitution." That is, a Constitution, the meaning of which depends on the interests of the big shots who happen to be living [audience laughter], and who pull the legislative and judicial strings.
So, America's gangster government can function perfectly well under Constitutional Amendments that were never ratified. Because whether an Amendment was ratified is far less important than whether it can be enforced. And I remind you of the wisdom . . . the man was not a Sicilian, he was a Neapolitan, but he had tremendous wisdom in this area . . . Alphonse Capone, one of the great political philosophers in American history [audience laughter]. He said "You can go a long way in life with a smile, but you can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun." [audience laughter]. It's what you can enforce.
Now, what is the point, I might even ask what is the rationality of asking a gangster government, or particular gangsters in the government, to investigate and pass judgment on their own wrongdoing? Do you not already know what they will say? And whatever they say, will you believe them? Do you believe what they have told you about the Oklahoma City bombing? Do you believe what they've told you about Waco? About TWA flight 800? About Mena, Miny, and Mo? [audience laughter]. Well, that raises another question, though. What can common Americans do about this gangster government? After all, it is the government! And it's much more dangerous precisely because it's composed of gangsters.
Well, that's true. But also, this is a government around which hangs the smell of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials, which set the precedent for prosecution of gangster governments. Looting a whole country for generations under color of an unratified Constitutional Amendment, constitutes a crime against the people, if anything does. That this crime is being committed by individuals who happen to hold official positions in the government, Nuremburg and Tokyo tell us, does not attenuate its criminality or immunize its perpetrators. But with all due deference to Dostoyevsky, crime is one thing, and punishment is another. And these criminals will never be punished until they are first pulled from office by an educated, disgusted, and incensed electorate [audience applause]. But to strip them of their offices, they must first be tried, and that in the court of public opinion, which is the only tribunal now sitting that will give these charges a fair hearing.
So, in what I call "the program of the four I's," Investigate, Inculpate, Indict, Incarcerate, [audience laughter] the first and most important step must be investigation. The machinery of investigation should center around a Citizen's Constitutional Investigatory Commission, composed of legal scholars, historians, other qualified individuals who are capable of assessing and arriving at correct conclusions from pertinent evidence. This Commission, however, must not seek any governmental direction, assistance, or other involvement. Public officials may appear before it as witnesses, and indeed many should be summoned to testify and to submit documentary evidence. But otherwise, no public official should be allowed to participate in such a Commission's work, as any such connection would raise insoluble conflicts of interest.
The Commission should be empowered to investigate at least four issues.
First, whether the 16th Amendment was validly ratified in 1913. That will require an in- depth analysis of all the materials that have been collected in "The Law That Never Was" and whatever else can be assembled and all of the circumstances that led to the generation of those materials.
Second, if the Commission determines that the alleged 16th Amendment was not validly ratified, the Commission should then determine whether a tax on incomes from individual's labor, professions, wages, and salaries, is a direct tax or an excise tax, as those terms are used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, of the Constitution. That's because, as one of the speakers pointed out earlier today, there is some dispute among the government, and also among constitutional scholars, as to what kind of tax an income tax is. And we're going to cover all the bases, or this Commission should cover all the bases. So such an investigation will entail an in-depth analysis of direct and indirect taxes in English and American Colonial law in the century or so preceding the War of Independence and ratification of the Constitution. Because we want to know what those words meant in 1789, not what they mean today to somebody in the Department of Justice or the Internal Revenue Service.
Third, if a tax on individual income from labor is held to be an excise by the Commission, then the Commission should determine an issue that was also broached earlier this morning, whether such a tax constitutes a badge or incidence of slavery or involuntary servitude, and is therefore unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment. I won't go into this in great detail, but you figure it out. The premise of this tax is that the tax is generated by labor, labor creates this tax. And the tax is taken, in principle, directly from the labor. Which, of course, to the government, has no value except in so far as it produces the wealth that can expropriated. This is precisely the master-slave theory of wealth generation. And I think if one went back to the antebellum American and Colonial literature, you would find a great deal of information on that subject which would verify that interpretation. In any event, that particular issue has to be settled.
And, finally, if the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified, if a tax on incomes from individual labor is a direct tax, or if such a tax is a badge or incident of slavery, then the Commission should determine why officials in all branches of the national government have enforced this tax since 1913, and in particular, why they have done so since publication of "The Law That Never Was" and all the litigation on the findings in that book brought in public view this issue.
One important aspect of such a Commission's work, would be a comprehensive search for documentary evidence, Federal and state Freedom of Information Acts could be used, national archives, state archives, Presidential libraries, compilations of papers of public figures that are maintained in universities, and so forth and so on, all of those need to be searched.
Another important aspect of the work must be public hearings, hopefully to be held in various places throughout the country, during which testimony will be taken and documentary evidence submitted. This, not only for the Commission's immediate work, but for the purpose of educating people in the various locales about what's going on and what these issues are.
And eventually the Commission should publish it's findings, together with all testimony and documentary evidence suitably printed and bound, what, forty, fifty, sixty, a hundred, volumes, right? Reminds me of that wonderful work that was produced in 1945-46, "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression," we could almost use that title. These materials then should be presented immediately to Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Legislatures of the several states that were involved in the ratification of the 16th Amendment. If the Commission's findings establish the tax on individual income from labor is unconstitutional, each of these governmental recipients should be instructed to take appropriate action. Now, you note that the word I use is "instructed." Not, asked, petitioned, begged, or implored. For, faced with findings that the income tax is unconstitutional, theirs will be the constitutional duty to act. I presume, however, being something of a cynic, . . . you know people often call me a pessimist. And I like to ask then, you know, what's the definition of a pessimist? A pessimist is an optimist who knows the facts [audience laughter]. I've been in this business a while. And it gets dirtier the deeper you dig. So, I presume, that no matter what findings are presented to these public officials, they will not disestablish the individual income tax on their own, anymore than they would disestablish the Federal Reserve system, simply because someone such as myself proves that the constitutional dollar is a silver coin, not a piece of paper [audience applause]. Or any more than they will give up their fantastic dreams for a New World Order simply because the Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as a nation among nations, not as as a trophy of some global empire [audience applause].
Rather, I anticipate that they will do everything within their power to obstruct, obfuscate, and delay, if not derail entirely, the Commission's investigation, and then to criticize, belittle, and ridicule the Commission's findings. Because, let's face the facts, the income tax is one of the major props of the power structure. Enough said! At that point, though, finally armed with the whole truth on one side, and face to face with the political classes' intransigence on the other, the American people will be forced to decide whether they are sheep or men, whether they can mount a grass-roots political movement to throw these elitists out of office once and for all and reassert self-government in this country, or accept the other alternative.
It will be very interesting to see what happens. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen [audience applause].
[Bob Schulz' initial comment upon returning to podium] Well, I have a list of heroes. The list just got a little longer. Thank you very much Ed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)