Martial Law in America Today

Awareness of the fact that there are two distinct classes of citizenship in America is growing, but unfortunately most of the information out there is factually incorrect to varying degrees regarding the *basis* of citizenship.

Most people who are learning about citizenship know that there was a particular status of Citizenship created and established in the 1775-1789 period, and that a second status of citizen was created by the federal government later, and that this is the "citizen" referred to in the fourteenth amendment, ratified (at least allegedly) in 1868. The problem is that most people still don't understand, in a legal and technical sense, how or why this is so. To understand this basis we have to go back to the period when our dual constitutional system was formed.

There were originally, as we all know, thirteen states which by 1790 all united under the federal constitution proposed to them in 1787. Through the Civil War an additional twenty-two states (the act of congress admitting West Virginia was passed December 31st, 1862, although it didn't go into effect until June of 1863) were admitted, for a total of 35. While the war was still raging and everyone was distracted, the federal government created, in the same physical space as the existing 35 states, 35 "federal States." These "States" had the same names and the same physical boundaries as the real 35, so, apparently, the general public didn't notice the changeover. However, you can't really have two states in the same place. When the law says that something is true which isn'ttrue (such as two states being in the same physical place), it's called a legal fiction. So there was now the union of the 35 states, and the new union of the 35 legal fiction "States" (it's far more complicated than this; this is just a very brief overview). For the sake of convenience, they will be referred to here as "states(1)" and the "States(2)." Over the years, from 1864 through 1959, the federal government added another fifteen States(2) into this second union, so that it now totals 50.

The reason why there are two classes of citizens is because there are two classes of states. There are, in contemplation of law, Citizens of the 35 states(1) respectively, and citizens of the 50 States(2) respectively.

This fact was discovered working backwards. Realizing that modern law doesn't refer to the same "states" that we had back in 1789, from there it was just a matter of tracing the existence of the States(2) back to their origin. Here are just a few of the differences between the states(1) from before the war, and the States(2) from after the war:

1. Up until the Civil War, the term "United States," when used geographically, was always used in the plural. Since the war, it has always been used in the singular.

2. Up through 1862, whenever congress wanted to extend a federal law to the district of Columbia and the territories, as well as the states(1), they'd write "the United States and their territories." Since the term "United States" was only the collective name of the states(1), the territories needed to be separately mentioned.

3. Beginning in 1864, a new form of expression has been used in the laws, which now say that the terms "state" and "United States" include the district of Columbia and the territories. Those places were always within federal jurisdiction, which is also called the "United States." This helped reveal the conclusion that the "states" that have been referred to since no later than 1864 are also within federal jurisdiction.

4. Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the states(1) and federal jurisdiction ("United States") were foreign nations to one another. Since the war, the courts have always ruled that the "states" aren not foreign to federal jurisdiction. This would be true, of course, if the "states" referred to were in fact within federal jurisdiction.

5. Prior to the war, the courts ruled that the states(1) were *nations*, subject to the law of nations and therefore members of the family of nations. Since the war, the courts have ruled that the States(2) are subdivisions of federal jurisdiction, that they have no attributes of nationality, and that their power comes from the federal constitution. What else could these States(2) be other than federal entities?

6. Since the states(1) and federal jurisdiction were separate nations, the courts of the former couldn not be compelled to execute the laws of the latter. If they chose to do so, it was a matter of comity - the courtesy among nations. Since the war, the courts have ruled that the States(2) must execute all federal laws (except penal laws).

7. Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the allegiance which the people had to the federal government was derived from their state(1) Citizenship. After the war, the fourteenth amendment was adopted (at least allegedly), and the courts have ruled that it declares that people owe complete, direct, and immediate allegiance to the federal government first, and their "state" citizenship is secondary. The basis of this amendment is that the "states" referred to are within federal jurisdiction - the 50 States(2).

8. The power to draft is based on citizenship. Prior to the war the federal government never had, and never claimed, the power to draft into the regular army, but only to out the state(1) militias. Beginning with the war, the federal government has drafted people into its armies, and done so on the basis that they were its citizens.

9. Since the federal government was a foreign power with respect to the states(1), and could only come within their borders to execute the few governmental powers granted to it, it never had or claimed the power to take land by eminent domain. If the federal government wanted land, the state(1) had to take it under its eminent domain power, and then transfer ownership to it. Since the war, the federal government has exercised eminent domain over land itself, and on the basis that the States(2) are within its territory.

10. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, which was published before the war, said that a "state," within the meaning of the federal constitution, was "one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America." Every edition of Black's Law Dictionary (which was first published in 1891) says that a "state" is, "One of the component commonwealths *OR* states of the United States of America." It is identifying two classes of states: 1. Component commonwealths, and 2. States of the United States of America. The former is the old terminology from before the war. Since that expression identifies all of them (and not just the four states[1] that use the term 'commonwealth' in their official title), the "states of the United States of America" referred to must be identifying different "states" altogether.

The research for the origins of the States(2) ultimately led to the year 1863. I found that congress, through sections 4 and 5 of the Enrollment Act of March 3rd, 1863 (12 Stat. 731, et seq.) created military districts under a form of martial law, and I later, through a local congressman, received information from the Congressional Research Service showing, beyond all reasonable doubt, that section these sections were never repealed. Section 4 creates the districts, and section 5 assigns a provost-marshal to each of them. The 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary gives the following in its definition of 'Provost- Marshal': "In military law, the officer acting as the head of the military police of any post, camp, city of other place in military occupation, or district under the reign of martial law." Interestingly, this act is also the first one, at least that I'm aware of, that uses the term "United States" in the singular, and it is also the first one to refer to the district of Columbia and the territories as being within the "United States."

This was only the beginning. Since the Civil War many other laws and governmental-type agencies have come along to further separate us from our rights, such as the Federal Reserve (private control of the money supply), FDA (no health freedom), Emergency War Powers (more military jurisdiction imposed upon citizens and constitutional provisions suspended), income tax (control of property and business), NSA/CIA/DIA (speaks for itself), just to name a few. I realize that those who believe in the power structure, who believe in Clinton/Dole/Powell etc. won't like what I'm saying, but I feel compelled to rely on facts, not faith in the system. For those of us who do want freedom, I see, potentially, a great opportunity in positioning ourselves in the states(1).