SUPPORTING BRIEF #4: LIMITATIONS OF FEDERAL POWER - THE DRED SCOTT DECISION OF 1857, Page 3
*********************************************************************
Let us now turn our attention to the question of status. One may not realize it, but their are only two main categories of status in America. A maxim of law states that:
Omnes homines aut liberi sunt aut servi. All men are freemen or slaves.
Mr. Justice McLean, in his dissenting opinion in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 16 How 393, 531 clarified what term was synonymous with the term "freeman". He stated: : "Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make him a citizen. The most general and appropriate definition of the term 'citizen' is a 'freeman.'"
There are a wide variety of statuses in America today such as "taxpayer", "independent contractor", "employee", "employer", etc..
However, all these types of statuses are merely subsidiaries of the main two types of status. They must either be subsidiaries of the status of "citizen" or that of "slave." There is no middle ground. One cannot at the same time be a citizen and also be bound to servitude.
It is also interesting to note that both Washington and Lincoln addressed the people as "Friends and Fellow Citizens". Today, the President addresses the people as "My Fellow Americans". What happened to the citizens?
It is a logical conclusion that for any type of slavery or involuntary servitude to exist in a country, there must first be labor. The slaveholders of the South were very direct on this point when it came to their slaves. For example, Albert Taylor Bledsoe, who was Professor of Mathematics at the University of Virginia, stated the following on page 314 of Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments (Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis, Augusta, Ga., 1860): "...the master claims only a right to the labor and lawful obedience of the slave..." He further stated on the same page that slavery "is merely the transfer of a right to labor." It is crucial that we keep this thought in mind that the very essence of slavery is labor.
Many are aware that, when it comes to filing and paying income tax, the government takes the position that it is your duty to pay your fair share. However, let us ask ourselves a question: Fair share of what? The vast majority of people in America are those that labor in the workplace. Most people's sole livelihood is based on the compensation they are paid for their labor. Just what does compensation paid for labor represent? Perhaps Abraham Lincoln can clarify this issue. He stated:
"Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn... That there is a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does exist, and rightfully exist, I think is true. That men who are industrious and sober and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after awhile accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also if they choose, when they have accumulated it, to use it to save themselves from actual labor, and hire other people to labor for them, is right. In doing so, they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men who have not their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are benefitted by working for others- hired laborers, receiving their capital (money) for it. Thus a few men that own capital hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital and labor rightfully- a relation of which I make no complaint." The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln (The Tandy-Thomas Co., N.Y., 1905), Vol. V pp. 229-230.
The matter should be obvious. Money paid for labor represents the fruits of labor. The government claiming that we have a duty to pay our fair share is but a more sophisticated manner of saying they want to exercise power over your labor. It is a clever and ingenious way of invoking the doctrine of divine right of kings.
If all government wanted was revenue, there would be no need to coerce people into filing and paying income tax on the fruits of their labor. The Constitution allows the federal government to tax commerce as extensively as it desires. What this would do is pass taxation on to the laboring class in the form of consumers. In other words, when you spend the money you are paid for your labor in the grocery store, department store, auto parts store, etc., you would pay your "fair share" of tax. Collecting taxes in this manner would be far more efficient and compliance would be at or near 100%. After all, if you want to eat bread and have all of the other necessities of life, you will spend the money you are paid for your labor to buy these things. In addition, the cost of tax collecting would be far less since the massive IRS bureaucracy would be eliminated or significantly reduced.
Then why is it that the federal government wants to coerce people into filing and paying income tax on the fruits of their labor? The answer is simply one of control. It is established in law that what the government can tax it can control. (see: Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pa., 319 US 105.) There is absolutely no reason to reduce the laboring class of people in America to a condition of servitude for the purposes of revenue when the revenue could be collected far more efficiently by taxing commerce.
The Dred Scott decision can be used as a barometer to determine the status of an individual who labors. When the IRS arbitrarily attempts to despoil you of your compensation for labor (usually around 30%), ask yourself a question: Does your labor truly belong to you? Consider the following maxim.
Non videtur perfecte cujusque id esse, quod ex casu auferri potest. That does not truly belong to anyone which can be taken from him upon occasion. Dig. 50 17. 159. 1.
Justice Curtis, in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case stated:
"The status of slavery is not necessarily always attended with the same powers on the part of the master. The master is subject to the supreme power of the State, whose will controls his action towards his slave, and this control must be defined and regulated by the municipal law. In one State, as at one period of the Roman law, it may put the life of the slave into the hand of the master; others, as those of the United States, which tolerate slavery, may treat the slave as a person when the master takes his life; while in others, the law may recognize the right of a slave to be protected from cruel treatment. In other words, the status of slavery embraces every condition, from that in which the slave is known to the law simply as a chattel, with no civil rights, to that in which he is recognized as a person for all purposes, save the compulsory power of directing and receiving the fruits of his labor. Which of these conditions shall attend the status of slavery, must depend on the municipal law which creates and upholds it." Dred Scott v. Sanford, 16 How. 393, 624-625.
Two points should be noted here. First, we can clearly see that the status of slavery is created by the force of law. Second, the slave is under compulsory power that directs and controls him so that the master may receive the fruits of his labor.
Let us now firmly establish that labor is property and what secures the right to labor.
"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'- that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement- 'that all men are endowed'- not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights'- that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime- 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'- not grant them, but secure them- 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing his strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him, as it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper'" Butcher's Union, Etc., Co. v. Crescent City, Etc., Co., 111 US 746, S. Ct. Rptr., pp. 660-661.
Thus, we can see that it is by not the edicts of Emperors or by Acts of Congress that the people have a right to labor, it is an inalienable right from the Creator of the Universe. Anyone who tramples on this most sacred property right of the people spits straight into the eye of God and man.
Just where is it that the federal government thinks it gets the constitutional authority to use its tax laws to despoil the people of the fruits of their labor? In addition, what constitutional authority is there in the federal government to govern within the States at their own pleasure? The fact is, there is no constitutional authority vested in the federal government for either object. They are simply gaining power over the States and the people through coercion in violation of the Constitution. Such a thing makes a mockery of the law.
Justice McLean, in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott decision, brought out the fact that using coercion to gain power over an individual makes a mockery of the law. He stated:
"There is no evidence before us that Dred Scott and his family returned to Missouri voluntarily.... It would be a mockery of law and an outrage on his rights to coerce his return, and then claim it was voluntary, and on that ground that his former status of slavery attached." Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393, 559-560.
Let us now consider the simple statement made by Chief Justice
Warren in the case of Flora v. U.S., 362 US 145 at page 647 of the 80 S. Ct. Rptr.. He stated:
"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint (force)."
Myself, as I'm sure is the case of many other people, knew absolutely nothing about the fact there was anything voluntary about filing and paying income tax on their labor when they first began working. To capitalize and exploit the ignorance of people to despoil them of the fruits of their labor is pure, unbridled coercion. It makes a mockery of the law and is an outrage on the rights of the people.
The problem with the servitude imposed upon the people today is that it comes straight from the top. All of the justices in the Dred Scott decision were unanimous that any form of slavery was sanctioned by the force of law. In fact, Justice Wayne, in his concurring opinion in the Dred Scott decision, pointed out that Congress had absolutely no constitutional authority to abolish or establish slavery within the States. And this was before the 13th Amendment became part of the Constitution! None of the departments of the federal government can impose involuntary servitude upon a citizen of this country, period. It is beyond the powers of the federal government, even without the 13th Amendment. To do such a thing, in effect, robs the individual of their citizen status and replaces their citizen status with that of a slave.
Another issue that bears repeating is the effect upon the States by the federal government governing at their own pleasure within the States. Article IV, § 3 of the Constitution states:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
This constitutional provision was placed in the Constitution as a barrier against Congress from continuing to legislate in the State when it ceased to be a territory and was admitted as a State. The Constitution vests absolutely no power in the federal government to govern over the labor of the people at their own pleasure in the States.
However, we are all aware that the Constitution is termed today as a "living and breathing Constitution". However, I find it hard to swallow this doctrine. How can the Constitution "live and breathe" when violence is done to its provisions? For instance, let's say you aren't feeling well and go to the doctor for an examination. The doctor, upon examining you, engages in blood-letting and gives you a bottle of strychnine for medicine and says, "call me in the morning". How long would a person "live and breathe" under such circumstances?
The involuntary servitude that is being imposed upon the people by the federal government has been kept hidden for many years and is only now surfacing. The reason for this is not hard to figure out. According to the Social Security Act of 1935, taxation imposed upon the labor of the people was only supposed to peak at 3% in 1949. If the servitude had actually peaked at this level and stayed there, I doubt anyone would complain. However, social legislation can create a monster that can get out of control. This is what happened to Germany over many decades that saw her degenerate into a totalitarian state under the National Socialists. Social legislation invariably creates a planned economy, in that, the whole resources of society must be used to accomplish the redistribution of the national income to make the social goals reality. It is not the High Road to Freedom but it is the High Road to Servitude. It has gotten to the point in America that the laboring class must be subjected to a condition of involuntary servitude to support the other classes that are counting on the promise of social welfare. Many people may not feel the effects of the servitude much right now, but how will they feel when their labor is despoiled at the rate of 50% or 60%? The trend had been continually upwards and will continue in this direction as long as the people remain indifferent and apathetic to the great political and legal issues facing the country. The politicians will not relinquish their power as long as the people do nothing.
When an individual is reduced to a state of involuntary servitude, the status of citizen does not apply, but the status of slave attaches. When the status of slave attaches to an individual, the marriage bond becomes a nullity.
"If, in Missouri, the plaintiff were held to be a slave, the validity and operation of his contract of marriage must be denied. He can have no legal rights; of course, not those of a husband and father. And the same is true of his wife and children. The denial of his rights is a denial of theirs. So that, though lawfully married in the Territory, when they came out of it, into the State of Missouri, they were no longer husband and wife; and a child of that lawful marriage, though born under the same dominion where the parents contracted the lawful marriage, is not the fruit of that marriage, nor the child of its father, but subject to the maxim. partus sequitur ventrem. supra., 599-600. (The maxim means: the offspring follow the condition of the mother)