Supreme Court Justice: “Two national governments exist"

I just read this quote on another forum, is it true?

The real Constitution that was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion:

“Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution,
with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and
Independently of that Instrument”

a reply to: wasaka

A few years back I came across a series of podcasts where they actually talked about this very subject .It was alien to me at the time but what the main guy was talking about seem to make sense and quite believable . I may have a search to see if I can link to it . Washington DC =District of Columbia as one of the three city states in the world and how it all filtered back to the Vatican through the EX-checker via the city in London .... Had America really have gained their independence then the King of England at the time would not have dictated the terms of the Treaty or the agreement which ever it was .....peace

I think the idea started with the soverign citizen movement and has a website now: dev.republicoftheunitedstates.org

But I don't think any of what they purport will stand in a court of law in the USA, so I would tread carefully.

I think they want to create their own form of grand jury to appoint people to positions within their new US government system they are creating and somehow that will become the ruling power in the states.

Their original declaration is available here (scroll down to bottom): politicalprof.tumblr.com

This short vid may give you a lead as to what and where to look deeper into the subject .

Yes he is absolutely correct!

You do consent to being governed by the "De Facto" US federal government simply by being a citizen. Its tacit consent and until you formally withdraw your consent you are subject to Congress under all laws since the 14th amendment.

I didn't read any of the links as I'm sure they are going to mislead you.

Look into People's Awareness Coalition, what the founder helps people do is discover the facade and fix it. He wrote a book back in '98 and is completely at odds with sovereign citizens and other freedom movements.

The hardest part of this whole process for people is you can not have a loan or or any other federal ties.

a reply to: IncognitoGhostman

The only real problem is that those legal theories have so far been rejected by the courts of the USA.

wikipedia
scholar.google.com

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: IncognitoGhostman

The only real problem is that those legal theories have so far been rejected by the courts of the USA.

wikipedia
scholar.google.com

no they have not!

They are not theories they are facts in law. It all is because of the 14th amendment. I am not talking about sovereign citizen crap, that will get you in trouble. His methods are 100% recognized by the US State Depth and al 50 State Attorney Generals.

I suggest you check out the link I provided, look through the links or Bette yet buy the book.

a reply to: wasaka

Isn't that what is call the Shadow government? that is well and alive and very much in power as of today.

a reply to: IncognitoGhostman

Thank you for the links. I went through the web sight but I hate when you have to pay. If It was free and it really worked it would go viral and change things really fast. Its like those spiritual holy gurus. They say its truth and better etc.. but they always charge. Things can be true information and such but why charge. This money is the beast and is ruining Mankind as a hole but thats another thread. I will still try to look into it more.

The case they are citing, Downes v. Bidwell, is actually about the legal status of US Territories and citizens — or in the case of American Samoa, American nationals — residing in them and their rights and protections under the Constitution. I know this because it was brought up on a segment John Oliver did which inspired me to do some research. I was going to do a complete thread about it (and still might) but here's the video from John Oliver:



It's a disgrace that US Territories are not properly represented in Congress and that citizens residing there are unable to vote for President. Sad and ironic given our own origins as colonies and the reasoning was basically that "alien races" would not be able to understand our "Anglo-Saxon" laws.

EDIT:

For those who aren't sold on watching the video, here's a few depressing facts regarding just one territory, Guam:

- About 27% of Guam's landmass is occupied with military bases
- 1 in 8 adult Guamanians are veterans
- A higher percentage of the population of Guam turns out for the non-binding Presidential straw poll than Americans residing in states do for the actual election (67% vs 61.8%). Let that sink in.

A very important element that has to be taken into consideration is the Royal Proclamation of 1763 . Be aware also that some of the official statements about it by our govt's are ambiguous and misleading .

Royal Proclamation of 1763

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III to establish a basis of government administration in the North American territories formally ceded by France to Britain in the Treaty of Paris, 1763, following the Seven Years War. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca...

France never had title to North America so there was no ceding of title . Try and track down the original wording and when you get to the Native/Indian part pause and try and understand what is being said .

originally posted by: wasaka
I just read this quote on another forum, is it true?

The quote from the Supreme Court justice has been doctored. He was summarizing an argument, not stating something he viewed as fact.

The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments at the bar-that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution.
...
It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.

He goes on like that at some length. In any case, the dispute was over the interpretation of the Constitution, which would be difficult, or at least irrelevant, if the Constitution had been "dormant" for 40 years.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

a reply to: Prisoner60863

I totally understand how you feel about charging for this. The information you can find on the website is enough to complete the process of expatriation. That information is basic though and you would have to dig deeper on your own. all you really have to pay for though is the book. There is a boat load of info and cross references to outside sources grounded in law. Other than that you are paying for assistance in preparing documents to expatriate and rclaimed freedom.

I see someone mention "therepublicoftheunitedstates" if this thread is about this, you follow their advice, you will be in trouble. the founder of this group is in federal prison now. Their problem is yes they base their ideas off what PAC teaches, however, there is one major mistake. They believe you can beat the system while consenting to it simply by being a citizen. As long as you are a citizen then you must obey the laws of Congress and that of your State of residence.

There is someone on here who turned me onto this and have been researching it since for the last 3 years.
here is one of his threads and drmeola is much better explaining things than I. Martial Law Declared. he has a few threads on here trying to get people to understand these things and they've got little attention.

Remember it is hardest to get someone to see, understand, and believe the truth when they have had a lie drilled into them their whole life!

originally posted by: IncognitoGhostman
You do consent to being governed by the "De Facto" US federal government simply by being a citizen. Its tacit consent and until you formally withdraw your consent you are subject to Congress under all laws since the 14th amendment.

I do agree that the US federal government; the federal corporation as it is defined in 28 USC §3002(15)(a) and is synonymous with the District of Columbia as defined in 26 USC §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) IS 'De Facto' and not the 'de jure' government of our Republic. As for 'citizens' One must always keep in mind the two context in which the national government operates: (1) Constitutional and (2) Statutory.

(1) Men and Women born in the United States of America [the nation] and are domiciled in the exclusive jurisdiction of any of the 50 states of the Union, are: 'nationals but not citizens' under 8 USC §1101(a)(21). These are constitutional citizens aka your 14th amendment citizens.

(2) Statutory citizens are men and women domiciled within federal territory within the [geographical] United States have all of the following status' attached to them [just to name a few]:
A) 'U.S. Citizen' per 8 USC §1401
B) 'U.S. Person' per 26 USC §7701(a)(30)
C) 'Residents' (aliens) per 26 USC §7701(b)(1)(A)
D) 'Aliens' (born in foreign countries) per 8 USC §1101(a)(3)
E) 'National of the United States' per 28 USC §1101(a)(22)(A)

It is also important to remember that the term 'United States' may be used in three distinct and separate senses: (1) Describes our sovereign country comparable to all other earthly nations. (2) Designates the [federal] territory over which the federal government is sovereign. (3) Pertaining to the sovereign states of the Union united by and under the Constitution. These 'contexts' were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hooven &Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, (1945)

As for 'sovereign citizen'... That term is oxymoronic, at least in a statutory context. It also has no legal standing that I have found. Personally, I stay away from that term and the terms 'human' and 'sovereign' as well. I use 'Man' [or 'Woman'] since 'Man' is inherently sovereign and endowed 'unalienable' rights - 'unalienable' meaning not able to be sold or transferred.

The 'tacit consent' you mention is tied directly to 'domicile'... and you can easily consent to have your 'domicile' be IN Federal territory without even being present ON federal territory reference Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(b). Our government can only regulate what it creates, and it creates 'public offices' that can only be domiciled in the District of Columbia mandated by 4 USC §72. It then offers these 'offices' via government benefit 'franchises'; social security, student loans, the ACA, etc. The great thing about franchises, is you can disenfranchise at anytime. It is not simple. The 'law' will forever PRESUME your [statutory] status unless you are eternally vigilant and rebut, define and allow for NO presumptions to be made. For example; want to withdrawal from Social Security? File a SSA-521. Want to terminate fiduciary responsibility of said SSN? File IRS form 56. I have over simplified for illustrative purposes. Govt froms are notorious for presuming status, and it takes A LOT of effort (writing, defining, and rebutting) to ensure that they cannot presume anything.

The Supreme Court has noted that 'Constitutional rights do not apply to "public officers" but they do protect private conduct'. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990). Likewise, 'the ability to regulate "private conduct" is repugnant to the constitution. City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antionio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991). To tie it back to Downes v. Bidwell it was also stated that the only place in the country were Constitutional rights DO NOT EXIST and everything is a PRIVILEGE is on federal territory.

This is a very complex subject and one I personally love studying. Just wait till you realize that every state of the Union is firstly a republic [commonwealth] (See Black's Law Dictionary 6th page 1302) but has a second 'corporate' jurisdiction that includes only federal territory within the geographical border of said republic state and is generally operated under the title 'The State of ______' and that secondary jurisdiction is shared with the federal government and acts an instrumentality of the United States [Federal government] under the authorities of the Assimilated Crimes Act, the Rules of Decision Act, the Buck Act, 28 USC §2679(c), the Internal Revenue Code, and the Agreement on Coordination of Tax Administration (A.C.T.A.), thus qualifying as a 'possession' and therefore a 'State' in Statute (4 USC §110(d)).

Not only must one disenfranchise the 'United States', but one must also disenfranchise 'the State'.