liveinfreedom .'s List: FREEDOM "IS" AMERICA

• God is denied by the communists, and this denial is reflected by the way they treat their own subjects. Their system derives its strength from discipline imposed by the state. Ours derives its strength from the collective self-discipline of our individual citizens.

• An "unalienable" right cannot be transferred. You cannot transfer your life to someone else — or your liberty or happiness. An "inalienable" right, such as ownership of property or a title or a degree, can be transferred and governments can decide who owns property or has a title.

• The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in the eighteenth century, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. (See Bentham's "Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights", and Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France"). Presaging the shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts".

   

  The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Critics^[who?], however, could argue that use of the word "Creator" signifies that these rights are based on theological principles, and might question which theological principles those are, or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived^{[citation needed]}. In "The Social Contract," Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that the existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. This idea of a social contract – that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract b

• The Secretary of the Treasury having perused with attention the papers containing the opinions of the Secretary of State and Attorney General, concerning the constitutionality of the bill for establishing a National Bank
• objections of the Secretary of State and Attorney General are founded on a general denial of the authority of the United States to erect corporations.
• That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign
• the powers of sovereignty are in this country divided between the National and State governments, does not afford the distinction required.
• It will only follow from it, that each has sovereign power as to certain things, and not as to other things.
• ases would be equally to deny that the State governments have sovereign power in any case, because their power does not extend to every case. The tenth section of the first article of the Constitution exhibits a long list of very important things which they may not do.
• This general and indisputable principle puts at once an end to the abstract question, whether the United States have power to erect a corporation; that is to say, to give a legal or artificial capacity to one or more persons, distinct from the natural.
• The difference is this: where the authority of the government is general, it can create corporations in ad cases, where it is confined to certain branches of legislation, it can create corporations only in those cases.
• And it is affirmed, that the power of erecting a corporation is not included in any of the enumerated powers.
• It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter.
• if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbors, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory.
• it shows an extensive case in which a power of erecting corporations is either implied in or would result from, some or all of the powers vested in the national government.
• To return: It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones.
• it may as well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatev
• But one may be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States, or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage.
• or mean to an end
• to give it an artificial capacity
• The Roman law is the source of it, according to which a voluntary association of individuals, at any tome, or for any purpose, was capable of producing it.
• and the Secretary of State maintains, that no means are to be considered as necessary but those without which the grant of the power would be nugatory.
• The expediency of exercising a particular power, at a particular time, must, indeed depend on circumstances, but the constitutional right of exercising it must be uniform and invariable, the same to-day as to-morrow.
• All the arguments, therefore, against the constitutionality of the bill derived from the accidental existence of certain State banks, institutions which happen to exist to-day, and, for aught that concerns the government of the United States, may disappear tomorrow, must not only be rejected as fallacious, but must be viewed as demonstrative that there is a radical source of error in the reasoning.
• It is essential to the being of the national government, that so erroneous a conception of the meaning of the word necessary should be exploded
• necessary
• necessary
• The whole turn of the clause containing it indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers.
• It may be truly said of every government, as well as of that of the United States, that it has only a right to pass such laws as are necessary and proper to accomplish the objects intrusted to it.
• For no government has a right to do merely what it pleases.
• it might be proved that neither of the State governments has a right to incorporate a bank.
• It is to be remembered that there is no express power in any State constitution to erect corporations.
• The degree in which a measure is necessary, can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it; that must be a matter of opinion,
• the object of that power must be the criterion of constitutionality
• not the more or less of necessity or utility.
• Hence, consequently, the necessity and propriety of exercising the authorities intrusted to a government on principles of liberal construction.
• This reason is, the variety and extent of public exigencies, a far greater proportion of which, and of a far more critical kind, are objects of National t
• and is equivalent to an admission of the proposition that the government, as to its specified powers and objects, has plenary and sovereign authority, in some cases paramount to the States; in others, co-ordinate with it.
• The moment the literal meaning is departed from, there is a chance of error and abuse. And yet an adherence to the letter of its powers would at once arrest the motions of government.
• The consequence of this division is, that there will be cases clearly within the power of the national government; others, clearly without its powers; and a third class, which will leave room for controversy and difference of opinion, and concerning which a reasonable latitude of judgment must be allowed.
• To erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial for a natural person, and where a number are concerned, to give them individuality. To that legal or artificial person, once created, the common law of every State, of itself, annexes all those incidents and attributes which are represented as a prostration of the main pillars of their jurisprudence.
• The laws of alienage cannot apply to an artificial person, because it can have no country; those of descent cannot apply to it, because it can have no heirs; those of escheat are foreign from it, for the same reason; those of forfeiture, because it cannot commit a crime; those of distribution, because, though it may be dissolved, it cannot die.
• But if it were even to be admitted that the erection of a corporation is a direct alteration of the state laws, in the enumerated particulars, it would do nothing toward proving that the measure was unconstitutional. If the government of the United States can do no act which amounts to an alteration of a State law, all its powers are nugatory; for almost every new law is an alteration, in same way or other, of an old law, either common or statute.
• The exercise of either of these powers by Congress, necessarily involves an alteration of the laws of those States.
• Again. Every person, by the common law of each State, may export his property to foreign countries, at pleasure.: But Congress, in pursuance of the power of regulating trade, may prohibit the exportation of commodities; in doing which, they would alter the common law of each State, in abridgment of individual right.
• There are two points in the suggestions of the Secretary of State, which have been noted, that are peculiarly incorrect. One is, that the proposed incorporation is against the laws of monopoly, because it stipulates an exclusive right of banking under the national authority; the other, that it gives power to the institution to make laws paramount to those of the States.
• The bill neither prohibits any State from erecting as many banks as they please, nor any number of individuals from associating to carry on the business, and consequently, is free from the charge of establishing a monopoly
• There never can be a doubt, that a law of a corporation, if contrary to a law of a State, must be overruled as void unless the law of the State is contrary to that of the United States and then the question will not be between the law of the State and that of the corporation, but between the law of the State and that of the United States.
• Another argument made use of by the Secretary of State is, the rejection of a proposition by the Convention to empower Congress to make corporations, either generally, or for some special purpose.
• Some, again, allege, that it was disagreed to because it was thought improper to vest in Congress a power of erecting corporations.
• Those of the Attorney General will now properly come under view.
• His first objection is, that the power of incorporation is not expressly given to Congress.
• Surely it can never be believed that Congress, with exclusive powers of legislation in all cases whatsoever, cannot erect a corporation within the district which shall become the seat of government, for the better regulation of its police. And yet there is an unqualified denial of the power to erect corporations in every case on the part both of the Secretary of State and of the Attorney General; the former, indeed, speaks of that power in these emphatical terms: That it is a right remaining exclusively with the States.
• Every contract which has been made for moneys borrowed in Holland, induces stipulations that the sum due shall bedded from taxes, and from sequestration in time of war, and mortgages all the land and property of the United States for the reimbursement.
• It is admitted, that in regard to the western territory, something more is intended; even the institution of a government, that is, the creation of a body politic, or corporation of the highest nature; one which, in its maturity, will be able itself to create other corporations. Why, then, does not the same clause authorize the erection of a corporation, in respect to the regulation or disposal of any other of the property of the United States.
• This will be done by tracing a natural and obvious relation between the institution of a bank and the objects of several of the enumerated powers of the government; and by showing that, politically speaking, it is necessary to the effectual execution of one or more of those powers.
• The bill proposed ill addition that the government shall become a joint proprietor in this undertaking, and that it shall permit the bills of the company, payable on demand, to be receivable in its revenues; and stipulates that it shall not grant privileges, similar to those which are to be allowed to this company, to any others.
• A bank relates to the collection of taxes in two ways indirectly, by increasing the quantity of circulating medium and quickening circulation, which facilitates the means of paying directly, by creating a convenient! species of medium in which they are to be paid.
• Accordingly Congress, in the lava concerning the collection of the duties on imposts and tonnage, have provided that they shall be paid in gold and silver. But while it was an indispensable part of the work to say in what they should be paid, the choice of the specific thing was mere matter of discretion. The payment might have been required in the commodities themselves. Taxes in kind, however ill-judged, are not without precedents, even in the United States; or it Night have been in the paper money of the several States, or in the bills of the Bank of North America, New York and Massachusetts, all or either of them; or it might have been in bills issued under the authority of the United States.
• uch a proposition might be opposed by arguments against the expedience of it, or the solidity of the reason assigned for it, but it is not conceivable what could be urged against its constitutionality; and yet such a disposition of the thing would amount to the erection of a corporation; for the true definition of a corporation seems to be this: It is a legal person, or a person created by act of law, consisting of one or more natural persons authorized to hold property, or a franchise in succession, in a legal, as contradistinguished from natural, capacity.
• • This paragraph relates a good deal of information about a natural and an artificial person
  Add Sticky Note
• The Attorney General opposes to this reasoning the following observation: "Borrowing money presupposes the accumulation of a fund to be lent, and is secondary to the creation of an ability to lend." This is plausible in theory, but is not true in fact. In a great number of cases, a previous accumulation of a fund equal to the whole sum required does not exist. And nothing more can be actually presupposed, than that there exist resources, which, put into activity to the greatest advantage by the nature of the operation with the government, will be equal to the effect desired to be produced. All the provisions and operations of government must be presumed to contemplate things as they really are.
• this does not merely mean gold and silver;
• Money is the very hinge on which commerce turns.
• He who creates a bank, creates a subject of commerce, so does he who snakes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the Nines, yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling.
• If it will do the last, as well as the first, then under this provision alone, the bill is constitutional, because it contemplates that the United States shall be joint proprietors of the stock of the bank.

61 more annotations...

• Hawaii also issues Certification of Live   Births to children born abroad upon the registration by a family member   of the birth.  A Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is issued to   children who are United States “natural born” citizens as well as   “naturalized” citizens, who did not qualify for “natural born” status.    Take for instance, Maya Soetoro, Mr. Obama’s half-sister who was born in   Jakarta, Indonesia in 1970, she too has a Certification of Live Birth,   however, she is not a United States “natural born” citizen. 

• a word game played by secret  rules
• One of the primary thrusts of standing law has been the requirement of  an injury particular to the individual invoking the court's power.