Here we go again, faced with a candidate running for the U.S. Presidency who is NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. I repeat – Kamala Harris is ineligible to become the President of the United States, even if she wins the election (by hook or by crook) because, although Kamala Harris might be A CITIZEN of the United States, "SHE NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN." Update: Kamala Harris probably isn't even a Citizen of the United States because no proof exists that her parents were ever Naturalized and nothing can be found to suggest that Kamala Harris has completed her pathway to citizenship after turning age 21 and then by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States.  Send us proof to the contrary, please.

French statesman Frederic Bastiat warned us of the dangers of perverting the law in his imitable pamphlet called The Law first published in 1850. It begins as follows: “The law perverted! The law — and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation — the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law become the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow citizens.”

In an effort to clarify the issue of the Natural-Born Citizen, Team Republic studied a relevant US Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett 88 US 162 (1874). 

Here’s an overview of some of the commentary written by the Justices in this unanimously decided US Supreme Court decision called Minor v Happersett.

• The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens.

• Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person” (the nomenclature of the time) might be admitted as a Citizen of the United States.

• The children of such persons so Naturalized should be considered Citizens of the United States, with requirements as follows, that they:

  • Dwell in the United States

  • Are under 21 years of age at the time of such Naturalization.

• Children of Citizens of the United States should be considered Natural-Born Citizens even under the following circumstances:

  • Born beyond the sea 

  • Born out of the limits of the United States

• These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.

• In 1855, however the last provision was somewhat extended to say that all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also.

Notice that in the first bullet point, the Justices used the word PARENTS when defining Natural-Born Citizens; whereas in the last bullet point, they used the word FATHER and at this point in the case, only called them “CITIZENS.” (It might also be noted that in bullet points 1, 3 and 4 the Justices refer to the “CHILDREN” and in bullet point number 5 they referred to them as “PERSONS”).

How can we understand clear concepts today, when even back in the day our elected and appointed public functionaries could not be relied upon to be clear?

We look for clarity in history.

According to Common Law and the Coverture Doctrine, the meaning of the words PARENTS and FATHER were synonymous back in the day. There was no clarification in the use of the words children or persons, but we can all agree that children are persons, so it is a minor distraction that we will just chalk up to the fallibility of persons (who are people).

What is the Coverture Doctrine, you ask?

The Doctrine of COVERTURE is a “legal doctrine in English common law originating from the French word couverture that means ‘covering,’ - in which a married woman’s legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband."

This was “common knowledge” or “accepted nomenclature” in 1788/1789 at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution.

It is important to note that NO ONE at that time or since then, seems to have made THAT DOCTRINE known widely to The People; No Supreme Court Justice, No inferior court Judge, No attorney, No college professor and No teacher seems to have ever mentioned it to us.

Is that because “they” don’t want The People of 2024 to understand The Law any better than the people of France understood the validity of Frederic Bastiat’s warnings back in 1850?

TEAM REPUBLIC CHALLENGES SOMEONE, ANYONE TO PROVE US WRONG!

Article II Section I Clause 5 of the US Constitution

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”

In an effort to achieve some clarity, let’s turn to a well-known and respected Constitutional Law Scholar named Joanna Martin (AKA Publius Huldah), where we review the following:

A presentation by Joanna Martin (AKA Publius Huldah) in which she discusses the issue of the Natural Born Citizen and a commentary by Joanna Martin in which she discussed the Doctrine of Coverture.

Joanna Martin’s above-mentioned work included reference to a book written in 1758 called The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. The Founders of the American Republic read and were influenced by the work of Vattel. Is that common knowledge today? It should be, and Team Republic are dedicated to making it common knowledge.

In Section 212 of The Law of Nations, Mr. Vattel states that 

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.  The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Again, we see that Vattel used the terms PARENTS and FATHER and he also used the term “HIS CHILDREN,” but remember, back in the day, the wife was HIS wife (actually, she still is), the father and mother were ONE entity (actually they still are – even though women do now have their own legal existence) and the children are HIS children (even though modern terminology and sensibilities would rather say “their” children).

Joanna Martin also referenced David Ramsey’s work called A dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring The Character & Privileges of a Citizen of the United States which was printed in 1789 (with a modernized and corrected version completed by Adrien Nash Feb/Aug. 2014 in which he stated that “The dissertation by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found which provides another piece of direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents just as Vattel writes."

Following are court cases that Nash included in his commentary to support the “time-honored definition” of NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens);

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniel concurred but took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively);

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;”

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations”, are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States);

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);

Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);

United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett);

Nash goes on to say “Then the defining speech that lays out the most important aspect of the requirement and that is allegiance:” and "Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

******** This is the end of commentary by Adrien Nash

We definitely have persons who are citizens of foreign countries, who hold allegiances to those foreign countries who are in the highest reaches of our governments (potentially at all levels, in all departments).  This is an issue of critical important that We the People of this Magnificent Republic need to address, sooner rather than later, because the health, safety and well-being of our country is at stake.

There is a Pro Se Complaint posted to the US Natural-Born Citizen website. It is unclear whether it was ever filed or adjudicated but certainly, as this case points out, if Kamala Harris and the communist infiltrators surrounding her cannot define what a woman is, they surely aren’t going to be able to differentiate subtle word distinctions or confusing judicial opinions of yesteryear.

Nonetheless, we could use that Pro Se Complaint as a template for future actions and/or additional complaints.

A couple of important considerations need to be reiterated:

• In bygone generations, when a “father” was referenced, it included the marriage team and represented one entity.

• All children are persons (even though all persons are not children).

• No one except a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN can be President of the United States.

• Kamala Harris is NOT a natural-born citizen.

Guess what. They continue to try to pervert The Law instead of following the Constitution.

See the recent (2018/2024) manipulation of historical legal doctrine included in 8 FAM 301.5 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878 where they state that "As originally enacted, Section 1993 provided for transmission of citizenship only through fathers (without any mention of the Doctrine of Coverture).

It is interesting to note that the “Office of Origin” of this 2018 misinterpretation of The Law (as it relates to citizenship) is called CA/PPT/S/A which, according to an online search refers to the “Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) Passport Services (PPT) Office of Program Management and Operational Support (S) and its Administrative (A) branch.

Is CA/PPT/S/A constitutionally sound?  That is a discussion for a different day, but Team Republic would conjecture that it is not based upon constitutionally granted authority and therefore it does not exist de jure. Look to  Norton v Shelby County TN 118 US 425, 1886, for a discussion on the important concept "de jure."

Also see: HR 1177 (introduced on February 18, 2021) called the “US Citizenship Act” which was “referred” to twelve separate Committees and one Subcommittee on that same day. The next day (February 19, 2021) this House Resolution was “referred” to the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations. Two months later (on April 28, 2021) it was “referred” to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship where it seems to have withered and died on the vine, thank God.

What was the purpose of HR 1177, you might ask? According to the Title assigned to it by it’s sponsor it was “To provide an earned path to citizenship, to address the root causes of migration and responsibly manage the southern border, and to reform the immigrant visa system, and for other purposes.” There’s always “other purposes” ya know.

Doncha think maybe it’s time We the People start holding these temporarily-seated public functionaries accountable for their suspect allegiances, their usurpation of limited delegated authority granted to them by We the People, the Oaths that they have all sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and their silent compliance in advancing another person who is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to the Executive Department of our MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC?

Join us in our journey to educate ourselves on The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God by attending our Wednesday night Zoom meetings from 7 pm to 9 pm EST.

DISCLAIMERS; 

All bolding, italicizing, underlining, CAPITALIZATION, and (parenthetical commentary) are mine.

AND

Congress Shall Make No Law Abridging The Right of Free Speech PERIOD. 

In April of 2024, public functionaries from both political parties used over 12,000 unreadable words to put restrictions, requirements, certifications, prohibitions, limitations and then exceptions on FISA.

Why can’t these temporarily-seated public functionaries understand that this doesn’t “Reform Intelligence and Secure America,” as its name implies, it rather expands their usurpation of our Fourth Amendment right to security of person and papers and represents a violation of their limited delegated authorities granted to them by We the People?

Has anyone actually read the original FISA legislation introduced on May 18, 1977, by the late Senator Ted Kennedy and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 that includes approximately 49,000 words?

I didn’t think so.

When I tried to read it, the first thing that jumped out at me, as my eyes were glossing over the “Definitions” outlined on page 1 of this “Act” (that includes 804 Sections), was that “Foreign power” includes being “a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons.”

Not substantially composed of United States persons (So, in other words, there can be a couple of U. S. “persons,” that “compose” a foreign power)? I don’t get it, and I don’t like it.

United States persons?  According to the definition found on Page 1,443 of 22 USC 6010, a United States person includes: “any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States, and any corporation, partnership, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States.”

I wonder if the definition of alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States includes the 2014 estimated 12 million illegal aliens who have “unlawfully” admitted themselves “for permanent residence in the United States?” (this original commentary pointed to a 2014 Homeland Security data analysis that is no longer available, which, by the way, excluded refugees, asylum seekers and non-immigrants). A Report from 2014 published on the Federation for American Immigration Reform website confirms that same 12 million illegal alien estimate.

The more recent numbers, according to FAIR, states that as of 2023 that number has increased to 16.8 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

So, what are our public functionaries doing to uphold their Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution that was written to Secure the Rights of the lawful residents of these United States? 

Well, on January 17, 2024, they passed House Resolution 957 that “denounced” the White House occupier (usurper) Joe Biden’s administration’s “open-border policies.” HR 957 also “condemns” the “national security and public safety crisis” created by White House vice-occupier usurper (Comrade) Kamala and her co-horts in the DHS and other departments, and HR 957 “urges” Biden to “end his open-border policies.”

Urges? Condemns? Denounces?

How about using delegated authority to throw the bums out of office and into prison for aiding and abetting enemies of our Republic?

The words of these elected and appointed government workers ring hollow when they don’t use their constitutionally provided tools to put a stop to this invasion of our country and to remove this treasonous regime of usurpers and their invading marauders from the bowels of our Republic.

I also find it interesting that the mammoth United States Code is listed on a U. S. Government Publishing website with the byline: Keeping America Informed.  Indeed. Informed of what? The growing Behemoth of Big Government?

The task of attempting to “be informed” about the myriad legalese and loopholes that comprise the revolutionization of our Rule of Law is monumental and, quite frankly, impossible to accomplish (there is little doubt that is the usurpers’ goal).

It would do us well to examine some of the additional myriad words, acronyms, clamps, bells and whistles relative to the groundbreaking (or earth shattering) legislation known as FISA written by the so-called “Lion” of the Senate (or was that “Lyin” - as in what I thought about his cowardly, self-serving self-defense regarding his culpability in the untimely, tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne at the bottom of Poucha Pond on July 18, 1969). But, I digress.

What is FISA, and what are some of the many ways that our public functionaries have usurped our Fourth Amendment cast-in-stone protection against unwarranted searches and seizures?

Well, there is the Terrorist Surveillance Actions developed during the G.W. Bush administration (2001-2009) that are detailed in a New York Times article entitled Bush Let’s U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, both with extensive backgrounds in writing about U.S. National Security issues.

This Administrative-State-beauty-of-countless-words identified as Terrorist Surveillance Actions was a part of The President’s Surveillance Program which included the warrantless surveillance program with the code name Stellar Wind.

Apparently, at the time, the GWB administration joined the late Senator Kennedy in ignoring the Supreme court majority decision in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

And they all ignored the Supreme court (8-0) unanimous decision in United States v. United States District Court, No. 70-153 (known as Keith) (1972).

NOTE: For reasons unknown, “Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of (Keith).” Why aren’t the American people informed of the rationale behind Mr. Rehnquist being MIA?  I'm just askin.'

It is more important to NOTE that both of these cases concurred that wiretapping was indeed included as a violation of our Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures.

Then there’s

1. The Privacy Act of 1974 (which is 8,253 words long);
2. The Protect America Act of 2007 (2,557 words); 
3. The USA Patriot Act which is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (doncha know). (61,154 words); and 
4. The USA Freedom Act which of course is an acronym for ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015’ (20,950 words).

This is name only a few examples of the on-going usurpation of our Fourth Amendment.

All numbers shown in this commentary are approximate, but, I would bet a huge amount of taxpayers’ fiat currency that nobody has read any of these so-called “laws” in their entirety!

I am also beginning to wonder if any of our temporarily-seated public functionaries have read the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution.  If you, yourself, haven’t looked at our Constitution lately, here are those 54 specific words that comprise the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What’s that old advertising campaign slogan?  You’ve come a long way, baby? Indeed we have, and if I remember correctly, that ad campaign was about women smoking. Oh, great. You know that the devil is always in the details (sort of like Alexander Hamilton’s unheeded warning in Federalist 84 about adding a Bill of Rights to our Constitution at all, for fear of the usurpers regulating that which is written but never granted to the federal government in the first place).

Alas, it seems that buggy has left the station, probably never to be seen again. In fact, considering the current cache of usurpers posing as public functionaires in this country, if we were to try to eliminate the Bill of Rights in 2024 (God forbid), it would, no doubt, be couched in some big government takeover of even more aspects of our Lives and Liberty.

I wouldn’t doubt that for one big fat legislative minute.

So, as the story goes, the people continue to ratify these actions by complying with them, while our government takes our very specific 54 word limitation upon their power to violate our private domain, and they strip the very essence of our constitutionally-sound protection rug right out from under our feet.

Many people in this country believe that this type of lawless usurpation of our individual Liberty must be stopped. You can check out for yourself the myriad (also unreadable) online opinion pieces that have been written through the years since The battle of FISA Vs the Fourth first began its fateful journey in 1978 (not to mention the grief our de jure President Donald J. Trump is experiencing even today as a result of the lawfare that branches ever outward when we don't protect our rights).

We the People can yet restore constitutional limitations built in to our “republican form of government guaranteed to each State” under Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution that was written by men who were much more keenly aware of the potential tyranny of the Deep State than we seem to be … the key word here is yet … It’s FISA (153,914 words and counting) versus the Fourth Amendment (54 specific fixed words).

Team Republic is advocating for the underdog Fourth. Our Magnificent Republic already has the legal and lawful tools to demand that our public functionaries adhere to our Founding Principles.

You should join us and help us educate the American populace on the simple truth that The Law Is On Our Side (TLIOOS – here's an acronym for the government bureaucrat busy-bodies who might find their way to the Magnificent Republic).  All are welcome.

Janice Daniels (commentary first written in 2014; updated to present form in 2024 because the situation has only gotten worse).

NOTE:

Congress shall make no law abridging the right to FREE SPEECH - Period.

BECAUSE NORTON V SHELBY COUNTY CLARIFIES THE PRINCIPLES OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC LIKE NO OTHER CASE THAT WE HAVE SEEN TO DATE – THAT’S WHY!

Throughout the years of 1792 through to 1867, it was agreed that The Justices of the Peace were constitutionally delegated as the administrative government in local matters in each County in Tennessee.

This is vitally important because it clarified that only these Justices of the Peace were authorized to issue Bonds and to levy taxes on the people for the payment of these Bonds. 

Along came the temporarily-seated Tennessee State Legislature of 1867 who decided (for some unknown reason) that they had the delegated authority to establish a Board of County Commissioners by virtue of a piece of legislation that was passed on February 25th of that same year. In that piece of legislation (called the Act of March 9, 1867) a special tax was assessed to pay debt taken from the State that was then given to the railroad company.

Why did the Tennessee State Legislature feel compelled to transfer the Constitutionally-delegated authority to a Board that they created out of thin air?

Was it because somebody was getting a quid pro quo? Was it because the Tennessee public functionaries were "usurpers" who wanted to flex the outside reaches of their properly limited delegated authority?

We might never know the truth but thankfully the Tennessee State Supreme Court of 1870 and the U.S. Supreme Court of 1886 both seemed to understand that it was within their proper scope of authority to identify and to put a stop to this type of Legislative "usurpation".

In a case called Pope vs Phifer decided in 1870 (50 Tenn. 682), the State Supreme Court of Tennessee adjudged that the existence and authority of the County Commissioners was unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional because the Legislature had no authority to establish the County Commission and to transfer the powers of administration from the Justices of the Peace to the County Commissioners.

Although the Tennessee State Supreme Court did correctly adjudicate the Principles of the American Republic in Pope vs Phifer, they didn’t define the terms of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by virtue of Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

The case (Pope vs Phifer) was brought to the Tennessee State Supreme Court because the constitutionally-seated Justices of the Peace understood that these County Commissioners had “usurped” authority and that they had no right to bind Shelby County (and it’s tax payers) with a subscription to the railroad company so they wanted the Act of March 9, 1867, declared void and the bond issuance declared illegal.

They first took their case before a Chancellor’s Court for review. The Chancellor’s Court dismissed their case (again for some unknown reason), but then the Justices of the Peace took their case to the Tennessee State Supreme Court on appeal.

While the appeal was pending, payment was made to the railroad company and the bonds were issued by the Commissioners anyway.

Meanwhile (disregarding this State Supreme Court decision), a couple of other Tennessee counties tried the same trick – appointing Commissioners to “usurp” the authority of the Justices of the Peace.

The Governor of Tennessee also seemed to like this Act of "usurpation" so he appointed the same type of Boards of Commissioners in some of the other Tennessee counties. 

In February of 1871, the Tennessee State Supreme Court decided that Governors could not appoint Commissioners to “usurp” authority of constitutionally granted powers given to the Justices of the Peace either.

Even so, these temporarily-seated public functionaries in Tennessee continued to illegally seat Boards of Commissioners to "usurp" the authority of the Justices of the Peace, so, in June of 1871, another similar case, Butterworth v Shelby County, was decided.

In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court reiterated that the Act of March 9, 1867, creating the Board of Commissioners was unconstitutional, so those Boards were also declared illegal and the Warrants that they had issued were shown to be invalid. 

Once again it was determined that the Tennessee State Legislature had exceeded its constitutional duties in assuming to abolish the County Court (Justices of the Peace) and substitute in its place Boards of County Commissioners.

The Act of March 9, 1867, that originally gave the Board of County Commissioners the belief that they could issue bonds was declared a nullity.

The Board and its President had no more powers under the Act than if no law had been passed.

It was also declared that the County Court of Tennessee could not decide contrary to the State Supreme Court or counter to the Federal Constitution.

Apparently the "usurpers" continued to give illegal authority to these Boards of Commissioners that they had formed contrary to the State and Federal Constitutions (sound familiar?). 

So, it was in 1886, when the lynch pin case (Norton v Shelby County) was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was correctly declared that the Federal Court held the State Courts as authoritative (so, in other words, once the Tennessee State Supreme Court had ruled that the existence of the Board of Commissioners was unconstitutional, the Federal Court could not adjudicate differently). That’s called States Rights.

The Supreme Court Justices recognized that conflicts between State and Federal Courts must be avoided, so the U.S. Supreme Court (in a 9-0 unanimous decision) held that there was no lawful authority in the Board to make subscription to the railroad company.

The plaintiffs (in support of the "usurpers") argued in this case (Norton v Shelby County) that even though “the Act” creating the Board of Commissioners was void, the Commissioners who had been appointed were still Officers “de facto” (which means that they could exist because they were there even though they had no official or legal status).

They wanted the Supreme Court Justices to decide that even though the Commissioners were not officers “de jure” (which means that they were seated in accordance with the Constitution or the Laws made pursuant to the Constitution), they should be allowed to have issued the bonds.

The plaintiffs (in support of the “usurpers") further claimed that the Legislative Act, although declared unconstitutional, might still create “an Office” and they argued that nothing further than its “apparent existence” is needed to give validity to the Actions of the Commissioners taken while seated in these decidedly unconstitutional Boards.

The Court stated that there can be no Officers, “de jure” or “de facto” if no Office exists to be filled.

The Court continued by stating that the law never recognized the pretension of persons believing they held Offices that didn’t exist by law. The Commissioners were held to be “usurpers.”

The US Supreme Court stated in Norton vs Shelby County the following:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed (this applies also to the actions of “usurpers” who might choose to exercise “undelegated” authority).

The Court brought forth the supposition that IF the government were to be entirely “revolutionized” only then can all its departments be “usurped” by force or by the “democratic” voice of the majority, BUT as long as the Constitution or “republican” form of government remains unaltered or Supreme, there can be no “de facto” department or office.

Acts that are not in agreement with the Constitution can only be regarded as valid when or if the government is overturned (which the US Supreme Court of 1886 did not want to see happen; they were simply stating that our government would have to be entirely overturned to cause our Republic to be transformed into a “democracy” and THAT transformation we still do not want to happen – contrary to what our present-day "usurpers" try to force down our throats on a daily basis)!

Generally speaking, Boards, Commissions, Special Counsels and Alphabet Agencies are nothing more than “Usurpers” if the Offices in which they wield their extraordinary power over the people are not established according to the Constitution.

When an Office does exist in accordance with the Constitution(s), all Officers (whether elected or appointed “de facto” or “de jure”) MUST STILL act pursuant to the Constitution(s).

So, again, why is this case so important TODAY?

Because all three departments of our governments, at all levels of governance ARE NOT ACTING IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION(S).

They are NOT ABIDING BY THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THOSE CONSTITUTION(S).

And, these “Stare Decisis” cases give The People the Authority to REMOVE THESE USURPERS FROM THEIR ELECTED OR APPOINTED POSITIONS WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT.

We the People NEVER authorized these departments to grow like “branches” of a tree.

We the People NEVER authorized these department officers to contort our laws into a ball of yarn that is almost impossible to untangle.

We the People NEVER authorized the building of this awful “Hamster Wheel of Injustice” that our temporarily-seated public functionaries have built, contrary to the duties that we granted to them.

We granted our public functionaries limited delegated authority and we must start demanding that they constrain themselves within that limited delegated authority.

We have the Law on our side.

An action taken outside of the limited delegated authority that We the People granted to our temporarily-seated elected or appointed government workers is a "usurpation" of that authority, and their neglect of their properly delegated limited authority is a violation of their Oaths of Office.

The time has come to Reclaim Our American Republic. The Law is on our side; we simply need to learn it and use it.

Congratulations for finding your way to the Magnificent Republic movement. Now that you are here you can help us give to our children the Republic that was given to us.

Norton vs Shelby County, TN 118 US 425 (1886)

Read more