Citizens of the United States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with “by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading; with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business transactions. We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.

It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: “during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President”. So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of “national emergency”.

Remember your Constitution? “Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies,” all rules.

If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the “Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy”, remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:

“Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse.”

This is the case of The Rapid (1814).

Additionally,

“No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona stand in judicio”.

This is why I think that if We The People are considered enemies of the United States as quoted above, then the contract between the U.S. and it’s citizens requiring us to pay income taxes should NOT BE A VALID CONTRACT.

The reason the Constitution is invalid is because the Govt keeps the U.S. in a constant declared “State of Emergency” thereby voiding the Constitution.

This is the short version. The longer version with links to verify this is on my blog.

And I don’t mind seeing the states lose, at first. Another arrogant federal claim on an issue that has now become so high-profile, may finally inflame an apathetic population into taking action on the crucial issue of restoring the proper balance of state vs. fed power. Look what’s happening with health care for example (as of 1Aug09) and the once silent majority that is no longer silent!

Of course it would be even better to see the States win, at first, because nothing breeds success like success, keep the ball rolling!

Hamilton, FP 28: “Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves in either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.”

To control the power and conduct of the legislature, by an overruling constitution, was an improvement in the science and practice of government reserved to the American states.

Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions. This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitutions control in act, as well as right.

The consequence is, that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

These important truths, sir, are far from being merely speculative. We, at this moment, speak and deliberate under their immediate and benign influence. To the operation of these truths we are to ascribe the scene, hitherto unparalleled, which America now exhibits to the world — a gentle, a peaceful, a voluntary, and a deliberate transition from one constitution of government to another. In other parts of the world, the idea of revolutions in government is, by a mournful and an indissoluble association, connected with the idea of wars, and all the calamities attendant on wars. But happy experience teaches us to view such revolutions in a very different light — to consider them only as progressive steps in improving the knowledge of government, and increasing the happiness of society and mankind.

Oft have I marked, with silent pleasure and admiration, the force and prevalence, through the United States, of the principle that the supreme power resides in the people, and that they never part with it. It may be called the panacea in politics. There can be no disorder in the community but may here receive a radical cure. If the error be in the legislature, it may be corrected by the constitution; if in the constitution, it may be corrected by the people. There is a remedy, therefore, for every distemper in government, if the people are not wanting to themselves; if they are wanting to themselves, there is no remedy. From their power, as we have seen, there is no appeal; of their error there is no superior principle of correction.”

Thanks for posting the link to the article above. I just got around to reading it a few minutes ago, and, just to be honest with you I’ll have to get back to it later because I only got this far in reading the article,

[P]erry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

which prompts me to ask this question of all interested parties:

Why the need to take a ‘wait-and-see’ approach to this. I predict that even if the ‘healthcare’ bill is defeated this go-round, that we’re only putting off the inevitable. And seeing as how this is most definitely the case, shouldn’t we be doing some proactive work at the state level rather than simply reacting to whatever it is the federal government is going to do to us next, once done? My view is that this has to become, at some point, a more proactive (or preemptive) kind of a strategy. And there’s no time like the present, as they say. What do the rest of you think?