------=_NextPart_001_0030_01C756C5.223938F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The foolish premise in this = writing can be easily dispensed with by just accommodating the writer’s = idea to the Constitution. Instead of arguing that the = legislation is unconstitutional, try to fit it in. Using this approach practically everything Congress does is = permitted by Article IV Section 3 Clause 2. Give it to them and Voila! Limited = government!
From: = Lawmen@googlegroups.com [mailto:Lawmen@googlegroups.com]On = Behalf Of Bob Hurt
Sent: Thursday, February = 22, 2007 7:44 AM
To: = firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [Lawmen: 916] = Rosenwald: Are We Children of the Feds?
Joyce Rosenwald wrote this over 10 years = ago.
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner = Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity = Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal = and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state = agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did = was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating = "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned = by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and = continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow = up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for = "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out = daily activities that exist in what is called a "free = country."
Before 1921 the records of births and names =
children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of =
deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the =
"official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been
registering the births and names of their children with the government =
state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law =
The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the =
certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the =
In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President
Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full =
credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for =
of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and
credit" clause of Const.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
The state claims an interest in every child = within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify = your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable = asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by = its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, = that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or = registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of = us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united = states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," = with a new crop born every year."
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal =
charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens =
another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff =
that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce =
States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal
Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, =
that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several =
held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield
anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, =
falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the =
well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked
contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by =
enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done =
without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, =
the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury =
Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the =
I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports = to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly = undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize = appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in = the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed = under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL = EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE = SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which = the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. = There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal = appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH = CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE = REQUIRED.
By section 4 of the act, the Children's = Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its = agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans = submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters = are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN = EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE = PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW = FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE = ACT.
(1) The act is invalid because it assumes =
granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. =
In more recent cases, however, the Court has =
that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation =
to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in =
usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their =
detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the =
will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed =
exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 =
The act is not made valid by the circumstance =
federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States =
accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures =
yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of
(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on = each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by = the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. = A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to = exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. = Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., = 257 U.S. 529.
(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a =
government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of =
States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for =
States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for =
The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, =
of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted =
was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with =
authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once =
as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past =
upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What =
changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are =
human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now =
us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or =
National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal =
to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never =
court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public =
won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving =
placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal =
guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known =
that we as
individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the =
Truly, sincerely, and without = prejudice (UCC 1-308),
Bob = Hurt, All Rights Reserved
+1 (727) = 669-5511 =D7 email@example.com
Please donate to my Law = Studies Scholarship Fund:
Join my Law List: Lawmen-subscribe@google= groups.com= p>
Read the Archives: http://groups.google.com/g= roup/Lawmen= p>
Visit = my Web Site: http://bobhurt.com
Visit = my = Blog: http://bobhurt.blogspot.com= p>
Learn to = Litigate: Juri= sdictionary=AE= p>
I am no attorney. I do not practice law or give legal = advice.
You received this because you have membership in the "Lawmen" = Google Group.
Comment to group owner - reply to the message (only the owner posts = messages).
See the archives, change options - visit = http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Lawmen
Join - send email to Lawmenfirstname.lastname@example.org
Resign - send email to Lawmenemail@example.com