PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Synopsis
This is a petition to the United States government for redress of grievance, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Thesis statement
This grievance contests the standing claim by the United States government, that the United States of America is a sovereign nation, as a federation of subordinate states.
Argument
The United States of America, bases its legal argument of national sovereignty over the individual states; on the premise that the individual states were never individually sovereign nations unto themselves, and that they united to form a sovereign nation or federal state.
However, investigation reveals that the individual states were indeed founded as separate sovereign nations, and that they never united to form a national union.
Rather, the states simply formed an international union of separate sovereign nations; in the manner of such unions as the United Nations or the European Union, which are international associations among separate sovereign nations.
Meanwhile, each American state likewise remained a separate sovereign nation.
Accordingly, this status was wrongfully denied and usurped from each state, by the United States; doing so in breach of their national sovereignty, under false historical claim..
Justification
Law and justice, therefore require that this national sovereignty must be restored to the individual states; and that their status as sovereign nations, be officially acknowledged and recognized as voluntary member-states of an international union.
INTRODUCTION
This is a Petition to the United State government, for redress of grievance.
This petition follows on the 2012 Petition to the Obama White House, by citizens of the state of Texas, to secede from the United States; and the White House’s 2013 response to that petition.
The key portion of this response, is as follows:
As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, “in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.” In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.
And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that “[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”
This response contains a key mistake, in its rationale for refusing to comply with the petition’s request, to allow the state of Texas to secede.
Specifically, the response cites only one actual legal argument, via the opinion rendered in the 1869 case of Texas v. White, in which the Chase Court ruled that:
“The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation.”
By this argument, the Court meant that the individual states had never been (thirteen) separate sovereign nations.
This followed on the prior allegations by the Jackson and Lincoln Administrations, that
Accordingly, the 2013 White House response to this petition, likewise based its legal argument of national union, entirely on the pretense that the original thirteen states had never held sovereignty as thirteen separate sovereign nations. (This White House response will be further discussed below).
Consequently, this petition holds that:
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PETITION
Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; the people are guaranteed the right to petition the federal government for redress of grievances.
Accordingly, this petition addresses the United States government, for redress of the following grievance.
Specifically, this petition holds that:
Furthermore, this petition holds that, subsequent to the states officially establishing this status, the US government began to falsely deceptively and illegally deny this fact; instead claiming that:
Consequently, the US government falsely claimed– and usurped– supreme national union over the American states; which in reality were indeed separate sovereign nations.
And under this false pretense, the USA subsequently proceeded to seize and exercise power over them in the manner of such, through a combination of force and censorship, entirely under this false claim of national authority-- while suppressing all dissent thereby, as well.
Accordingly, the USA:
Legal Documentation and Discussion
The legal details and documentation of this petition, are henceforth discussed below.
Point 1. The American Revolution established the states as thirteen separate sovereign nations.
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
This was discerned from what the Law of Nations defined in Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”
But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.
Therefore since the states could “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations, “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” the states were not under the dominion of another, and thus were 13 separate sovereign nations.
This was binding as a legal document, among sovereign nations, describing international agreements; since:
In short, the colonists fought for thirteen separate sovereign nations; and therefore, that’s what they won.
Specifically:
So since this was a revolution; then the intentions of the victors became the law (as was also conceded by the vanquished, as detailed below; with Great Britain both:
And this declared intent by the American Revoluition, was retained under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union:
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
This was likewise in the following context from the Law of Nations, §10. “Of states forming a federal republic:”
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
As such, the states simply formed an international union of (thirteen) separate sovereign nations— just like the United Nations or the European Union, after them; and each nation simply delegated powers to the United States as such a federal republic, being a “voluntary engagement among a perpetual confederacy” among separate sovereign nations, whose joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each nation.
And this declared national sovereignty of each state, was officially established by the Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
In addition to the express recognition of each state by name, as “free, sovereign and independent states,” as originally declared—i.e. thirteen separate sovereign nations;
Here the phrase “he treats with them as such,” refers to the fact that the treaty is with the states themselves, as thirteen separate sovereign nations; and not with “the United States,” as a single nation of thirteen subordinate states.
This was due to the fact that, as noted above in Article II; the sovereign national power of embassy, which belonged to each free, sovereign and independent state; was simply among those powers which had been expressly delegated to the United States, in the Articles themselves, “in congress assembled.”
Likewise, Great Britain individually conferred sovereign ownership of each respective colonial territory to each newly-recognized sovereign nation respectively; and not collectively, as thirteen internal divisions of a single nation.
Therefore, the Treaty legally and officially established each state as a separate sovereign nation: thirteen in all.
Each state’s national sovereignty was then subsequently exercised, beginning in 1787; when twelve of the states desired to enact changes to the Articles of Confederation.
However these changes were refused by some states, including Rhode Island.
This precluded such changes; as Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, expressly required unanimity among all states, for any changes:
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual;
nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
For this reason, the dissenting states simply exercised their sovereignty as separate sovereign nations; in order to circumvent this requirement, by
They did this, by forming their own new and separate union under the United States Constitution; which realized the founding intentions and justification of the American Revolution, as set forth in the opening statements of the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson (et al) on July 4, 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
In fulfillment of this premise; the legislatures of each state, then signed over supreme national authority, to the respective electorate of that particular state; so that the people—i.e. the registered citizen-voters of the particular state—would become the ruling sovereigns thereof; and thus could determine their respective state’s own national policy, by majority-vote.
Accordingly, each state’s electorate (with the exception of Rhode Island) then chose to exercise this national authority over their respective state; to:
As James Madison noted in Federalist No. 40 regarding this:
“Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. … The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth”.
Meanwhile after North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the Constitution; Rhode Island was thus left as the sole remaining state in a now-defunct Confederation, and thus chose to ratify the Constitution in 1790… as the only state that did not secede.
In conclusion; the above implies that:
Point 2. GRIEVANCE
The above historical facts, establish that:
However, beginning c. 1832, the federal government officially began to deny this fact; claiming “national union,” under the false premise that the states were never separate sovereign nations.
From President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, in December 10, 1832:
We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one nation… disunion, by armed force, is TREASON.
So here, Jackson falsely alleges that:
And on this false basis, Congress enacted Jackson’s “Force Bill” which set federal precedent to use military force against individual states.
Then when individual states did secede in 1861; Lincoln followed on this false legal basis, in his July 4, 1861: Lincoln’s July 4th Message to Congress:
Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution.
And on this false legal premise of “national union,” the federal government:
This was also accomplished by outright censorship, to suppress the reality that each state was indeed a separate sovereign nation: by suspending habeas corpus, under the simple false claim of “rebellion” against this fictitious “national union," and related false claim that such state sovereignty had never existed.
This was followed by the Supreme Court, in the case of in Texas v. White (1869):
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation [i.e. an international association among separate sovereign nations].
It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But as shown above, the American Union was always “a purely artificial and arbitrary relation,” among separate sovereign nations; and thus, this judicial opinion was simply further confirmation of its own false national authority over the peoples of the individual states.
Meanwhile the-2013 Obama White House response to petitions for secession, relies on this case, as its only legal argument in asserting national union of the states:
As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, “in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.” In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.
And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that “[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”
So as shown, the federal government’s legal theory on national union, depends entirely on the false premise, that the states were never separate sovereign nations.
Thus, because the American Revolution did establish the states as separate sovereign nations; then the federal government legally implies that:
And so, in conclusion:
As James Madison wrote in his January 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions (boldface added):
It is indeed true that the term "states" is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity [i.e. separate sovereign nations].
Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.
It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact [i.e. the individual states], from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts.
On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
Point 3. REDRESS
In redress of the above grievances, this petition demands the following by the United States:
In conclusion, this petition requests redress of this grievance, by the United States government, of the following two points:
In the spirit of keeping truth in liberty under free speech, these petitioners thank the United States government for its attention to this matter; and hope for the swift legal resolution of these disputes, in accordance with good faith and factual accuracy in recognizing legitimate national authorities.