[net.taxes] Admiralty Jurisdiction

mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (12/04/84)

> Please note:  The Constitution, for all intents and purposes,
> was suspended in 1933 with HJR 192!  We were at that time put into
> Admiralty Jursidiction -- YOU DO OWE THE TAX if you are enfranchised! 

I for one would be fascinated to know what Admiralty Jurisdiction is,
what HJR 192 says, how it affects taxes, and how the Congress can
suspend the Constitution for 50 years.

(and by the way, it is frustrating to skip through 300 lines of
repeated article to find 6 lines of new material.  Summarizing 
greatly improves your argument.)
-- 

_Doctor_                           Jon Mauney,    mcnc!ncsu!mauney
\__Mu__/                           North Carolina State University

shad@teldata.UUCP (12/07/84)

> I for one would be fascinated to know what Admiralty Jurisdiction is,
> what HJR 192 says, how it affects taxes, and how the Congress can
> suspend the Constitution for 50 years.

Not to steal Kathy's place in response, but I have had some study in
this area.

House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 suspended the gold standard in
the United States.  Without a recourse to a lawful money system all
United States citizens are part of a maritime venture under the
limited liability for the payment of debt.

Not to get too involved, it works this way:  since I cannot lawfully
pay a debt I am limited to tendering a thing in discharge of the 
debt.  Without the money of the Constituion (coin of gold and silver)
we are all insolvent and must deal with inland bills of trade and
notes.  These notes have been known for a very long time in law
merchant and have been the exclusive jurisdiction of admiralty courts.

So you can see why several congressmen bragged that the Constitution
was suspended.  In fact the Congress had no authority to do what was
done. In violation of their oaths to support and defend the Constituion, 
these congressmen abrogated their responsibility to coin and regulate 
the value of our money.

					Warren Shadwick

dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (12/08/84)

I thought we went through this nonsense about gold and silver coins
already.  The Constitution says that states can only authorize gold
and silver coins as money.  However, this would only be in the absence
of a pre-emptive national system imposed by Congress, which is under
no such restriction.  Try reading the Consititution on this point.
-- 
	+	Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA:	dee@CCA-UNIX		usenet:	{decvax,linus}!cca!dee

shad@teldata.UUCP (12/11/84)

> I thought we went through this nonsense about gold and silver coins
> already.  The Constitution says that states can only authorize gold
> and silver coins as money.  However, this would only be in the absence
> of a pre-emptive national system imposed by Congress, which is under
> no such restriction.  Try reading the Consititution on this point.
> -- 
>	+	Donald E. Eastlake, III

Please read Article I,  Section  10  again.  The  Constitution
here prohibits states from making ANYTHING but gold and silver
coin a TENDER IN PAYMENT  OF  DEBTS.  It  says  nothing  about
money.  Take  a  good  look at your Federal Reserve note.  The
note says a legal tender FOR  all  debts  not  IN  PAYMENT  OF
debts.

Then look at Article I, Section 8 wherein is stated  [Congress
shall  have the power] to COIN money.  Debate on this issue is
a matter of recorded history and the  representatives  to  the
Constitutional  Convention  specifically  struck down a clause 
that would allow emitting bills of credit which  we  now  have 
in the form of Federal Reserve notes.

"Congress ... under no such restriction"?  Amendment Article X,
"The  powers  NOT  DELEGATED  to  the  United  States  by  the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are  reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis mine]."
In other words, the Constitution is a specific grant of  power
to  the  federal government (i.e. if the power is not found in
the Constitution then the federal  government  does  NOT  have
that power).

Your reading of the Constitution must be different than mine.

This matter may be  "nonsense"  to  you,  Sir,  but  the  full
implications  of these acts  of  usurpation  have  yet  to  be
understood or brought to fruition.  My hope is that the  worst
cases of history are not to be repeated in this nation.

				Warren Shadwick