1 of 4

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20000525071528/http://www.atgpress.c...

the common man never created the U.S. Constitution

nor was the Bill of Rights for him.
Since 1990 I have been preaching that the Constitution was never mine and the People in "We the People" was not the
common man on the street, but rather the aristocracy of Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Jay and others. Lysander
Spooner is another man in the 1800's that had the same sentiments. He too showed that the constitution was not only NOT a
contract with the people, but that none of the signers signed it with any conviction and it is evident that they only signed in a
witness capacity, check it out for yourself by looking at how they signed the constitution and bound no one unless they
agreed to the terms in the alleged contract called a constitution that they drafted.
The following is from the Cases in Constitutional law. I had used the John Barron case to prove my point that the common
man on the street had nothing to do with creating the constitution quite a few years back.. The majority of the people put the
constitution even before the word of the LORD ALMIGHTY, because they revere it so much they will say they will defend
it. What they do not know is that the constitution gives unlimited power to those men who assume the power and jurisdiction
over them and offers them no protection whatsoever. The hoopla of the government spin doctors have led the common man
to believe the common man has protections built in to protect him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lie is so big
that people, even when shown, still revert back to the constitution as if it were GOD himself. It is only because of the
teachings they had that was passed down from generation to generation. Just like the little boy believes in the big lie you tell
him for the fist 5 to 7 years of his life that there is a Santa, Tooth fairy and Easter bunny. Small lies but still lies. He won't
believe there is none of the above when you tell him. It is more serious in real life, the lies that have been fed your relatives
all the way back to 1776, and now when we researchers tell you the truth, you still want to believe in the Big Lie, just like
the 5 year old wants to believe in Santa. I want to point out that what you read is not one word of mine, except where I make
comments. I will bold those words that will draw your attention and make you see the light that I saw over 10 years ago. It is
a slow process, to come to the realization that in order to control the people, they must be made to believe in (government)
lies. Please note how the courts, after the John Barron case, have changed the meaning so that they can start changing what
the genesis of the constitution was all about. They had to do this to keep the people 10 steps behind in figuring out what
Patrick Henry warned, that the constitution was a document to enslave the people of America. So I start with the book,
which is the same book I used describing the 16th Amendment, Direct and Indirect taxes. Remember it is what the enemy
(government State and Federal) says that counts. Sometimes they tell us things in court cases that go right over our heads.
They can't say that we were not warned.
Chapter 16
The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights
Early Efforts To Extend the Bill of Rights to the States
BARRON v. BALTIMORE
7 Peters 243; 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833)
One of the bitter criticisms urged against our federal Constitution as it came from the hands of the Convention was that it
contained no bill of rights. It was feared that without specific guarantees the civil rights and liberties of the people and the
states would be at the mercy of the proposed national government. Ratification was secured, but with a tacit understanding
that a bill of rights should promptly be added which should restrict the national government in behalf of individual liberty.
That the early statesmen thought of a federal bill of rights only in terms of restrictions on national power is emphasized by
Hamilton's ingenious argument in The Federalist (No. 84) that since the proposed central government was one which
possessed only the powers delegated to it, it would be not only unnecessary but unwise to prohibit it from doing things which
were clearly outside the scope of its delegated authority.
When the First Congress convened, the House of Representatives proposed seventeen amendments in the nature of a bill
of rights. One of these, the fourteenth, provided that "no state should infringe the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, nor
the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press. This amendment, which was the only one restricting
the powers of the states, was rejected by the Senate. The substance of the others was consolidated into twelve
amendments, ten of which were finally ratified by the states.
The First Amendment indicates by its own language that it is directed only against the federal government, for it begins,
"Congress shall make no law .... " The other amendments are couched in terms of general prohibition; and in spite of the
perfectly clear historical evidence as to the intention of those who framed them, it came to be argued that these guarantees

4/2/2013 6:03 PM

2 of 4

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20000525071528/http://www.atgpress.c...

of civil liberty ought to be construed as restrictions upon state and federal governments alike. Whether this view is correct is
the issue involved in Barron v. Baltimore, the last constitutional decision in which Mr. Chief Justice Marshall participated.
While paving its streets, the city of Baltimore had diverted from their natural courses certain streams, with the result that
sand and gravel were deposited near Barron's wharf. The wharf, which had previously enjoyed the deepest water in the
harbor, was rendered practically useless, for the deposits prevented the approach of vessels. A verdict of $4500 for Barron
had been reversed by the state court of appeals, and a writ of error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. It
was alleged by Barron that this action upon the part of the city constituted a violation of that clause of the Fifth
Amendment which forbids taking private property for public use without just compensation. He insisted that this
amendment, being a guarantee in behalf of individual liberty, ought to be construed to restrain the states as well as the
national government.
The decision in Barron v. Baltimore has left an indelible impression on the development of civil rights in this country.
While today Barron would have brought his case under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which
does restrict the states), the process of change by which parts of the Bill of Rights have come to be applicable to the states
has been slow, uncertain, and confusing. While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only
because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply
directly to the states has never been overruled.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court:
The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a State, this tribunal can exercise no
jurisdiction over it unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the twenty-fifth section of the Judicial Act.
The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in the fifth amendment to the Constitution which inhibits
the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He insists that this amendment, being in favor of the
liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a State, as well as that of the United
States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.
The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty.
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own
government, and not for the of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that
constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. . . .
.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the
Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained
that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to
union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner
dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the
abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the
general government--not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were
proposed by the required majority in Congress, and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression
indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
We are of opinion that the provision in the fifth amendment to the Constitution, declaring that private property shall not
be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the
government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that
there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants
at the trial of this cause in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States.
This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and [it] is dismissed.
Informer's Comment: Ever wonder why the federal judges say, "don't bring the constitution in my court?" Now you
know why. So now we see the progression to hide this fact from the people in the states, who had no say whatsoever in
drafting and creating the U.S. Constitution, by the courts dictating change by their decisions. Remember also, that
the constitution of each of the states was never created or ratified by the common man either, for the same reasons the
U. S. Constitution was never drafted nor ratified by the common man. So why do you all claim it is your constitution
and Bill of Rights when it clearly is stated by the court that it is not?
In the next case please see if you can see RIGHTS mentioned. First the government granted "privileges" and after
they were granted, they became rights under statute, only at the whim of the Congress. Today that is called "statutory
rights" and NOT God given rights. That is why it was always a "privilege" to vote, because of the original
restrictions, having property and money was the only criteria allowing those to vote. History has shown this to be so.
That left the common man, who had no property or money in excess of 100 dollars silver, who you believe to have

4/2/2013 6:03 PM

3 of 4

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20000525071528/http://www.atgpress.c...

drafted both the Constitution and Bill of Rights, could not vote.
THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES 16 Wallace 36; 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)
In the years prior to the Civil War the individual relied almost entirely on the constitution of his state for the protection
of his rights and liberties. The Supreme Court had ruled in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights limited only the
national government, and with the exception of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress had passed no law which anyone
seriously believed had violated these limitations. The ordinary citizen looked to the state legislature to protect his person and
property from private interference, and to the state bill of rights for protection against injury by his state government.
Certainly he did not, and could not, expect the national government to step in and protect him either from his neighbor
or from his state government.
At the close of the Civil War it seemed clear that without the intervention of the federal government the Southern states
would by legislative restrictions strip the newly freed Negro of most of the ordinary rights and immunities of free citizens.
To place the civil rights of the Negro upon a firm basis Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment authorizing the
national government to step in and protect the Negro against actions by his own state government. The states were
forbidden to take life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or to deny anyone the equal protection of the laws.
The amendment defined United States citizenship in terms which included the Negro, and the states were forbidden to
make laws abridging the privileges and immunities of that citizenship.
Exactly what the framers of the amendment intended to include in the phrase "privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States" is not altogether clear, and there is evidence to indicate that it was not clear even to the framers. Some
apparently believed that the clause would include within its protection those basic rights enjoyed by all persons--such as the
right to marry, to own property, to do business, and to move about freely. Others thought that it would include all or part of
the protections listed in the federal Bill of Rights. In the Slaughter-House Cases the Court held that the privileges and
immunities clause protected none of these rights, and from this decision the Court has never retreated.
The Slaughter-House Cases were the first cases brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, and they had nothing
whatever to do with the rights of freedmen. The case arose on the following facts: the Reconstruction or "carpetbag,'
government in Louisiana, unquestionably under corrupt influence, had granted a monopoly of the slaughterhouse business to
a single concern, thus preventing over one thousand other persons and firms from continuing in that business. The validity of
the law was attacked under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was argued before the Supreme Court twice and was
decided by a majority of five to four.
The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national
citizenship, and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of
ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by
virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system
apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights
generally. Nor has the Court been willing to expand the scope of the privileges and immunities clause beyond this
early, limited interpretation. Five years before the Slaughter-House Cases the Supreme Court had held void, in Crandall v.
Nevada (1868), a state tax on transporting persons out of the state, on the ground that such a tax would obstruct the citizen
in his inherent federal right to come to the seat of his government. Two members of the Court, while concurring in the
judgment, held the tax to be a violation of the commerce clause. In his opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Mr. Justice
Miller cites this freedom of movement as an example of the privileges and immunities of United States citizens, and in
1941 in Edwards v. California, four members of the Court strongly urged that the California "anti-Okie" law should be held
invalid on this ground. The majority had rested their decision, as had the minority in the Crandall case, upon the commerce
power.
Had the Slaughter-House Cases been decided 25 years later, the Louisiana statute would in all probability have been
invalidated as a deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the
laws. But the majority of the Court disposed rather summarily of these clauses by holding in substance that the due process
of law clause was not a limitation on the state's police power and that the equal protection of the laws clause, equally
inapplicable, would probably never be invoked except for the protection of the Negro. It is important to bear in mind that
Mr. Justice Miller's comments about the due process and equal protection clauses no longer state the law. The Court has
long since given those clauses the broadest possible applicability. There have, in fact, been more cases interpreting the
Fourteenth Amendment than on any other phase of constitutional law.
It looked for a time (1935-1940) as though the Court might also broaden the scope and applicability of the privileges and
immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Colgate v. Harvey (1935) the Court held void a provision of a Vermont
income tax law which taxed income from money loaned outside the state at a higher rate than that loaned inside the state.
Besides denying the equal protection of the laws, this act was held to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States. The right to carry on business freely across state lines was declared to be a privilege or immunity of federal
citizenship, a doctrine sharply differing from the rule of Slaughter-House Cases. In 1939, in Hague v. CIO, involving the

4/2/2013 6:03 PM

4 of 4

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20000525071528/http://www.atgpress.c...

validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of various repressions of free speech, assembly, etc., in Jersey City, two justices of
the Supreme Court from the majority held that the right of citizens to assemble and discuss their rights under the National
Labor Relations Act was a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth
Amendment. There was also speculation as to whether protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was also a
privilege and immunity of federal citizenship, but no decision was made on that point. There was sharp dissent in both
cases against this tendency to enlarge the scope of the privileges and immunities clause; and in Madden v. Kentucky
(1940), in a case similar to Colgate v. Harvey, the Court specifically overruled that case and returned to the timeworn
narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause embodied in the Slaughter-House Cases.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part:
The plaintiffs in error accepting this issue, allege that the statute is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in
these several particulars:
Informer's comment: The Plaintiffs lost because the constitution of the United States did not apply to them and the
amendments did not apply to the states. The part of the decision of Miller states, "But with the exception of these and a
few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay
within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, AND WITHOUT that of the federal government." Emphasis
mine.
Now I hope all you understand that the Bill of Rights, as originally adopted, DID NOT belong to the people that lived
in the states and they did not, contrary to the big lie they are led to believe, create the Bill of Rights, just like they did
not create the Constitutions of the United States, much less the state constitution where they live. The common man
never ratified any constitution.
Now in Nebbia v New York 291 U.S. 502, Justice Roberts stated, "So far as the requirement of due process is
concerned, and in the absence of other constitution restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may
reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adopted to its purpose. The
courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. . . .
Informer's Comment: People, "public welfare" means government welfare, NOT your welfare. How many believe
when they say "public," that it means you and me? Probably 95 percent of you think this way. Not so, the government
is termed public. Ever hear the term "public office?" That is easy to understand it means government office. Why is it
so difficult to understand the "public welfare clause "means government welfare and not your welfare? Therefore, as
stated by the Nebbia court, the federal courts are without authority to override the state's domain.
BUT, the problem has completely gone away and with the advent of the War Powers the Congress and the
President now control all states and actually throws out all these court arguments because "Public Policy"
(Government AKA Congress's Policy) over rules all law except what they drafted after the Reconstruction Acts. The
enemy, that is the common man, has no rights, State or otherwise under emergency power control. And, even if we
were to revert back to peace time and be under no emergency rule, the Constitution would still not protect you nor
the Bill of Rights against State control. Now that blows the 2nd Amendment right out of the water because it only
applies to the People of the United States and NOT to the people of the States. Go an Pull the entire John Barron case
to see where they addressed every item in the Bill of Rights and how they do not pertain to the people in the states,
with the exception of one.
Have a nice day.
Sincerely, The Informer

4/2/2013 6:03 PM