The Four Organic Laws of The United States of America

You will know the truth and the truth will make you free

From Dr Eduardo Rivera

Here we will discuss where United States and States of United States have territorial jurisdiction to compel obedience to "federal" or "state" law.
Message
Author
User avatar
iamfreeru2
Site Admin
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:39 pm

From Dr Eduardo Rivera

#1 Postby iamfreeru2 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 7:09 am

The following email from Dr. Rivera is posted in its entirety.
Revisiting the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Office of President

In previous Posts and Lessons, I stated that the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “Office of President” in the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was an office separate from the “Office of President of the United States” and the Office of the President of the United States of America. I was mistaken.

The phrase, “Office of President” refers to the President of the United States of America. The words in the phrase “Office of President of the United States of America” very skillfully do not appear in that order in any Article II sentence. With the exception of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, Office of the President of the United States, all references in Article II to the President and Office of President refer to the President of the United States of America. Placing the Clause 8 oath of office to the Office of the President of the United States in Article II served only to confuse the Office of President of the United States with the unstated “Office of the President of the United States of America.”

I had also written that the Office of President has remained vacant since George Washington failed to meet the Constitution’s qualifications for that Office. Washington’s failure to meet the qualifications for that office did not prevent his election to the Office of President of the United States of America, nor will it prevent the election of any future President of the United States of America.

The original Article II Electors elected the person who becomes President of the United States of America on the day when a majority of the electoral votes for that person are counted in a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Neither the Twelfth Amendment nor the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution have changed the date a person becomes President of the United States of America. The name of the office identified in the first sentence in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution can be quickly ascertained to be the Office of the President of the United States of America in the second sentence. That President becomes President of United States when he takes the oath of Office of President of the United States.

What is the significance of this revision? The consolidation of the two offices facilitated my simplification of the first two articles of the Constitution. Article I establishes a federal government for the federal States of the United States consisting of “the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” The rest of this federal government will consist of an “executive,” the President of the United States and a “judiciary,” the Chief Justice. The federal government created will be one of the United States of America, the Confederacy not one of the people.

Article I is traditionally called the legislative branch article because it vests “All legislative Powers herein granted” to “a Congress of the United States.” The first sentence of a true originalist Article I identifies the “legislative Powers” as emanating from the ratifying States and the recipient of those Powers “a Congress,” a Congress of two-years duration. A Congress is limited to a duration of two years even though the component part, the Senate, is a perennial institution.

Article II is, with the exception of the oath of office for the Article I President of the United States, concerned with an originalist President vested with “The executive Power” of the United States of America.

The confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice adds another Constitution Originalist to the United States Supreme Court. Originalism is a way of interpreting the meaning of the Constitution as of the time of its establishment. The originalist jurist is motivated to determine the meaning of the passages in the Constitution which he believes can only be changed by the amending procedures set out in Article V of the Constitution of September 17, 1787. Unfortunately, today’s originalists do not go back far enough. The true origins of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 begin with the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. Only the Organic Laws Institute and the Basic Course in Law and Government reach back to the real origins of the Constitution.

Now until the end of the year, 2018, every new Basic Course student will be able to nominate another person who will be enrolled in the Basic Course in Law and Government free of tuition. To take advantage of this two-for-one tuition, the student making payment must contact me at edrivera@edrivera.com after making payment for the first course in order to designate the second student.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

User avatar
iamfreeru2
Site Admin
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:39 pm

Re: From Dr Eduardo Rivera

#2 Postby iamfreeru2 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:23 pm

Students and subscribers,


Former adviser to President Donald John Trump, Roger Stone, has been indicted for lying to a committee of Congress of the United States. Stone’s best defense is that the testimony in which it is claimed he lied was not made before “the Congress” as required by the statute upon which his indictment is based. The plaintiff in Stone’s federal criminal case is the “United States of America,”the Confederacy established by the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777. The “United States” cannot bring suit or be sued as the “United States,” because it lacks sovereignty.

The steady subscribers to my posts and the past and present students of the Basic Course in Law and Government know that the Constitution of September 17, 1787 mentions two forms of Congress: “a Congress” and “The Congress.” Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is no place in the Constitution that fits the description of “legislative Powers” being granted to a Congress of the United States. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process by which a “Bill” becomes a “Law” in the House of Representatives and Senate and is then approved or disapproved by the President of the United States. The first “a Congress” was established as the lawmaking part of the President of the United States’ administration of the United States, the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. When the first nine of the original thirteen States ratified that Constitution, and the newly elected Senators and the members of the House of Representatives met on March 4, 1789 in New York City the two-year term of the First Congress began.

“The Congress” was established when the last of the first thirteen States ratified the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781. “The Congress” of the Constitution was the Confederation acting as the United States, in Congress assembled. The same States that established the Confederacy ordained and established the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. Next, the People of those United States who would convene to ratify the Constitution of September 17, 1787, claimed in the Preamble that Constitution was for the United States of America. That claim proved to be true when the Constitution
failed to be adopted by any Article VI, Clause 3 Officer.

Section 8. of Article I of the Constitution is conclusive on the issue of the exclusive legislative power of “The Congress:” “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

***

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square), as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;- And

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

CONCLUSION

Roger Stone has been charged with lying to a committee of Congress. The statute upon which the charge was brought clearly identifies “the Congress” as the Congress which is to be protected against liars. The statute offers no protection of that kind to the committees of two-year Congresses 1. Here is part of the statute that the United States Department of Justice has charged Stone with violating: Title 18 United States Code §1001(a)(1) and (2):
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

***

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

The lawmaking process described in Section 7, of Article I of the Constitution limits “All legislative Powers” of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution to what any of the three component parts will approve. Once all the grants of the legislative powers are bestowed on “the Congress” all that remains is lawmaking power over the territory belonging to and ceded to the Confederacy, the United States of America. The grant of “All legislative Powers” was certainly intended by the Framers of the Constitution be interpreted as the making of the legislative branch of a new Republic. Their successful portrayal of Article I as the legislative branch made possible the federal government as it is known today. However, how could “All legislative Powers” be vested in a two-year Congress? It could not, and the legal counsel to the two-year Congress that enacted §1001 knew that, so they wrote that law to apply to the real Congress with the sovereignty of the Confederacy.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera
1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Logos
Site Admin
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: From Dr Eduardo Rivera

#3 Postby Logos » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:37 am

Wow. Thanks.

Logos
Site Admin
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: From Dr Eduardo Rivera

#4 Postby Logos » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:47 am

iamfreeru2 wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:23 pm
Next, the People of those United States who would convene to ratify the Constitution of September 17, 1787, claimed in the Preamble that Constitution was for the United States of America. That claim proved to be true when the Constitution
failed to be adopted by any Article VI, Clause 3 Officer.
Isn't it the opposite? That the Constitution failed to be for The United States of America because it failed to be adopted by any Article VI, Clause 3 Officer?

User avatar
iamfreeru2
Site Admin
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:39 pm

Re: From Dr Eduardo Rivera

#5 Postby iamfreeru2 » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:47 am

Logos wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:47 am
iamfreeru2 wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:23 pm
Next, the People of those United States who would convene to ratify the Constitution of September 17, 1787, claimed in the Preamble that Constitution was for the United States of America. That claim proved to be true when the Constitution
failed to be adopted by any Article VI, Clause 3 Officer.
Isn't it the opposite? That the Constitution failed to be for The United States of America because it failed to be adopted by any Article VI, Clause 3 Officer?
I think Ed has it correct. I believe what he is referring to is, due to the Constitution of A.D. 1787 never being adopted, the AOC remained/remains the Constitution for The United States of America.
1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Logos
Site Admin
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: From Dr Eduardo Rivera

#6 Postby Logos » Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:42 pm

OK--thanks.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron