Source: http://famguardian1.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:36:34+00:00

Document:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023 (OFFSITE LINK)-Describes historical efforts by the government to break down the separation of powers and destroy our God-given rights.
"The people of the United States, by their Constitution, have affirmed a division of internal governmental powers between the federal government and the governments of the several states-committing to the first its powers by express grant and necessary implication; to the latter, or [301 U.S. 548, 611] to the people, by reservation, 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.' The Constitution thus affirms the complete supremacy and independence of the state within the field of its powers. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 295 , 56 S.Ct. 855, 865. The federal government has no more authority to invade that field than the state has to invade the exclusive field of national governmental powers; for, in the oft-repeated words of this court in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 'the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.' The necessity of preserving each from every form of illegitimate intrusion or interference on the part of the other is so imperative as to require this court, when its judicial power is properly invoked, to view with a careful and discriminating eye any legislation challenged as constituting such an intrusion or interference. See South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 26 S.Ct. 110, 4 Ann.Cas. 737."
Separation of church (God) and state. The state and God (the church) are in competition with each other to protect the people, as we showed in the previous section. Guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Separation of money and state. Guaranteed by Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which required that no State shall make anything but gold and silver money. See also section 2.8.9.2 later.
Separation of marriage and state. At the time, there were no marriage licenses and everyone got married in their church. Their marriage certificate was the family bible, because that is where they recorded the ceremony.
Separation of education and state. The Constitution did not authorize the federal government to get involved in education, and since everything not mentioned in the Constitution was reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, we also had separation of education and state.
Separation of media and state: The founders always believed that a free and independent media was a precursor to an accountable and moral government and they wrote the requirement for freedom of the press into the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Separation of the people and the government. The founders gave the people equal footing with the state governments by giving them the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is equal in legislative power to the Senate, which represents the state governments.
State v. Federal separation. The states had complete sovereignty internal to their border over everything except taxes on foreign commerce, mail fraud, and counterfeiting. Slavery was later added to that by the Thirteenth Amendment. The federal government had jurisdiction over all external or foreign matters only. Guaranteed by Art. IV of the Constitution.
The founders implemented separation between the federal and state governments to put the states in competition with each other for citizens and commerce, so that when one state became too oppressive by having taxes that were too high or too many laws, people would move to a better state where they had more freedom and lower taxes. This would ensure that the states that were most oppressive would have the fewest citizens and the worst economy. They also put the federal government in charge of foreign commerce only, so that the only way it could increase its revenues was to promote, not discourage or restrict, commerce with foreign nations. If the taxes on foreign commerce were too high, people would simply buy more domestic goods and the federal government would shrink. It was naturally self-balancing.
The founders also put branches within each government in competition with each other: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. They ensured that each branch had distinct functions that could not be delegated to another branch of government. Each branch would then jealously guard its power and jurisdiction to ensure that it was not invaded or undermined by the other branch. This ensured that there would always be a balance of powers so that the system was self-regulating and the balance of powers would be maintained.
"To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 759 (1991) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Gregory v. [505 U.S. 144, 182] Ashcroft, 501 U.S., at 458 . See The Federalist No. 51, p. 323. (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 118 -137 (1976), for instance, the Court held that Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S., at 842 , n. 12. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944 -959 (1983), we held that the legislative veto violated the constitutional requirement that legislation be presented to the President, despite Presidents' approval of hundreds of statutes containing a legislative veto provision. See id., at 944-945. The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, the facts of this case raise the possibility that powerful incentives might lead both federal and state officials to view departures from the federal structure to be in their personal interests. Most citizens recognize the need for radioactive waste disposal sites, but few want sites near their homes. As a result, while it would be well within the authority of either federal or state officials to choose where the disposal sites will be, it is likely to be in the political interest of each individual official to avoid being held accountable to the voters for the choice of location. If [505 U.S. 144, 183] a federal official is faced with the alternatives of choosing a location or directing the States to do it, the official may well prefer the latter, as a means of shifting responsibility for the eventual decision. If a state official is faced with the same set of alternatives - choosing a location or having Congress direct the choice of a location - the state official may also prefer the latter, as it may permit the avoidance of personal responsibility. The interests of public officials thus may not coincide with the Constitution's intergovernmental allocation of authority. Where state officials purport to submit to the direction of Congress in this manner, federalism is hardly being advanced. "
The founders put the states in charge of the federal government by filling the senate with delegates from each state and by giving each state full and complete and exclusive control over all taxation within its borders, with the exception of taxes on foreign commerce, which is commerce external to states of the Union and among foreign countries.
"In the states, there reposes the sovereignty to manage their own affairs except only as the requirements of the Constitution otherwise provide. Within these constitutional limits the power of the state over taxation is plenary."
"The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra."
"The extent of our country was so great, and its former division into distinct States so established, that we thought it better to confederate [U.S. government] as to foreign affairs only. Every State retained its self-government in domestic matters, as better qualified to direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens, than a general government so distant from its remoter citizens and so little familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts."
"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones."
"My general plan [for the federal government] would be, to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic."
"Distinct States, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration, regularly organized with a legislature and governor resting on the choice of the people and enlightened by a free press, can never be so fascinated by the arts of one man as to submit voluntarily to his usurpation. Nor can they be constrained to it by any force he can possess. While that may paralyze the single State in which it happens to be encamped, [the] others, spread over a country of two thousand miles diameter, rise up on every side, ready organized for deliberation by a constitutional legislature and for action by their governor, constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms."
Slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Counterfeiting under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
Mail under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution.
Assaults and infractions against its own officers under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution.
Treason under Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45]reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."
Deliberately deceiving people about the intent and result of ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sixteenth Amendment “conferred no new power of taxation” upon the federal government, but simply reinforced the idea that federal income taxes are indirect excise taxes only on businesses. Yet, to this day, your dishonest Congressman and the IRS itself both insist that the Sixteenth Amendment is the basis for their authority to tax the labor of a natural person, in spite of the fact that these kind of taxes violate the Thirteenth Amendment and constitute slavery and involuntary servitude.
Eliminating separation of money and state by eliminating the gold standard and transitioning to a fiat paper currency. This was done in 1913 with the introduction of the Federal Reserve Act on Dec. 23, 1913, shortly after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in February 1913.
Eliminating separation of marriage and state by introducing marriage licenses. This was done in a large scale starting in 1923, with the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act of 1929. See section 4.14.6.7 later for further details.
5.1. Confusing the definitions of “state” and “State”.
Obfuscating the distinctions between “U.S. citizen” and “national” status. “U.S. citizens” were born in the federal United States while “nationals” were born in states of the Union. See our pamphlet "Why you are a 'national' or a 'state national' and not a 'U.S. citizen'" for details on this scam.
Judges violating the due process rights of the accused by making frequent use of false presumption against litigants regarding citizenship and “taxpayer” status without documenting in their rulings what presumptions they are making or having to defend with evidence why such presumptions are warranted. Remember that “presumption” is the opposite of due process and also happens to be a sin in the Bible. Refer to section 2.8.2 earlier for details.
Refusing to acknowledge or recognize the limits of federal jurisdiction within federal courtrooms. We have been informed of many individuals being brutalized and abused by itinerant federal judges whose jurisdiction was challenged.
Suppressing any evidence or debate in courtrooms on the nature of separation of powers.
Using the proceeds of extorted or illegally-collected federal income tax revenues to break down the separation of powers between states and the federal government. For instance, depriving states of federal revenues who do not do what the federal government wants them to do. This is called “privilege-induced slavery”. Section 6.1 of the Great IRS Hoax explains that this kind of artifice has been thoroughly exploited to create a de facto government that is completely at odds with the de jure separation of powers required by our Constitution.
Discrediting and slandering legal professionals who bring attention to the separation of powers between state and federal jurisdiction by calling them “frivolous” or “incompetent” and/or pulling their license to practice law. The framing of Congressman Traficant and Congressman George Hansen are examples of this kind of political persecution by abusing the legal system as a tool of persecution.
Paying people in the legal publishing business to obfuscate the definitions of words. We show later in section 6.8 of the Great IRS Hoax several instances of such corruption.
Making the laws found in the U.S. Code so confusing that the average American can’t rely on his own understanding of them to know what the law requires. Instead, he must compelled to rely on a high-paid expert, such as a judge or lawyer, both of whom have a conflict of interest in expanding their power, to say what the law really requires. This transforms our society from a “society of laws and not men” into a “society of men”.
Has the issue been committed expressly by the Constitution to a coordinate political branch of the government?
Are there judicially discoverable and manageable standards for deciding the case?
Can the case be decided without some initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion?
Can the court decide the case independently without expressing lack of respect due a coordinate branch of the government?
Is there an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made?
Is there a potentiality for embarrassment from multifarious decisions by different branches of the government on the same question?
Interfering with ones political choice of domicile. See section 5.4.5 later for details.
Interfering with one’s political choice of citizenship. See sections 4.11 through 4.11.13 later.
Interfering with the exercise of political rights or a political party. You as a private individual constitute an independent sovereignty and political party and a court may not interfere with your political choices. See section 4.2.4 of the Great IRS Hoax for a definition of political rights.
A court that interferes with or questions or undermines a persons political affiliations above is involving itself in political questions and the judge is overstepping his authority.
“Political questions. Questions of which courts will [and MUST] refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character, or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.
“Political questions doctrine” holds that certain issues should not be decided by courts because their resolution is committed to another branch of government and/or because those issues are not capable, for one reason or another, of judicial resolution. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 116 Misc.2d 590, 455 N.Y.S.2d 987, 990.
A matter of dispute which can be handled more appropriately by another branch of the government is not a “justiciable” matter for the courts. However, a state apportionment statute is not such a political question as to render it nonjusticiable. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208-210, 82 S.Ct. 691, 705-706, 7 L.Ed.2d 663.
"But, fortunately for our freedom from political excitements in judicial duties, this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] can never with propriety be called on officially to be the umpire in questions merely political. The adjustment of these questions belongs to the people and their political representatives, either in the State or general government. These questions relate to matters not to be settled on strict legal principles. They are adjusted rather by inclination, or prejudice or compromise, often.
Another evil, alarming and little foreseen, involved in regarding these as questions for the final arbitrament of judges would be that, in such an event, all political privileges and rights would, in a dispute among the people, depend on our decision finally. We would possess the power to decide against, as well as for, them, and, under a prejudiced or arbitrary judiciary, the public liberties and popular privileges might thus be much perverted, if not entirely prostrated. But, allowing the people to make constitutions and unmake them, allowing their representatives to make laws and unmake them, and without our interference as to their principles or policy in doing it, yet, when constitutions and laws are made and put in force by others, then the courts, as empowered by the State or the Union, commence their functions and may decide on the rights which conflicting parties can legally set up under them, rather than about their formation itself. Our power begins after theirs [the Sovereign People] ends. Constitutions and laws precede the judiciary, and we act only under and after them, and as to disputed rights beneath them, rather than disputed points in making them. We speak what is the law, jus dicere, we speak or construe what is the constitution, after both are made, but we make, or revise, or control neither. The disputed rights beneath constitutions already made are to be governed by precedents, by sound legal principles, by positive legislation e.g. "positive law"], clear contracts, moral duties, and fixed rules; they are per se questions of law, and are well suited to the education and habits of the bench. But the other disputed points in making constitutions, depending often, as before shown, on policy, inclination, popular resolves and popular will and arising not in respect to private rights, not what is meum and tuum, but in relation to politics, they belong to politics, and they are settled by political tribunals, and are too dear to a people bred in the school of Sydney and Russel for them ever to intrust their final decision, when disputed, to a class of men who are so far removed from them as the judiciary, a class also who might decide them erroneously, as well as right, and if in the former way, the consequences might not be able to be averted except by a revolution, while a wrong decision by a political forum can often be peacefully corrected by new elections or instructions in a single month; and if the people, in the distribution of powers under the constitution, should ever think of making judges supreme arbiters in political controversies when not selected by nor, frequently, amenable to them nor at liberty to follow such various considerations in their judgments as [48 U.S. 53] belong to mere political questions, they will dethrone themselves and lose one of their own invaluable birthrights; building up in this way -- slowly, but surely -- a new sovereign power in the republic, in most respects irresponsible and unchangeable for life, and one more dangerous, in theory at least, than the worst elective oligarchy in the worst of times. Again, instead of controlling the people in political affairs, the judiciary in our system was designed rather to control individuals, on the one hand, when encroaching, or to defend them, on the other, under the Constitution and the laws, when they are encroached upon. And if the judiciary at times seems to fill the important station of a check in the government, it is rather a check on the legislature, who may attempt to pass laws contrary to the Constitution, or on the executive, who may violate both the laws and Constitution, than on the people themselves in their primary capacity as makers and amenders of constitutions."
 See Federalist Paper #45 for confirmation of this fact.
 See See Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916), Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918), and many others.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.