Video: How to make a compass when you get lost! Natural Cues and Magnetic North and South
o o o
The Decline and Fall of the Public Range And Thoughts on the Future of Shooting – DSV
o o o
Corrections officers asked to leave Cheesecake Factory — for carrying guns – G.M.
o o o
Berlin truck attack suspect shot dead by police in Italy
o o o
Three ridiculous ways Congress plans to Keep America Safe Again
“And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him; and they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it.” – Genesis 37:23-24 (KJV)
December 23, 2013 is the 103rd anniversary of the exclusive private banking cartel known as The Federal Reserve. America and the U.S. Dollar won’t survive another century under those “banksters”.
The Civil War (or The War of Northern Aggression, depending on your personal view) ended in 1865. However, the legality of secession by the Southern States simply will not die 150 years after Texas formally seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of America. As late as May, 2011, secession by part of the State of Arizona from the rest of the State is being proposed. Secession is often bandied about by politicians on both sides of the spectrum, but do any of its proponents really understand what secession, from a legal standpoint, is and isn’t?
This article will explore the illegality of secession through the style United States Supreme Court cases dealing directly with the issue. As much as possible, the article will let the Court, through its own words, explain what secession is and its legal effect on the seceding states. All emphasis within the following quotes, unless otherwise noted, are those of the author.
The Texas Ordinance of Secession, at least in the opinion of its drafters and the people of Texas, officially separated Texas from the United States in 1861. It was adopted by the Secession Convention on February 1 of that year by a vote of 166 to 8.
“The ordinance of secession submitted to the people was adopted by a vote of 34,794 against 11,235. The convention, which had adjourned immediately on passing the ordinance, reassembled. On the 4th of March, 1861, it declared that the ordinance of secession had been ratified by the people, and that Texas had withdrawn from the union of the States under the Federal Constitution.”[1]
“Scott Kohlhaas drafted an initiative calling for Alaska’s secession from the United States or, in the alternative, directing the state to work to make secession legal, and submitted the initiative, along with one hundred signatures, to the lieutenant governor.”[2]
A very strong clue previewing the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of the illegality of the secession of the Southern States can be found in the preparatory language of the Court leading up to its decision in the seminal case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869). The following is a selection of the Court’s classification of the Confederate States’ attempted secession.
“…At the time of that outbreak, Texas was confessedly one of the United States of America, having a State constitution in accordance with that of the United States, and represented by senators and representatives in the Congress at Washington. In January, 1861, a call for a convention of the people of the State was issued, signed by sixty-one individuals. The call was without authority and revolutionary…”
“…Thus was established the rebel government of Texas.”
“…War having become necessary to complete the purposed destruction by the South of the Federal government, Texas joined the other Southern States, and made war upon the United States, whose authority was now recognized in no manner within her borders.”
Context
This case involved vessels (and their cargoes) which were seized during the Civil War. One of the significant issues in the case was whether the President of the United States had the right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against it.
____________
The Supreme Court entered into a detailed, logical analysis of the effect of secession by the Southern States and the right of the United States to react to their secession. The first inquiry was whether a state of war existed when the vessels were seized, remembering that the Congress never formally declared war on the Confederate States. In fact, Congress passed an act “approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.”[4] On the issue of the declaration of war, the Court held:
“ Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents–the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory; have declared their independence; have cast off their allegiance; have organized armies; have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war. They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign State, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe allegiance, and who should be punished with death for their treason.”[5]
The Court acknowledged that only Congress could declare war. However, Congress could not declare war against a state(s). According to the Court, only the president had the authority to use the military force of the United States to combat an armed insurrection as was encountered during the Civil War.
“ By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.”[6]
The Court concluded that, in light of the “insurrection” of the Southern States, the President of the United States had the right to institute a blockade of the ports in the possession of the rebelling states and that all neutral countries/citizens were bound to recognize same.
This case involved the bringing of an original action in the United States Supreme Court by the State of Texas for the recovery of payment from certain bonds of the Federal Government. The issue before the Court was whether Texas, after the end of the Civil War (1867), was entitled to bring an original action in the United States Supreme Court as one of the states of the United States even though it was still attempting to comply with the Reconstruction Acts.
____________
To answer the very significant question of jurisdiction of the Court, an analysis of the actions of Texas prior to its succession, during its succession, and after the end of the Civil War was performed by the Court. Its findings were as follows:
The Republic of Texas was admitted as a state into the Union on December 27, 1845. By its admission into the Union, Texas and all of its residents were immediately vested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties, of the original States under the United States Constitution.
“ From the date of admission, until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired. In that year, acting upon the theory that the rights of a State under the Constitution might be renounced, and her obligations thrown off at pleasure, Texas undertook to sever the bond thus formed, and to break up her constitutional relations with the United States.”[7]
[1]Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 at Page 704 (1869)
[2]Kohlhaas v. State, Office of Lieutenant Governor, 147 P.3d 714 at Page 715 (Alaska – 2006)
[3]Acts of March 2d and March 23d, 1867
[4]The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635 at page 670 (1863)
[5]ibid, 67 U.S. 635 at page 666 (1863)
Hugh,
I believe that the article posted on December 22 may present inaccurate guidance to the readers of SurvivalBlog.
In June, 2016 the FAA announced the forthcoming release of Part 107 of their regulations. The likely final regulations are here. The regulations detail the Operating Rules for drone pilots, including things such as See-And-Avoid and Visibility Requirements, Containment and Loss of Positive Control, Careless and Reckless Operation, and more.
For drone pilots, note that the Section on Careless and Reckless Operation is a FAA “catch all” that will be used to legally go after drone pilots who operate in an unsafe manner. Similar Sections exist in other FAA regulations for private and commercial pilots, and this “catch all” has been used to convict pilots who did dangerous things.
More importantly, the FAA and the courts have already demonstrated that the FAA regulates the airspace over the USA. Not you, them. Unless a drone is operating so dangerously that your life is in danger (and ideally you document such), think twice before you shoot down a drone. You’re likely going to end up in court, and even if you win you’ll probably spend at least $10,000 in legal fees.
The FAA did not address privacy considerations in these new regulations. If someone is putting you at risk or violating your privacy, try to document any of the following and then report it to the FAA:
– P.S.
While on the subject of UBI, Reader T.Z sent in the link to Stefan Molyneux’s rant on Universal Basic Income. It’s worth the 18 minutes required to watch it.
o o o
FORENSIC EVIDENCE: Why Silver Price Manipulation Will End
o o o
Oil Traders See Market Balance By Mid-2017. The current narrowing of the contango from mid-2017 on is an indication that oil traders believe that the market could come into balance by the middle of the year.
o o o
Personal Income Flat, Consumer Spending Weak, Real Disposable Income Down
o o o
o o o
SurvivalBlog and its editors are not paid investment counselors or advisers. Please see our Provisos page for details.
How to Make AMAZING Bullet Resistant Armor for $30. As always, be careful. Use at your own risk. – G.P.
o o o
o o o
Albuquerque Police Department to start manufacturing crack cocaine so they can arrest the people they sell it to. If police arrest users so that they can get them to rat out pushers, dealers, and manufacturers, does this mean that they will cut deals with the users to arrest themselves? – DSV
o o o
Christmas solar storm to batter Earth as flare blasts from massive hole in the sun – G.G.
o o o
A bit of holiday fun: Save The Snowflakes!
“Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called.” – John Stuart Mill
December 22nd is the anniversary of the death of SP4 James T. Davis, the first uniformed American combat casualty of the Vietnam War, in 1961. This ASA soldier (of the 3rd Radio Research Unit) was killed in a Viet Cong ambush on a road outside Saigon.
One night you suddenly see a drone hovering next to a window of your home. Outraged, you shoot it down. Somebody calls the police because they heard a firearm discharged, and ten minutes later you hear a knock on your door. Or, say a military plane swoops across your backyard, barely skimming the tops of your pine trees, and you hear a massive crash. You look out your window and see a fully intact missile stuck head first in the ground. Apparently the military accidentally dropped a bomb on your land. Can you do more than shake your fist?
The question: Who owns the air above your property?
You do, to a limit. The law says, “The entry of an aircraft into the airspace over land belonging to another person is privileged and lawful unless the entry is in such a manner as to interfere with the landowner’s use of the property beneath the airspace.” – 2A C.J.S. Aeronautics & Aerospace § 9
In property law, when you purchase land, you own what’s underneath. Yes, this is true all the way down to the center of the earth and the air above it, but it’s obviously not true to the moon. In short, your property is not just the dirt; it’s also the sky. However, in legalese, you own as much of the air above the surface as you can reasonably use in connection with the surface.
But how far up is “reasonable use”? Well, this is where the federal government comes in, and the federal government has exclusive sovereignty of U.S. airspace. The operative term is called “navigable airspace” (similar to navigable waters), and Congress delegated to the FAA the authority to define “navigable airspace” however it wants and also gave it the authority to regulate it. Note also the term Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA), which is a generic term that’s used to describe the altitude that’s unsafe to fly because of terrain and/or obstacles.
At the present, according to FAA Regulations, “navigable airspace” is:
Airplanes can operate even lower when over “open water or sparsely populated areas.” But those aircraft must not get closer than 500 feet to any person, vehicle, or structure, except if:
The above really applies to commercial aircraft. So, how low is too low before the government infringes upon your property? The FAA argues that it has authority to regulate aircraft in U.S. airspace at any altitude because according to Federal law, the FAA can “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” This rule is broader than you think, which is no surprise because the government is always stretching the rules.
In addition, Congress gave the FAA the authority to prescribe “regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods and procedure the [FAA] finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.” Under this section, the FAA regulates amateur rockets, motorized paragliders, and other vehicles below 500 feet. In other words, Congress has given the FAA nearly unlimited power to use “national security” to violate private owners’ airspace rights.
Finally, even if navigable airspace does not extend to the surface, the FAA has argued that it may regulate below navigable airspace because it can prescribe regulations “on the flight of aircraft for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft” and “protecting individuals and property on the ground.” While this seems helpful, it effectively gives the government the authority to trespass upon your airspace in order to “protect” whomever is on land.
Here are two important principles regarding airspace below the MSA from an important Supreme Court case:
However, these principles remain unclear, which is why airspace is still a controversial topic. At the moment, the FAA thinks it can regulate any and all airspace under the guise of national security. To limit the power of the federal government, the states should oppose the FAA overreach by arguing that regulating airspace below 500 feet is part of their traditional police powers. This still doesn’t solve the issue of private property rights, but it’s a closer step to preserve federalism.
Today, the hot button issue regarding airspace and privacy is the use of drones. Contrary to large aircraft, drones are quiet, and they often fly well below navigable airspace. As a result of increased drone technology and use (from military surveillance to Amazon deliveries), it’s very possible that “navigable airspace” could be lowered to the point of threatening the traditional airspace rights of property owners.
So, back to the opening question: What do you do if you see that drone above your property? The law hasn’t fully developed, but here is an example.
Hugh,
Regarding the piece on Universal Basic Income in SB edition of 12-13-16, please consider the following:
Neither Charles Murray nor Milton Friedman are/were “libertarians”. The best operational definition of the term “Libertarian” is one who rejects the “initiation” of force as a method to achieve social or political objectives. It is the absolute right of any and all individuals to engage in the free exercise of the rights appurtenant to their existence. Neither Murray nor Friedman acknowledge this universal truth. Both engage in a discussion more akin to a question such as: “How many lashes may a master administer to a slave for insubordination?” In fact, the question in priority is: “Can slavery morally exist in a free society?”
Implicit in the examination of the question of “Universal Basic Income” is the presumption that such a system is morally proper, and that there is a “legitimate authority” to implement such a system. There are two, and only two, ways to exchange goods and services. They are:
1. By persuasion, through voluntary action between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
2. By force, as dictated by individuals or groups of individuals regarding various aspects of economic transactions.
The first recognizes the intrinsic “inalienable” rights of the individual. The second denies same and presumes that the individual is somehow subordinate to an individual (the king?) or some form of group (government, warlords, gangs, et cetera). To the degree that force is introduced into any economic transaction, by any entity, that transaction is to that degree immoral and is in violation of the inalienable rights of the participants. There are no exceptions to this universal truth. “ ‘A’ is ‘A’ ”, Ayn Rand.
Something Wicked This Way Comes
o o o
Italy proves that banks are not the risk-free fantasy we’re told to believe
o o o
Video: Silver Manipulation, Mining Stocks & Freedom: Mike Maloney & David Morgan (Part 1) “It turns out the tin foil hats were right.”
o o o
Italy lawmakers approve 20 billion euro plan to prop up banks
o o o
SurvivalBlog and its editors are not paid investment counselors or advisers. Please see our Provisos page for details.
Top 5 SHTF ‘Surprises’ – P.S.
o o o
Immigration – B.B.
o o o
Arrest made in ‘Vote Trump’ burning of Mississippi black church. Called a racial HATE CRIME, this sounds more like “a selfie false flag event”. – D.S.
o o o
Consumer watchdogs say popular toys are secretly spying on your children – DSV
o o o
Germany Tried to Deport Berlin Truck Terrorist… “Couldn’t” Because Home Country Wouldn’t Take Him – B.B.
“The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone – one which barely escapes being no government at all.” – H.L. Mencken
On December 21, 1620, William Bradford and the Mayflower Pilgrims landed on what is now known as Plymouth Rock in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
o o o
Today, we present another entry for Round 68 of the SurvivalBlog non-fiction writing contest. The nearly $15,000 worth of prizes for this round include:
First Prize:
Second Prize:
Third Prize:
Round 68 ends on January 31st, so get busy writing and e-mail us your entry. Remember that there is a 1,500-word minimum, and that articles on practical “how to” skills for survival have an advantage in the judging.