Who Are We?

by Paul Hein

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum, which might explain the growth of big, oppressive, government. As Americans have lost the idea of their sovereignty, the state has rushed to fill the void.

The term “sovereign citizen” is not unfamiliar. A law dictionary defines “sovereign” as “a person, body, or state possessing supreme authority.” In other words, the boss. States are often referred to as “sovereign,” and they are, in that, within their boundaries, they makes the rules.  Illinois laws, in other words, don’t apply here in Missouri. (If truth be told, neither do U.S. rules, except with consent of the state, or on federal property within it.) The people of the state, however, existed prior to the government, and, in fact, created it. They delegated to it certain powers, but certainly did not yield up their sovereignty. This is reflected in the Constitution of my own state, Missouri, which acknowledges the right of the people to abolish the government if it fails to serve them. 

State officials, however, seem wary of the idea of citizen sovereignty.  I recently had occasion, by interrogatory, to ask an official of the state of Missouri if I was, in fact, a sovereign citizen, and, if not, when I had lost my sovereignty. His response? “The question is vague. However, anyone residing in Missouri is considered a resident or citizen of the state. The term “sovereign” is generally thought to describe a government or a group of individuals acting as a government body. The individual would not be a sovereign.” 

How times have changed! Listen to the words of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Taney, writing in the Dred Scott case: “The words ‘people of the United States’ and citizen are synonymous terms and mean the same thing, they both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutes, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people and every citizen is one of those people and a constituent member of the sovereignty.”  Judge Taney thus made it clear why he denied Dred Scott his freedom:  Scott was not a citizen, not a sovereign.  He was, quite lawfully, if shamefully, property.  He was a “person,” or an “individual,” but not a sovereign. He had no rights, only such privileges as might be granted him.

We have all become Dred Scotts. We are “persons,” or “individuals,” not sovereigns. As  we have lost the concept of our sovereignty, the state has assumed that role, as evidenced in the reply from the Missouri official quoted above. This is particularly apparent in our tax laws.

The next time you’re visiting your public library, look at the United States Code in the reference room. Title 26 of that code is the Internal Revenue Code: the tax laws. Look in the tax code for “citizen.” You’ll find reference to “citizens about to leave the country,” and “citizens living abroad.” Or look in the entire U.S. code for “citizen.”  You’ll be referred to “citizenship.”  See how many references to Title 26, the tax code, you can find under “citizenship.” Only two, referring to the gift tax. But look in the code under “aliens,” and, wow! Eight pages packed with hundreds of references to such familiar things as “withholding,” “deductions,” “filing jointly,” etc. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the tax code was written with subjects, not sovereigns, in mind. Why would that be the case? Because no (public) servant could order his master (i.e., sovereign) around like the IRS does! Since when does the servant give the master a form and order him to complete it, under penalty of perjury, or suffer fine and/or imprisonment if he refuses? Since when does the servant compel his master to keep records regarding any sums he pays his workers, and transmit that to the government? We’re talking about violating one’s freedom of speech, privacy, and right not to witness against himself, not to mention involuntary servitude. The whole procedure makes a joke of the rights that government was created, by the sovereign citizenry, to protect and guarantee! Everything is backwards. Aliens, by contrast, don’t have rights; they are not citizens of any particular state. They are here by federal government permission, under federal jurisdiction, and they will pay for it!

This is, no doubt, why the tax process is always referred to as voluntary. We all know that failure to volunteer can lead to jail, but the pretense is important, in order to shade the proceedings with the color of law. Indeed, the entire process is perfectly lawful, if you are an alien, existing and working here as a government privilege.  And it is perfectly lawful for those who volunteer into the system by providing information and signing documents, etc. Once you volunteer, you’ve got to obey the rules: you’ve waived your sovereignty, and thus, your rights.

For those who decline to volunteer, and are not aliens, it’s 100% bluff and intimidation, made possible by the fact that the same organization that owns and operates the IRS also owns and operates the courts. 

Of course, the servant deserves to be paid, and is entitled to his compensation. He has grounds to sue if the boss fails to hold up his share of the agreement. When he starts issuing orders, however, it’s time to fire him. Who’s the boss, anyway? Who’s sovereign?  

April 23, 2002