There are only three things that are abhorrent in the USA according to the U.S. Supreme Court: Identification Credentials, forced oaths, and forced confessions.
Do not be fooled into thinking that these things are required by the same government that proclaims them to be abhorrent.
By the way, a signature under penalty of perjury is a perjury oath signature.
US Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):
“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States…
Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important for job and business opportunities – for cultural, [378 U.S. 500, 520] political, and social activities – for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys. Those with the right of free movement use it at times for mischievous purposes. But that is true of many liberties we enjoy. We nevertheless place our faith in them, and against restraint, knowing that the risk of abusing liberty so as to give rise to punishable conduct is part of the price we pay for this free society. ..
Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged, …”
… Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 . And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful – knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …”
The issue here, therefore, is whether the fourth amendment permits officers to stop and question persons whose conduct is innocent, unremarkable and free from suspicion. The question has frightening implications. The thought that an American can be compelled to “show his papers” before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals.”
By the way, the 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, determined that the elected officers in Washington DC could not be issued government credentials proving who they were.
That’s right! They could not be issued any stinking government badges. Maybe you can take your case up to the Supreme Court and get Marbury v. Madison overturned. But you want it overturned for a different reason than the lawyers expect — the Marbury case was also used to justify the groundless theory that judges can interpret the law.
Back in 1956 the Supreme Court determined in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 that punishments like loss of a job, or ineligibility for a passport are penalties for criminal acts, and now the same punishments are automatic until you are compelled to deny religious liberty.
“The forfeiture of property on compelled testimony is no more abhorrent than the forfeiture of rights of citizenship. Any forfeiture of rights as a result of compelled testimony is at war with the Fifth Amendment.
”The Court apparently distinguishes the Boyd case on the ground that the forfeiture of property was a penalty affixed to a criminal act. The loss of a job and the ineligibility for a passport are also penalties affixed to a criminal act.
In 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court in Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, at page 632 explained that
any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath… is contrary to the principles of a free government … it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.”
In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision, 384 U.S. 436 at page 459, acknowledged that Miranda’s famous right to remain silent comes from a long history of resistance to oaths.
In the student flag salute case Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, The Supreme Court said that:
“Such a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States.”
The U.S Supreme Court in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61 (1946):
The victory for freedom of thought recorded in our Bill of Rights recognizes that in the domain of conscience there is a moral power higher than the State. Throughout the ages men have suffered death rather than subordinate their allegiance to God to the authority of the State.” …
“[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition.”
* * *
These abhorrent themes are the basis for most of my content on NotFooledByGovernment.com
* * *
I will leave you with these thoughts.
May you learn about the enemy within, and relearn liberty. And maybe you will find out why you tolerate the abhorrent.
US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:
This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. … Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. … The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government. … When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder… the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image …”
U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, at page 485:
“In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face
[Footnote 3] In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. 241, 250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”
JAMES MADISON, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 6, 1788:
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the “Robber Barons” and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.”
YOU ALSO MAY BE INTERESTED IN:
If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules on how to defend yourself in their courts, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.
Bill of Rights Institute http://billofrightsinstitute.org/
* Well after the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, which lawyers insist is the “proof” of judicial authority, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September 25, 1820 to refute this emerging dangerous doctrine: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible as the other functionaries are, to the selective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”