Anyone can break the law to save a life. Government can also break the law, even the Constitution, to save a life. They can break into a house without a warrant in case of fire or screaming. They can forcibly evacuate you. They can restrain you if you are an immediate threat to yourself or others. The term for this is usually called the police powers of the state.
A perfectly legitimate government function (called by various names like “police powers”, “compelling state interest”, “overriding governmental interest”, “exigent circumstances”, “clear and present danger doctrine” and the “imminent lawless action”) can trump your right to liberty if the intent is to protect an innocent person from grave and immediate danger.
Government likes to stretch the restrictive limits that we put them in when “We The People” wrote the Constitution that created them. The Constitution delegated powers to the civil servants who swear oaths-of-office to obey the Constitution we created and ratified. The 10th Amendment confirms that their power was delegated. They have no authority to move the goalposts or push the envelope.
The U.S. Supreme Court explained the limits of police power in Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113.
“What is termed the police power of the State, which, from the language often used respecting it, one would suppose to be an undefined and irresponsible element in government, can only interfere with the conduct of individuals in their intercourse with each other, and in the use of their property, so far as may be required to secure these objects. ”
— Munn v. Illinois at the bottom of page 145
Your rights were once enforced by the courts. For example, The U.S. Supreme Court in Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927) quoted their earlier decision in Boyd.
“…and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
Unfortunately for you, these stealthy encroachments continued and accelerated.
One example is the Child Vaccinations programs that states push on you as the color of law. They claim the “police powers” authorize forced child vaccinations, but they relay on a Supreme Court decision that says the opposite. See my essay on Child Vaccinations.
How you became a ward of the state
The Roosevelt socialists that passed the Social Security Act were well aware that federal welfare to individuals was unconstitutional. They were also well aware of a narrow construction of the definition of the word indigent that would make Social Security constitutional (later confirmed in a Supreme Court decision in 1941, Edwards v. California) by using an assumption that everyone would understand that only indigents are eligible to receive benefits under any program funded by federal funds: (just as it was for the 14th Amendment).
Edwards v. California:
“…only persons who are presently destitute of property and without resources to obtain the necessities of life, and who have no relatives or friends able and willing to support them.”
This is the only Constitutional way to qualify for welfare. But you must give up your rights when your give up your responsibility to take care of yourself. Since rights only come with responsibilities, you give up all your rights and are forevermore a ward of the system. Congratulations. You now qualify, under limited circumstances, to convert Treasury funds to private use — “financed in whole or in part by Federal funds”.
This welfare-for-wards function will waive all your rights. Social Security is a welfare function of government. SSNs are only available to wards of the government.
- The Right to worship is “susceptible to restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect“. (This phrase was used in many Supreme Court decisions to protect your rights. Carrol v. Princess Anne 393 U.S. 175, Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516, West Virginia v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, in re Brown 9 Cal.3d 612)
- By getting a Social Security Number, You waive your religious rights to this “overriding governmental interest” according to the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lee (455 U.S. 252).
- in other religious liberty cases The Supreme Court also called it “overriding state interest” in Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 US 205, and “compelling state interest” in Sherbert v. Verner 374 US 398
If you accepted welfare (or even a Social Security Number) under any other circumstance other than grave and immediate danger of death, then you were fraudulently induced to participate in unlawful means to raid the Treasury.
The government cannot know who is absolutely destitute and without resources for necessities of life and who have no relatives or friends or church able and willing to support them. They have to wait for someone to apply. The application for social security is the application to become a ward of the government “under any program financed in whole or in part by Federal funds“
Now the bad news. Rights only come with responsibilities. Wards cannot manage their own affairs. As such a person, you have no right to contract. Once you apply to be a ward of government, you waive your right to earn wages, thereby making your wages taxable.
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
“…Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.”
* ~ ~ ~ *
You may also be interested in Supreme Court decisions on “stealthy encroachment” linked from my article The Constitution does not Change.