Free Country or Frogs In A Pot?
The frog toss began in 1933 at the inception of Social Security. In 1934, the U.S. Supreme Court had declared that the Constitution did not allow Congress, as one of its powers under Article 1, Section 8, to mandate participation in the railroad retirement system insurance program.[i] After that declaration, the Social Security Act was expected to fall as another overreach of Congress's power limit. It was a program the U.S. Code describes as "Insurance" and was imposing upon State prerogatives.[ii] In a case challenging the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, the Supreme Court dodged the limitations of Article 1, Section 8, by declaring Social Security constitutional as an "Excise Tax" for participation in a program in which the States could elect to participate.[iii] Excise taxes are taxes to which you volunteer as a condition of an activity or benefit. The stove pilot light had been lit.
Social Security cards were initially printed with instructions that they could not be used for personal identification and Social Security Numbers were not used as an element of a person's identity.[iv] The account record numbers were not required to do anything but to apply for a subsidy from the Social Security Act's Old Age Retirement, Survivors, Disability Insurance program. Even as recently as 2004, the Social Security Administration admitted that "the Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one."[v] Notwithstanding that, nearly every person in America is led to believe that they must be denied, or they must deny - employment, payment for services, banking, driver's licenses, professional or occupational licenses, passports, and myriad other things contingent upon whether they or their customer will identify themselves with a SSN.
In 1943, when only half the population had established a Social Security Account, the burner was turned up high enough to eventually cook us all. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared in Executive Order 9397, "WHEREAS it is desirable in the interest of economy and orderly administration that the Federal Government move towards the use of a single unduplicated numerical identification system of accounts and avoid the unnecessary establishment of additional systems.... Hereafter any Federal department, establishment, or agency shall, whenever the head thereof finds it advisable to establish a new system of permanent account numbers pertaining to individual persons, utilize exclusively the Social Security Act account numbers assigned pursuant to ..."[vi] Up until that time, social security numbers were assigned to account records. His executive order turned the number into something that referenced the number being assigned to the person rather than to the record.
Though E.O. 9397 is claimed by some federal agents as a mandate, federal agencies did not obey the order for decades. The Internal Revenue Service waited until 1962 to make the SSN the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. Social Security and Income taxes can still be collected even without identifying a person with a number.[vii] & [viii] Military departments waited until 1971 to change their record numbers.[ix] They might never have done so if it had not been for the provisions of the impending Privacy Act. The bill provided a grandfather clause to not restrict use of SSNs to any federal agency that was using the number as an individual's identifier prior to January 1975. It caused all the agencies to start using the SSN as each person's identifier. Rather than restrict SSN identification, the Privacy Act set the practice in stone. The burner was now on high for anyone who was a federal or private sector employee.
Congress has no authority to mandate the several states to pass legislation or to administer any federal program.[x] Therefore, Congress cannot force the states to require people to identify themselves with a SSN. Congress may, none-the-less, bait the states into administering a federal program by offering money.[xi] Federal Health and Human Services Code, U.S. Code, Title 42, Section 666, requires any participating State to require that every applicant for a "professional license, occupational license, recreational license, driver's license and marriage license" identify with a SSN on a license application if that State wants to receive welfare funds. Now, even those who are not in the status of "employee" are being cunningly coerced to make the SSN an element of their identity. The frog stew has come to a boil.
foundational system of law in
Religion is the duty imposed by our Creator whose benevolence supplies our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted among men to "secure these rights" rather than to ensure uniform compliance to government efficiency preferences. President Roosevelt described the use of a SSN as merely a convenience for "economy and orderly administration." Occupations, professions, marriage, recreational hunting and fishing, or using an automobile are rights of life, liberty, and pursuit-of-happiness property that ought not to be hinged to a religious test for the sake of that efficiency.
On October 23, 2013, a United States Court, Eastern District, Richmond, Virginia, expressed that 42 USC §666 requires States who have taken money for their welfare programs to impose the demand for a SSN in order to grant its citizens and residents a professional, occupational, recreational, driver's or marriage license, even over objections of religion.[xvi] Doing some of those activities without the license carries a criminal penalty. According to the Court opinion, those who have bona fide religious objections to being identified with a universal identification number have a choice to forsake those activities common to law-abiding people or forsake their faith. Government's interest in efficiency and orderly administration has somehow elevated itself above protecting life, liberty, and property rights; even to the point of superseding religion. Maybe the crack-pots of the 1930s are like the crack-pots in the Bible. Each forewarned of abject subjugation unless the people reversed their trek toward destruction. Each would be subject to the test of time.
What will prevail in this particular conflict between 666's mechanism of subjugation and law protecting religion that secures our freedom? Freedom will depend up there being a remnant of judges whose hearts remain loyal to the Supreme Judge of mankind - or we are all cooked.
to the purpose and operation of the act, the court declared it unconstitutional because "The Act is not, in purpose or
effect, a regulation of interstate commerce within the meaning of the
[iii] Steward Machine Co. v.
[vi] Executive Order 9397, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1943 http://dpclo.defense.gov/privacy/documents/EO_9397.pdf
[vii] The Story of The Social Security Number, by Carolyn Puckett, Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 69 No. 2, 2009 http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html
[ix] David Alan Carmichael
[x] Printz v.
[xii] Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Introduction, Section the Second, On the Nature of Laws in General, c. 1766, pp. 42-43, (edited for modern English and type-set errors corrected by David Alan Carmichael, 2011 - Kindle Publishing)
" UPON These two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict These. There is, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws, that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase it's moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in soro conscientiae to abstain from (.P 43) it's perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or injoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful which before was not so. (emphasis added)
[xiii] Justice Joseph Story on Common Law
and Constitutional Origins of the
79. And so has been the uniform doctrine in
[xvi] David Alan Carmichael v. Kathleen Sebelius, et. al. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/3:2013cv00129/291953/29