Defending the Truth

I was perusing a message board on the Internet where they were discussing property. One of the posters mentioned: "Senate Document #43 states "All property is owned by the state.."".

Realizing that this a Communist Doctrine, I couldn't believe that this had been accepted by the Congress as a Senate Document. I searched the Internet and found the document here:

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com...resolution.pdf

Within this document, it is declared: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State".

I revisited the message board and posted: "This is a communist doctrine. Do you accept this as valid in the United States?"

One poster wrote back: "Don't even go there Indago. Of course I do not agree with the communist doctrine. On the other hand, because it is written into Congressional record, it is a FACT, and a FACT that we as American men and women should not be proud of (giving respect to the tens of thousands that have died in the fight to keep this nation the property of the men and women of this nation)."

I sent an Email to the Senators from my State, noting: "I was not aware of this Senate Document Number 43, ordered to be printed by Senate Resolution Number 63 of the Seventy-third Congress, First Session; and, I find it appalling and hypocritical that after all the time, rhetoric, and energy expended by so many in government denouncing Communist Doctrine, here it is, accepted into the Congress as a Senate Document.

I want to see this Senate Document Number 43 expunged from the records of government, and would like you working toward that end."

It would behoove all to write to their Senators and require that this Senate Document #43 be expunged from all records of government.

First of all, you're arguing about what looks like a brief (i.e. legal interpretation, not a law) written in 1933. Just because it was printed as a Senate document doesn't mean it is the law of the land; and it especially doesn't mean it's the law of the land 75 years later.

Second of all, "all property owned by the state" is not, I repeat, not a communist doctrine. This doctrine is a common characteristic of most governments in human history, from kingdoms to modern day democratic republics; with varying degrees of capacity. All land in the British Empire was officially the property of His/Her Majesty's government, for example; and kingdoms are very far from being communist!

From first looks at the actual quote from the document:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual
so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law,
amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law,
and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

Now I didn't read the entire document, but all it seems to be describing is a fundamental principle in any civilized country; that basically you cannot do whatever you like on your property. All it is saying is that you do not "own" your property to the effect that you are outside the laws of the United States. For example, you cannot engage in illegal activity (have slaves farming your property for example) and declare that it is "your property" and therefore you can do whatever you like on it. Likewise, (and I think this is more in the the context of the document) you cannot burn money as such documents are ultimately legal tender issued and owned by the state. That's all it's saying. It doesn't mean that King George can take everything you own willy-nilly, as perhaps the libertarians would have you believe.

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." — Article Five - Bill of Rights

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" — Fourteenth Amendment


This country was not founded upon the principles of Communism, nor a feudal society. It was founded upon the principles of life, liberty, and private property. Of course there are limits to what one can do, so that all can enjoy their lives: ergo: noise limits; speed limits; theatre occupancy limits; building limits; and etc. But this does not mean that the State owns everything.

Like I said, the context of the quote wasn't trying to convey the idea that the government can just seize everything you own for no valid reason. If I'm not mistaken, all it was talking about is that ultimate ownership of property in the United States is by the United States (e.g. you can't declare independence of exercise beyond the law of the land). Your property may be private property but it is still United States soil. Your property is the government's only insofar as it is within the borders and laws of the United States.

Likewise, the quote doesn't necessarily counteract the Constitution. This is why the government reserves the right to seize public property for the benifit of the public in eminent domain, if and only if they provide just compensation (as per the Fifth Amendment) and the due process of law through condemnation proceedings (as per the Fourteenth). Eminent domain also can apply to air and water rights.

The only thing it is saying is that you and your property cannot exercise freedoms as a completely independent entity from the United States. You still own your property but ultimate theoretical 'ownership' is reserved to the state. We're not a collection of independent nations that vote in a 'super government': we're all citizens of the United States.

This is a concept that exists in every modern nation, and has existed so long as there were governments. This isn't a radical declaration, and it certainly isn't "Communist" or necessarily "feudal". It seems you're just throwing around generalizations without even knowing the true contexts of their words.

Katczinsky has kanted:Only in your wildest, and most lucid hallucinations!

YOU brought up the "All land in the British Empire was officially the property of His/Her Majesty's government" principle, which was a feudal society concept. A feudal society, and feudal law, is described in the 1870 law dictionary of Judge John Bouvier:

"A system of tenures of real property which prevailed in the countries of western Europe during the middle ages, arising from the peculiar political condition of those countries, and radically affecting the law of personal rights and of movable property. 2. Although the feudal system has never obtained in this country, and is long since extinct throughout the greater part of Europe, some understanding of the theory of the system is essential to an accurate knowledge of the English constitution, and of the doctrines of the common law in respect to real property. The feudal tenure was a right to lands on the condition of performing services and rendering allegiance to a superior lord. ...It has been said that the system is nothing more than the natural fruit of conquest;... Some lands were allotted to individuals as their proper estates, and these were termed allodial; but, for the most part, those lands which were not retained by the chieftain he assigned to his comites, or knights, to be held by his permission, in return for which they assured him of their allegiance and undertook for him military service. ...Every one who held lands upon a feudal tenure was bound, when called upon by his benefactor or immediate lord, to defend him, and such lord was, in turn, subordinate to his superior, and bound to defend him, and so on upwards to the paramount lord or king, who in theory of the law was the ultimate owner of all the lands of the realm."

Concerning communist principles: "communism is the positive expression of annulled private property". — Marx 1844

The feudal society concepts, and communist principles, have no place in the United States, and should be repelled by all who come across them in their lives.



-

It was your contention that state ownership of property is exclusively and categorically 'communist' and 'feudal'. While the state (represented in feudalism by the nobility/aristocracy) owns property under feudalism, it is not a distinct feudalist doctrine (i.e. the state can own all property and not be feudal). Likewise it is not exactly the same thing. Property under the context of feudalism means ownership of property and vassals under 'reciprocal contract relations.'

Under the context of the 70-year old brief you're making such a big fuss about; all it means is that you can't legally burn your money.

Exactly, it's the positive expression of annulled private property just as it is the overthrow of the class system. Communists seek to abolish the working class (proletariat) as much as they seek to abolish the ruling class (bourgeoisie). Under communism there wouldn't be any private property for the state to own; not to mention, under communism there wouldn't be a state to do the owning.

Reasons would be nice.

Expressing your philosophies is one thing, and such is indeed welcomed, but the unsubstantiated nonsense and complete misunderstandings of the allegations you're throwing around is getting annoying.

I for one would like to see just where the ideology that declares The United States is not consisted of Individual Governmental Entities with transcending rights to a Central Federal Government comes from. When each "little nation" indeed has it's own independent "Constitution" and the transcending right to make its own laws for its own peoples. Surely this ideology is not found in the US Constitution, but rather from an opined pragmatic idea made from the study of previous Judges instead of from a study made in the constitution. Please show me were the US Constitution does not consider each state an individual entity, as each indeed has its own constitution. And please do not quote form some false ideology of legal opinion offered as "precedence", show me the wording of the US Constitution. What, are these State Constitutions only superfluous in comparison to the all powerful Federal Government? In fact if it did not consider them to be self governed, why is there a mandate for each state to remain a republican government (Article 4 Section Sec. 4). Thus in my opinion, what you present is in itself nothing short of social communism.

For indeed, that is the "ONLY" way for the social communists to morph our Democratic Republic into a social democracy, they must present the Central Government as ALL Powerful, thus what they opine form the bench effects ALL fifty "individual" states, and the US Constitution does not even have to considered as they use the "pseudo" term, "Judicial Review" as having authority over even the words of the constitution. Again, just where is the ideology presented in the constitution that "precedence" is to be the final factor in considering the process of Judicial Review, I thought the actual words of the constitution was to be the final authority, and if nothing was found to be contradictory, the remaining "unspoken" words were the sole property of the STATES? At least that's what our 10th article of the Bill of Rights declares.

I just have one question. Why, in your opinion, was "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law, which was the cornerstone of American Jurisprudence until the 1920's, suggested by the Secular Law Institutions Like Harvard not to be considered any longer as a final authority in making opinion from the bench? My opinion is simple, it is suggested that instead of actually making study of the US Constitution, law students should indeed study previous opinion of sitting Judges, instead of the actual words of the constitution, because Harvard and the likes considered the Constitution as much an "evolving" entity as was man and they made the self appointment as the authority to supervise this evolution , thanks to the "in vogue" pseudo rage....Darwinism. (R)

My reference to 'individual nations' was in the context of private property, not the states. You and your property do not represent their own independent entities, and therefore the ultimate claim to property lies within the state.

Seriously, again with the ignorant mischaracterizations? I suggest you take another look at my post regarding this completely worthless claim and instead of perpetuating the unsubstantiated myth, actually attempt to counter my evidence. Frequently Americans like to label everything they disagree with as either fascist or communist and leave it at that; well it doesn't work with me.

I don't think an evolution in interpretation of our Constitution is at all beyond the realm of what many of it's creators had in mind. People like Benjamin Franklin could not have imagined the world of the twenty first century and, quite frankly, stagnation in political and social development always ends in failure. This is something they understood, only they probably had in mind the more frequent use of amendments and Constitutional conventions. The only idealistic, fallacious, and dangerous idea is to suggest the infallibility and permanence of any political or social idea, let alone documents designed for government.

Despite the obvious drawbacks to the authority of your own argument by denying well-accepted science like evolution, it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You seem like a persuasive debater until you interject ignorant characterizations which are incidentally irrelevant and unnecessary to your arguments.

Tangent ranting without answering any of the queries? I asked for you to show me in the constitution where "precedent" was to be the final factor in the Judicial Review process and often made from exterior sources other than the words of the constitution. The founding fathers indeed allowed for changes to be made in the constitution to adapt to changes that were sure to come in society. This process is called an "amendment", and this amendment was only to be finalized by .75% will of the states (We the People).

This process worked just great, as blacks were allowed to be considered human instead of just a piece of property, women were made just as equal as men in the governmental process...etc. Now the seculars claim the right to evolve our constitution just by words of their mouth instead of words actually found in the constitution, by falsely declaring that some imagined power of Judicial Review allows them to ignore the constitution in favor of prior opinion. Thus, they in effect made non-effect the true power of this nation the... representation of its people by the only authorized branch of government to make new law or change the constitution. The Legislative. And its all due to "we the people" allowing our legal system to be hi-jacked by the pragmatism of secular humanism instead of actually making them adhere to the true process on which this nation was founded...a very strong belief in the transcending authority of the creator over man and all forms of government.

Thus, another query that went unanswered by you, why was the "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law" shelved in favor of "legal precedence"? An oxymoron in and by itself sense this Reference Book of Law was found sitting "legal precedence" from 1776-1920. Its almost as absurd as the Roe v Wade nonsense that "ignored" historical precedence of 200 years to falsely cling to an amendment that was created to empower the the rights of people instead of the right to legislate from the bench. Its seems, the Supreme Court plays fast and loose with their opinions, they use the constitution when it suits their agenda and ignore and declare "the power of Judicial Review" when no words are to be found in the constitution that they can twist and contort to their political ideology of human secularism. And all this constitution amending performed not by elected officials, but by political appointees, that have lifetime appointments and have no oversight whatsoever....as I said, the best of both worlds. Thats why the Judicial Appointment process as turned into such a circus of lies and hypocrisy. For they know where the true power rests in this morphed socialized republic, and it sure as hell is not possessed by "we the people", as was intended.

And as far as the "THEORY" of evolution, just where in the constitution is it made illegal not to accept any idea as fact? Does it really matter how many accept this false science as actual truth? If indeed it were truth, we would have the law of evolution. That's exactly why the founding fathers demanded that each state remain a republic and not be allowed to morph into a "mobocracy". So, the majority could not run roughshod over others with only their "beliefs". I have no problem whatsoever with "YOU" preferring to accept this "IDEA" as fact, but what right to you have in imposing this "IDEA" on the public at large as if it were fact, and this is very much demonstrated in all our public schools. (R)

My Email has been sent