Letter to State Representatives to Reject National ID Act of 2005

This letter is to inform you of my emphatic opposition to the "Real ID Act" of 2005 and to provide to you the legal substance that gives the ultimate decision to the states and proves that the federal government lacks jurisdiction in dictating to the states the terms by which an identification card would be issued.

I urge you to follow the lead provided by the state of Maine and reject the "Real ID Act" not for the reasons that Maine used, but for the proper reason which is the lack of jurisdiction the federal government holds in this arena. The courts have held repeatedly that the federal government lacks jurisdiction over the state with the exception of those areas specifically defined in the Constitution of the united States of America.

Article IV, Section 4 of the united States Constitution states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of government."

You might also take note to actual case law in which several opinions have held that the people are sovereign.

"The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation... He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property."
-Supreme Court, Hale vs. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74

Evidence of the several states authority over that of federal government;

"Each [state] declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory... The soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the Declaration of Independence as at this very hour."
Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat, 523, 526, 527)

"Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward. Upon entering the Union, they retained all their original power and sovereignty, except such as was surrendered to the federal government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by the United States Constitution."
Blair v Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249. S.P People . Coleman, 60 D. 581

The 10th Amendment to the united States Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In 1945 the Supreme Court, in Hooven and Allison Co v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, affirmed that there are two distinctly different United States with two opposite forms of government. Both United States have the same Congress. This Supreme Court case officially defined the two distinct and separate meanings of the term "United States." This case has never been overturned.

This means that the "United States" that has passed the "Real ID Act" in an effort to usurp the authority of the states, is not the one (United States) that has the jurisdiction to do so and the states do not have the right or authority to usurp a Constitutional protection at the behest of the federal government.

Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado and Oregon have already started taking back their sovereignty from the federal government. Some counties in these states have actually "kicked out" national forestry agents and FBI agents since federal agents can only operate within the bounds of a state at the whim of the state. Basically, if the state decided to take back its authority, it may do so and the federal government has no more authority as that given it in the united States Constitution. The United State's authority only extends to the specific territories and enclaves within the state where the state has ceded a portion of itself to the federal government. The requirement for approval by the state legislature for the federal government to open a post office within the bounds of a state should serve as evidence. The state is giving away a portion of itself every time it approves the opening of another post office. Federal law is the law that governs these territories which is why the FBI has jurisdiction over an armed robbery that occurs in a post office and not the local grocery store or bank.

I urge you to have the courage to stand strong against the bribes and threats from US Congressional representatives and against this abusive law they are attempting to force on the state of Louisiana. Just know that your authority is above that of the federal government and there is plenty of case law to support that stance. If I may provide you with more cases to back this stance, please let me know and I will be glad to provide them.

It is common practice for government officials to claim a higher jurisdiction than state governments. They claim the federal law supersedes state law. This could not be further from the truth. The specific duties of the federal government are laid out in the united States Constitution. Once state governments start to realize that the bribes used to buy freedom from the states is not worth the business lost to such stringent government restrictions, they can begin to take back their sovereignty and the states will begin to flourish.

Most respectfully yours,

Defend Freedom™