Posted originally on Jan 22, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Often, people ask me about my legal background. Because I have had to deal on an international basis, even restructuring multinational companies, it was imperative that I understand the law around the world, how it developed, and the stark differences. For example, European law adopted Canon Law from the Catholic Church, which is far better than the English Common Law that America adopted. Under Canon Law, the family unit is paramount. Not even your brother-in-law could be compelled to testify against you. In the USA, your spouse is the only person with such a privilege. They can order your children to testify against you tearing your family apart, and if they refuse, they are thrown into prison under civil contempt, where the New York courts will keep them until they die unless they testify against a parent. Welcome to the land of the free – what a joke. The state comes before your family at all times.

In a recent case, a Judge finally ruled correctly. This case involved a Mexican citizen who was wanted for murder in Mexico and had been previously deported from the USA. Prosecutors cannot resist crafting charges to make a name for themselves. They charged him under a federal law prohibiting noncitizens from possessing firearms, which is patently unconstitutional. People have suddenly realized that there was a constitutional problem they should have known from the drafting of Section 922 (g)(5)(A) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. But the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen expanded gun rights. The Court held that because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, they concluded that the State’s licensing regime violated the Constitution. The court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The dissents cited recent mass shootings and justification for effectively overruling the Constitution. They overlook the fact that because of a few people, they justify eliminating the Constitutional rights of the entire nation.

This decision finally gave a lawyer an idea for an argument that the Second Amendment allows undocumented aliens to possess weapons in self-defense and challenged the so-called alien-in-possession statute as unconstitutional. This actually goes to the root question: who are “We the People?”

The familiar phrase “We the People” no longer means what many think it does. On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court heard the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) regarding the Second Amendment, which reads:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The ACLU argued that the term “We the People” should have its definition changed to mean “We the State Militia.” Changing that definition can effectively prevent individuals from having the right to own a gun. The Constitution would become complete trash if the term were found to have different meanings, but lawyers have become wordsmiths and use this ability to create laws through legal interpretations.

Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court overlooked this question of who “We the People” are for 200 years (1789–1989). Since then, the Supreme Court has twice commented on the meaning of this phrase, but these two cases are in somewhat conflict with each other.

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the court said that “We the People” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States.

This phrase, “We the People,” is of paramount importance. We must look at the entire objective of creating the Constitution to fully comprehend its true meaning. If you were English and committed a crime in France, the French king could not punish you, for you were the property or “subject” of the English king. France would send you back in chains to England, explaining what you did, for only your sovereign had the jurisdiction to punish you – not where the crime occurred. This is incredibly important to understand.

Since the American Revolution was against the monarchy, why would they comply with international law at that time and send someone back to England for a crime committed in America to be punished by a king they did not recognize? The American Constitution established territorial jurisdiction for the first time. So, someone convicted of a crime would be punished in America for his crime in America. Now, the problem has become a question of rights under the Constitution. Did a foreign citizen have a right to a fair trial? The definition of “We the People” had to extend to anyone tried in America, regardless of their citizenship.

The touchstone in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was correct, constitutionally speaking, for it extended to one’s connection to this country in compliance with territorial jurisdiction. The court declared that this “We the People” definition applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights and did not limit rights to anyone.

In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (494 U.S. 247, 288, 1990), Justice William J. Brennan Jr. argued: “The term ‘the people’ is better understood as a rhetorical counterpoint ‘to the government’ … that rights that were reserved to ‘the people’ were to protect all those subject to ‘the government.’ …” He continued: “The Bill of Rights did not purport to ‘create’ rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing.”

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court wrote: “The people protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community… The Fourth Amendment’s drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own government.”

However, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the court recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. The court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition and similarly suggested that the term “We the People” had a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution. This must be correct, or the Constitution becomes chaotic. Yet, Heller also said that the term “refers to all members of the political community,” which actually changes the definition.

Heller’s interpretation contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it approved of Verdugo-Urquidez’s interpretation; (2) it substituted “members of the political community” for “persons who are part of a national community”; and (3) it suggested that “We the People” means the same thing throughout the Constitution.

Heller’s analysis has created a conflict that has largely gone unnoticed but is already changing law. Heller could now be viewed as changing the meaning of “We the People” throughout the Bill of Rights by limiting it to “members of the political community,” which might be interpreted to mean, inter alia, “eligible voters.” This interpretation could have a profound consequence for individuals who have been denied the right to vote and non-American citizens. In this manner, the entire principle of territorial jurisdiction can be overturned.

Heller’s interpretation is already being applied. The Fifth Circuit previously held, “Once aliens become subject to liability under United States law, they also have the right to benefit from [Fourth Amendment] protection.” (United States v. Cortes, 588 F.2d 106, 110 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing United States v. Cadena, 585 F.2d 1252, 1262 (5th Cir. 1978))

In a recent case, US v Armando Portillo-Munoz, it was ruled that a ranch hand who lived and worked in the United States for more than 18 months, paid rent, and helped to support a family, but who committed the misdemeanor of illegally crossing the border — is not part of “We the People.”  In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Dennis warned, “The majority’s interpretation of the “the people” has far-reaching consequences.”

“We the People” no longer meant what the Founding Fathers meant by the term when, in fact, nobody was yet a citizen of the newly formed United States. It was the misinterpretation of this phrase that sparked the American Civil War.

Most people have heard about the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) decision by the Supreme Court that led to the US Civil War. It was a decision that showed how the court, dominated by Southern pro-slavery judges, bent the law to what they thought would end the argument over slavery.

Dred Scott was an African-American slave who had asked a United States Circuit Court to award him his freedom because he and his master had resided in a state (Illinois) and a territory (Wisconsin Territory) where slavery had been banned. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the court, held that Scott, as a person of African ancestry, was not a citizen of the United States and, therefore, had no right to sue in federal court. This holding was so off the wall and contrary to the whole concept of Territorial Jurisdiction.

Once the Supreme Court abandoned all rules of law, all that was left was the Civil War. The rationale of the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdictional ruling implied that the Constitution did not protect people of African descent (both slave and free) who were not U.S. citizens. Since the passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, both rulings have been superseded and are no longer valid precedents. Nonetheless, the case retains historical significance as it is widely regarded as the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. The opinion of the court, written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, was 7–2, and every Justice besides Taney wrote a separate concurrence or dissent.

The holding of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen is far more important than anyone comprehends. Without defining “We the People” directly, at last, we are witnessing Territorial Jurisdiction whereby, like it or not, an illegal alien has the same Constitutional rights as a citizen. If they do not, you can reinterpret “We the People” to mean only property owners as it was in the Roman Republic insofar as military service was concerned, for their thinking was that only a property owner would fight to retain his property. We could also reinterpret it to mean that in Athens, only the head of the household has those rights, which include the right to vote.

Naturally, there was an uproar over the Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which was a landmark decision holding that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion overruling Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), returning to individual states the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal law. Justice Ginsberg, who was a women’s rights advocate, said that Roe v Wade had nothing to do with women’s rights – it was about reducing the population sponsored by Bill Gates’ father and Planned Parenthood.

There is NO right to effectively any type of operation. In HARRIS V. McRAE, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), the Court held correctly that the Constitution is NEGATIVE, not POSITIVE. Read the text of the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law,” which is a restraint on government – not a positive right to free speech. This is how Social Media has been suppressing free speech because it is NOT your right; it is a restraint upon government – not Facebook.

There can be no “right” to an abortion that would imply the government must pay for that. There is also no right to a heart transplant or anything else, just like free speech.

We must understand that “We the People” must include everyone, even an illegal alien or a tourist, because the Founding Fathers rejected international jurisdiction as it was practiced in 1776 and created Territorial Jurisdiction, meaning the laws and Constitution had to apply to any person who was here. Otherwise, a French tourist could be charged for jaywalking, denied a trial, and executed if the Constitution does not apply. Since the Constitution is NEGATIVE and not POSITIVE, it is a restraint upon government – not a POSITIVE obligation that the government must fund your pet dreams.

This is so incredibly important to understand for the vast majority of lawyers do not even comprehend the intricate differences that formed the United States. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not reject that the king executes the law. They handed the power to abuse the law into the hands of what has become the Deep State as we are witnessing against Trump which is all for the purpose of interfering into the 2024 election. In ancient Athens, the ONLY crime that the state had the right to prosecute was a direct act against the state or against the gods – which was what Socrates was put on trial for that altered the world. Anything between two citizens was a private dispute, and the victim had to prosecute the actor.

It was the Magna Carta that changed English law. Yes, that created the right to a trial by jury because the King would find you for whatever he desired. Magna Carta severely curtained the King’s revenue. So he then began to pass laws under the legal theory that you and I get into a fight, and we are hauled off before the king and he claimed we have “disturbed his peace” and thus the king then hired lawyers who were prosecutors and you had NO RIGHT to a lawyer.

That is what Shakespeare’s famous line meant – “the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” who were the king’s prosecutors. Our Founding Fathers stopped short of eliminating tyranny for as long as the state has the SOLE RIGHT to prosecute whatever they call a crime; liberty can never exist. They are allowed to violate the Constitution, and it is always your burden to argue that they violated the Constitution.