Comment to a “journalist” re: her article, “America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds”

Comment to a “journalist” re: her article, “America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds”

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

April 9, 2015

Posted: April 10, 2015

Yesterday (Thursday, April 9, 2015) I stumbled upon an extremely brief article in the Washington Times online. Except for the author quoting various sources, the author’s actual input into the article amounted to only two (2) sentences – BOTH of which were historically INCORRECT. I felt “obligated” to issue the author a reply by e-mail, which was sent yesterday evening. I now offer here that rather lengthy reply to all who wish to read it.

Please excuse the formatting. It was altered greatly when “copied & pasted” from Microsoft WORD onto this web page.

Dear [Author],                                     April 9, 2015

I read your very brief article America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds on the Washington Times’ web site earlier today.

My comments:

  • The studyTesting Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,” conducted by researchers at Princeton and Northwestern universities confirms the obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to political events in America. That America today is an oligarchy is beyond question – the only question is WHEN the transformation began. Some might argue it began in the 1990’s or later; others might contend that it began in the 1860’s or even the late 1700’s. WHY a study was needed at all (probably paid for by a federal grant) is a puzzle to me.
  • Your primary personal observation within your brief article was the first sentence, “America is no longer a democracynever mind the democratic republic envisioned by Founding Fathers.” I realize that you are a news reporter, but a true “journalist” would have done at least a little research on the topic before writing such an article.

In fact, America was NEVER intended by the Founders to be a “democracy” in any sense of the word.

Republic: A government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626   In a “republic” the minorities have RIGHTS guaranteed by a Constitution and these RIGHTS can NOT be infringed or limited by the majority. Even if everyone EXCEPT one man decided by majority vote to limit that man’s RIGHTS (e.g., free speech), they could NOT lawfully do so.

Democracy: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly, or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388   In other words, in a “Democracy” the rule of the majority binds everyone. Minorities have NO RIGHTS in a democracy; only “privileges” temporarily granted to them and just as easily taken away whenever the majority changes its mind.

The Founders and the American people of that era viewed democracy as the “tyranny of the majority” and wrote numerous published articles, wrote in their personal diaries, and gave public speeches about this very topic. Instead, the Founders intended the government to be a “Constitutional Republic”, which by definition meant that the People ruled and that government powers were strictly limited by a written constitution, with the consent of the people.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

“We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts–NOT to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln (obviously NOT one of the Founders, but the most successful and richest lawyer in Illinois prior to becoming President)

  • America (or more specifically the government called the “United States of America”, was, in fact, created (under ancient and still valid commercial law as it had evolved) by the Constitution as a legal TRUST with in a new corporation created by the ratifying states (as the “Grantors” or “Trustors” of the Trust, with the new federal government it was creating to become its “Trustee”; and the then current and future People (“for ourselves and our posterity”) as the “Beneficiaries” of this Trust.) Indeed, any experienced trust attorney will verify that the Constitution contains ALL of the elements of a Trust. And recall that many members in Philadelphia debating, writing and re-writing the Constitution were either lawyers or men highly educated in the law. They knew they were creating what is now referred to as a Trust, which is a private contract (like any contract) requiring the agreement and consent of all parties to that contract.

The word “federal” (as in federal government) is defined in Webster’s Dictionary (1828) as:

1.) Pertaining to a league or contract derived from an agreement or covenant between two parties, particularly between two nations.

2.) Derived from or the result of a compact, contract, covenant, mutual agreement

3.) Consisting in a compact or contract between parties, particularly and chiefly between states   or nations?

Thus, FEDERAL means “contract” by mutual agreement” and the “federal government” means the contract (the Constitution as a contract that created a Trust among the various sovereign States; NOT among the People) by which the federal government was created as the Trustee. The U.S. Supreme court has affirmed this interpretation many times, the most relevant ruling stating coming in its refusal to over-turn a case decided by the Georgia Supreme Court, “But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact [contract], but he [the private person, the man] is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.” Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64); 1854

Please recall that NO member of those delegates actually SIGNED the Constitution. Legally they could NOT do so, since the Constitution was meant as a CONTRACT among the various STATES then in existence, to either accept or reject – which would determine whether this new Trust and its Trustee and a new company named the “United States of America” came into existence. Since there were then 13 states as potential parties to this contract (rather than the usual two parties in most commercial contracts), he contract (Constitution) specified that three-fourths of the state legislatures had to accept this contract by ratification; otherwise NO Trust (or Trustee called the “United States of America”) would be formed. Once at least three-fourths of the state ratified this contract, the Trust (and its Trustee (called the “United States of America”) would come into existence, with ONLY that states who had ratified the contract as members. (Had a few states decided NOT to ratify the Constitution, they would have remained as separate countries OUTSIDE of the Trust (and outside the jurisdiction of the Trustee called the “United States of America”).

This is not simply my opinion: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the “an individual state is a foreign country with respect to the other states and with respect the United States”.

For example, in America even after the Constitution was ratified, the various States were still considered individual, sovereign countries; and each State was considered was “foreign country” with respect to the other States. Similarly, when the Union called the United States of America was formed, each of the various States was considered a “foreign country” with respect to the federal government [the Trustee known as the government named the “United States of America”]. Therefore, a federal court is considered a “foreign court” with respect to each of the various States and to the people. This concept remains valid today, as the Supreme Court has affirmed numerous times.

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,240 U.S. 1 (1916), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Brushaber, under the law, was a nonresident alien of the United States corporation and. In accordance with Brushaber’s statement that he was NOT a “U.S. citizen”, the U.S. Spreme Court AGREED – since he had always lived within the boundaries of New York State, and had objected to the presumption that he was a “U.S. citizen”, a relatively new legal entity that NEVER existed until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. (The term “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States”, as created and defined in the 14th Amendment does NOT mean what most people think it means. In fact, it has at least three meanings under U.S. statutes, two of which remove your rights guaranteed by the Constitution.) His attorney’s mistake was in stating that the Union Pacific Railroad Co. was incorporated in Utah (outside the “federal zone”), when in fact the Union Pacific Railroad Company was originally created in the year 1862 by a special Act of Congress (and thus within the “federal zone”). But the Court’s rulings about Brushbaber’s sovereignty over both the States of Utah and New York, AND over the federal government remained valid under the Court’s decision. Thus, the Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,240 U.S. 1 (1916) affirmed what most people then understood: that each state was considered a “foreign country” with respect to the remaining states AND with respect to the federal government.

“The People existed in their own individual sovereignty BEFORE the constitution [contract creating a Trust] was enabled. When the People “establish” a constitution, there is nothing in the word “establish” that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy.”


“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjectswith none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 , U.S. Supreme Court

“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York) “D.” = Decennial Digest Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7. NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

“Our government is founded upon compact [contract]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people” — Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794.

“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions [contracts creating Trusts within each state, with the state governments as the Trustees], the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” ~ Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 (1854);

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the states acting as on behalf of the people in the Trust called the Constitution] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” — Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.

“The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign [the individual man; the People] makes law.” [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]

“To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.

“The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property.” Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

“By ‘sovereignty’ in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.” City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982, 986

“The United States and State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant within its own sphere.” Redding v Los Angeles (1947) 81 CA2d 888, 185 P2d 430, app dismd 334 US 825, 92 L Ed 1754, 68 S Ct 1338

“As independent sovereignty, it is a State’s province and duty to forbid interference by another state or foreign power with status of its own citizens.” Roberts v Roberts (1947) 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300

  • As in any Trust contract, the contract (the Constitution) explicitly specifies the structure and legal powers of the “Trustee” (in this case the new company called the United States of America”) which the Trustee is REQUIRED to obey as part of his “fiduciary” responsibilities – otherwise the Beneficiaries (the People) or the Trustor(s), the ratifying states, can fire that Trustee and replace him with another Trustee. A trustee can legally be any adult, group of adults or even a company (such as the new company called the “United States of America”. The Trustee may hire employees to assist him and if the Trustee is a company it may have a Chairman-President (the primary Trustee), a Board of Directors, and regular employees to assist the actual primary Trustee. Within the Trust created by the states that ratified the Constitution, the Trustee (as the company called the “United States of America”, the primary Trustee is the President, the Board of Directors are the Congress and Supreme Court; and the other government employees simply work for the Trustee and/or the Board of Directors; all for the benefit of the Beneficiaries, the People (“ourselves and our posterity”).
  • When a Bill of Rights was proposed, even by ardent by Federalists such as Madison and others, (originally as 13 amendments to be incorporated into the text of the original contract called the Constitution), many of the commercial lawyers and specialists in financial-commercial contracts (including Alexander Hamilton) argued that such a list of “rights” was NOT necessary. NOT because they opposed guaranteeing in writing these natural rights upon which the all agreed were possessed by all men. Instead, they realized that under international commercial law, a contractual written Trust bound the Trustee SOLELY to the powers explicitly specified within that Trust contract. For the Trustee (the government as the “United States of America” corporation) to attempt to violate any man’s rights OR to enact any statutes granting itself or any other entity powers NOT explicitly listed in the Trustee contract (Constitution) would be a violation of international commercial law and therefore null and void from the time of their enactment (“ab initio”). So wrote Alexander Hamilton and many other Federalists who thought a “Bill of Rights” was unnecessary.

Surprisingly, Alexander Hamilton, whom many now consider a “pro-monarchist”, was instead an ardent Federalist who thought more in terms of commercial (contract) law. If one understands that his opinions were written from the perspective of commercial (contract) law, Hamilton’s writings make much more sense. Therefore, I will now offer some rather lengthy quotes by Hamilton.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. [in any Trust contract, one specifies and limits the duties of the Trustee; not of the Beneficiaries.]They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable [unlawful, but assuming the appearance of being lawful] pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, 1788

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission [contract as a Trust] under which it is exercised, is void. No Legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy [Trustee] is greater than his principal [the States as Trustors and the People as the Beneficiaries]; that the servant is above his master; that the Representatives of the People are superior to the People themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. If it be said that the Legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the Representatives of the People to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the Courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the People and the Legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. …, the Constitution [the Trust contract] ought to be preferred to the statute [internal rules or policies created by the Trustee for his assistants-employees; NOT for the Beneficiaries], the intention of the People [as Beneficiaries of the Trust] to the intention of their agents [the Trustee called the government of the United States.]. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the Judicial to the Legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People [the Beneficiaries] is superior to both [legislature and judiciary as employees of the primary Trustee]; and that where the will of the Legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the People, declared in the Constitution, the Judges ought to be governed by the latter [the People as the Beneficiaries] rather than the former [“statutes” are simply internal rules created by employees for other employees of the Trustee]. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws [the Trust contract being the Constitution], rather than by those which are not fundamental. […] whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE [as in any CONTRACT]. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787

“The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.” – Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted”, February 23, 1775

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority [as the Trustee with the People as the Beneficiaries of the Trust] and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788

Other pro-Constitution Federalists expressed essentially the same opinions, but wrote from their perspectives as general lawyers who were not well-versed in commercial (contract) law.

“The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation [of power by government], without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is NOT obligatory; IT IS NOT LAW; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” THEOPHILUS PARSONS (leading supporter of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. He declined President Adams’ nomination to be Attorney General and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts)


“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be ESSENTIAL TO ALL WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS, that A LAW REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS VOID.” –John Marshall, Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison

  • Of course today, virtually no one in the regular public or even senior elected and non-elected officials in government know or have even heard about this information. Even lower court judges have no idea of how the power was intended to flow within strict limits under the Trust called the Constitution. Many people today, even extremely well educated academics in modern law (“statutory” law) and American history believe that the U.S. government is supreme over both the states and the people. But the have is “upside-down”, as the Supreme Court has ruled many times, even very recently. According to the Supreme Court (in which most of the justices, despite their personal and political prejudices, know well the intentions of the Founder regarding laws and the structure of the U.S. government as a Trustee for the People) the people were and remain the “sovereigns without subjects” and are superior to the states and federal government in authority. Further, the states were and remain superior I authority to the U.S. government.

In fact, many of these same people today believe that the Constitution was a contract between the People and the Federal government; OR between the states and the Federal government. But it is impossible to create a contract with en entity that does not yet exist! The American people, alive at the time the ratification debates were raging in America, knew the precise nature of this proposed contract among the states. The people opposed to ratification did so in the belief that all governments eventually assume excessive powers and become tyrannical over the people ad the states that created them. Thus, the Creator and Master (the People and states) initially would be served by their Creation (the U.S. government), but as with all past civilizations, the Creation would soon rule over its Creator and Master.

Thomas Paine explained, “It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those that are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.” -Thomas Paine

Source: “The American Crisis”, 12/19/1776 by Thomas Paine (1737 – 1809), American Patriot and Pamphleteer before/during/after “American Revolutionary War”


  • The SOLE exceptions are those additional powers granted others (including the government as your Trustee) by CONTRACTS to Trustee (the federal government or the states) by each individual man or woman. These contracts are entered into by the people most often without their even realizing they just created a new contract – called “silent contracts” – by our parents signing an application for your Birth Certificate, our signature on ANY government form or application (such as s drivers license, IRS tax form or any other government form) or even your actions, demeanor or even silence (by NOT objecting to some action against our by government, such as walking into a courtroom where the judges makes the PRESUMPTION that by your appearance in his court, you have consented to waive all of your natural rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and agree to the judge’s “silent” contract that your case will be under “Maritime-Admiralty” JURISDICTION in which the judge by “Summary Judgment” (like a ship’s captain at sea) can render verdict and sentence you to a fine or imprisonment, all without a 12-man “trial by jury”. )

Had you OBJECTED IN WRITING and FILED that objection as an affidavit with the COURT CLERK well in advance (creating your OWN CONTRACT as a “counter-offer” to the court summons) to ALL of the court’s presumptions; and insisted in your CONTRACT (your “counter-offer”) that you would only enter the courtroom IF the court agreed to and completely accepted your counter-offer, then when you later entered the courtroom and reminded the judge of this contract, he would have NO authority over you, except that under the only true LAW within America, the Common Law of your state – which EXCLUDES all legislated acts (statutes) and derivative regulations on the local, count, state and federal levels. In fact, all legislated acts (statutes) in Britain and America are NOT “law”; they are merely “offers to contract”, which if a man accepts (consents), assume the “force of law” via contract.

  • Occasionally, a judge at his total discretion or whim will grant the accused a “jury trial”; but a “jury trial” (usually consisting of about 6 jurors) is NOT equivalent to a Constitutional 12-man “trial by jury’. In a “jury trial” your are under Admiralty-Maritime Law and the “verdict” of the jury is ONLY an “advsory opinion” to the judge and even a jury’s “Not Guilty” verdict is not binding.upon the judge– he can ignore the jury’s “advisory opinion” and reverse a jury’s “Not Guilty” verdict to “Guilty” on a whim, if he so chooses. Even while a “jury trial” is in session, if the defendant even mentions the Constitution or “Bill of Rights”, the judge may often object, tell him those documents are irrelevant, or even tell him to “shut up” and let the court continue. In a true judicial, non-statutory court of law (such as a Common Law court, which is the ONLY true “Court-of Record) or an Equity Court (statutory court in which your rights still apply), the judge would have NO such powers over you. If it is an Equity court; the 12-man jury’s verdict of “Not Guilty” is binding upon that judge and he must accept it. In a true COMMON LAW court (the only true “Court-of Record” within the U.S.), a 12-man jury’s verdict of either “GUILTY” or “NOT GUILTY” is binding upon that judge and all judges of superior court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, a verdict by a jury in a true “Court of Record” operating under the Common Law is the FINAL WORD which NO court can question – not even the U.S. Supreme Court, as it ruled as recently as 1973!

“The judgment of a court of record [a court operating under the Common Law only; NO statutes allowed] whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] would be. It is as conclusive on this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

A better and much more accurate name for the “U.S. Constitution” would be something the “Constitution to Establish a Trust Among the States” OR even better (but perhaps too long) the “Constitution to Establish a Trust Among the States With Specific Instruction for the Trustee to be Known as the United States of America”

In summary, that America has become an oligarchy should come as NO surprise to anyone! Indeed, throughout history even in the most free nations, republics and democracies, the evolution into oligarchy has been the RULE; NOT the exception.

“The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” …. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” – John Adams

Thank you for reading this extremely lengthy comment, which was definitely NOT meant as a criticism. Think of it more as additional information – “free mini-education”, if you wish. After all, you are a newspaper writer with very limited time to produce your articles; and NOT an historian with an extensive background in early American history.

Best wishes.

John-Henry Hill, M.D., Ph.D.



This particular Blog has many essays I have recently written about this topic about LAW. In its “About me…” page, it explains my education, background and work in both medicine and law.

P.S. I have included an ATTACHMENT a comment I wrote about an article published on about 3 weeks ago.



Full Text of that ATTACHMENT

 Comment on article: “America Is No Longer A Republic Or A Democracy” by Tyler Durden on 03/25/2015   at 14:38 -0400

Submitted by Bill Bonner via Acting-Man blog,


My Comment:

Wed, 03/25/2015 – 17:29 | 5926921 new Jack4952 on

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.


1.) A “democracy” is where the majority ALWAYS rules – there are NO guaranteed “individual rights”

2.) A “republic” is where the PEOPE rule with GUARANTEED individual rights despite what the majority may desire or vote for.

3.) The USA was created as a “constitutional Republic” [NOT a “democracy”] where:

a.) The HOUSE members were directly elected by the people in districts in each state

b.) The SENATE members were elected by the STATE LEGISLATURES – NOT the people.

c.) The Federal government could levy NO direct taxes on the people; its only sources of income were TARIFFS and indirect taxes (usage fees now called “EXCISE TAXES”)

d.) The LAW of the USA and all states was the COMMON LAW (as in Britain). Legislated Acts (statutes) enacted by the Congress applied ONLY in “federal zones” (territories, Washington, DC, and possessions of the USA) and/or federal employees. All legislated acts (statutes) were considered to be “OFFERS TO CONTRACT” for people living outside the “federal zones” – each man individually could CONSENT to a specific act (and thus fall under Federal jurisdiction) OR could withhold his CONSENT (and thus NOT fall under Federal jurisdiction with respect to that specific act). That is what was meant by “government by the consent of the people” – a Federal ACT applied to you ONLY if you individually CONSENTED to it, in which case it fell under “contract law” or “commercial law”.

e.) The Constitution applied only to the Federal government – to limits powers.

f.) The “Bill of Rights” was added to ENSURE that the Federal government never attempted to infringe on people’s Natural Rights.

g.) The “ELECTORS” from each state (who actually voted and still “elect” the president ) were chosen by the state legislatures.

h.) Each state was (and still is, affirmed by numerous Supreme Court decisions) to be its own “country”, with the remaining states AND the Federal government to be considered as “foreign nations” with respect to that state.

i.) Any changes regarding the powers of the Federal government required an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, which must be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the state legislatures.

Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

In short, the STATE legislatures controlled all direct taxes; elected the U.S. Senate members; chose the “Electors” who then selected the new President; and controlled the Amendment process requiring approval by three-fourths of the states..

My goodness !!!!  How much the USA has changed (for the worse)!!!

John-Henry Hill, M.D.

retired physician

%d bloggers like this: