, section 4.4.6, ver. 4.11
The foundation of
our republican form of government is the notion of “separation of powers”.
In the legal field, this is called “the separation of powers doctrine”.
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the purpose of the separation of powers
doctrine in the case of
U.S. v. Lopez,
514 U.S. 549 (1995):
the Executive is almost synonymous with the Sovereign power of a
State; and, generally, includes legislative and judicial authority.
When, therefore, writers speak of the sovereign, it is not necessarily
in exclusion of the judiciary; and it will often be found, that
when the Executive affords a remedy for any wrong, it is nothing
more than by an exercise of its judicial authority. Such is the
condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too
commonly acquired by force, or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact.
In America, however, the case is widely different.
Our government is founded
upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people. It
was entrusted by them, as far as was necessary for the purpose of
forming a good government, to the Federal Convention; and the Convention
executed their trust, by effectually separating the Legislative,
Judicial, and Executive powers; which, in the contemplation of our
Constitution, are each a branch of the sovereignty.
The well-being of the whole
depends upon keeping each department within its limits. In
the State government, several instances have occurred where a legislative
act, has been rendered inoperative by a judicial decision, that
it was unconstitutional; and even under the Federal government the
judges, for the same reason, have refused to execute an act of Congress.
in short, either branch of the government usurps that part of the
sovereignty, which the Constitution assigns to another branch, liberty
ends, and tyranny commences.”
Betsey, 3 U.S. 6 (1794)]
We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a
Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I,
8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the
State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No.
45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted
by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties."
Gregory v. Ashcroft,
501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches
of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of
excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between
the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny
and abuse from either front." Ibid. “
[U.S. v. Lopez,
514 U.S. 549
"The people of the United States,
by their Constitution, have affirmed a division of internal governmental
powers between the federal government and the governments of the
several states-committing to the first its powers by express grant
and necessary implication; to the latter, or [301 U.S. 548, 611]
to the people, by reservation, 'the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.'
The Constitution thus affirms the complete supremacy and independence
of the state within the field of its powers. Carter v. Carter Coal
298 U.S. 238, 295 , 56 S.Ct. 855, 865. The federal government
has no more authority to invade that field than the state has to
invade the exclusive field of national governmental powers; for,
in the oft-repeated words of this court in Texas v. White, 7 Wall.
700, 725, 'the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of
their governments, are as much within the design and care of the
Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance
of the National government.' The necessity of preserving each from
every form of illegitimate intrusion or interference on the part
of the other is so imperative as to require this court, when its
judicial power is properly invoked, to view with a careful and discriminating
eye any legislation challenged as constituting such an intrusion
or interference. See South Carolina v. United States,
199 U.S. 437, 448 , 26 S.Ct. 110, 4 Ann.Cas. 737."
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,
301 U.S. 548 (1937)]
The founders believed
that men were inherently corrupt. They believed that where power
concentrates, so does tyranny. To prevent tyranny, they gave us
separation of powers in the following ways:
- Separation of church
(God) and state. The state and God (the church)
are in competition with each other to protect the people, as we
showed in the previous section. Guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the Constitution.
- Separation of money
and state. Guaranteed by
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which required
that no State shall make anything but gold and silver money.
See also section 126.96.36.199 later.
- Separation of marriage
and state. At the time, there were no marriage
licenses and everyone got married in their church. Their marriage
certificate was the family bible, because that is where they recorded
- Separation of education
and state. The Constitution did not authorize the federal
government to get involved in education, and since everything not
mentioned in the Constitution was reserved to the states under the
Tenth Amendment, we also had separation of education and state.
- Separation of media
and state: The founders always believed that a
free and independent media was a precursor to an accountable and
moral government and they wrote the requirement for freedom of the
press into the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- Separation of the
people and the government. The founders gave the
people equal footing with the state governments by giving them the
House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is
equal in legislative power to the Senate, which represents the state
- State v. Federal
separation. The states had complete sovereignty
to their border over everything except taxes on foreign commerce,
mail fraud, and counterfeiting. Slavery was later added to
that by the Thirteenth Amendment. The federal government had
jurisdiction over all
foreign matters only.
Guaranteed by Art. IV of the Constitution.
- Separation of powers
within the above two distinct governments.
Art. II, and
Art. III of the Constitution:
The founding fathers
derived the the idea of separation of powers from various historical
legal treatises available to them at the time they wrote the Constitution.
The main source which described this separation of powers and after
which they patterned their design for our government was a book written
by Montesquieu which you can read for yourself below:
The founders implemented separation between the
federal and state governments to put the states in competition with
each other for citizens and commerce, so that when one state became
too oppressive by having taxes that were too high or too many laws,
people would move to a better state where they had more freedom and
lower taxes. This would ensure that the states that were most
oppressive would have the fewest citizens and the worst economy.
They also put the federal government in charge of foreign commerce
only, so that
the only way it could increase its revenues was to promote, not discourage
or restrict, commerce with foreign nations. If the taxes on foreign
commerce were too high, people would simply buy more domestic goods
and the federal government would shrink. It was naturally self-balancing.
The founders also put branches within each government
in competition with each other: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
They ensured that each branch had distinct functions that could
not be delegated
to another branch of government. Each branch would then jealously
guard its power and jurisdiction to ensure that it was not invaded or
undermined by the other branch. This ensured that there would
always be a balance of powers so that the system was self-regulating
and the balance of powers would be maintained.
"To the contrary,
the Constitution divides authority between federal and state
governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty
is not just an end in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens
the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power."
Coleman v. Thompson,
501 U.S. 722, 759 (1991)
(BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). "Just as the separation and independence
of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent
the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy
balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will
reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Gregory
v. [505 U.S. 144, 182] Ashcroft,
501 U.S., at 458 . See The Federalist No. 51, p. 323. (C. Rossiter
Where Congress exceeds
its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from
the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state
officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the branches
of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's
division of power among the three branches is violated where one
branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon
branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1, 118 -137 (1976), for instance, the Court held that
Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite
the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to
the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law.
See National League of Cities v. Usery,
426 U.S., at 842 , n. 12. In INS v. Chadha,
462 U.S. 919, 944 -959 (1983), we held that the legislative
veto violated the constitutional requirement that legislation be
presented to the President, despite Presidents' approval of hundreds
of statutes containing a legislative veto provision. See id., at
944-945. The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded
by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby
narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.
State officials thus
cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond
those enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, the facts of this
case raise the possibility that powerful incentives might lead both
federal and state officials to view departures from the federal
structure to be in their personal interests. Most citizens
recognize the need for radioactive waste disposal sites, but few
want sites near their homes. As a result, while it would be well
within the authority of either federal or state officials to choose
where the disposal sites will be, it is likely to be in the political
interest of each individual official to avoid being held accountable
to the voters for the choice of location. If [505 U.S. 144, 183]
a federal official is faced with the alternatives of choosing a
location or directing the States to do it, the official may well
prefer the latter, as a means of shifting responsibility for the
eventual decision. If a state official is faced with the same set
of alternatives - choosing a location or having Congress direct
the choice of a location - the state official may also prefer the
latter, as it may permit the avoidance of personal responsibility.
The interests of public officials thus may not coincide with the
Constitution's intergovernmental allocation of authority. Where
state officials purport to submit to the direction of Congress in
this manner, federalism is hardly being advanced. "
[New York v. United States,
505 U.S. 144 (1992)]
The founders put the states in charge of the federal
government by filling the senate with delegates from each state and
by giving each state full and complete and exclusive control over all
taxation within its borders, with the exception of taxes on foreign
commerce, which is commerce
external to states
of the Union and among foreign countries.
"In the states, there reposes the sovereignty to manage their own
affairs except only as the requirements of the Constitution otherwise
provide. Within these
constitutional limits the power of the state over taxation is
[Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky,
309 U.S. 83 (1940)]
The states gave the federal government control
only over taxes
on foreign commerce
under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
The states ensured this result by mentioning in
two places in the
Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section
9, Clause 4, that all direct taxes had to be apportioned to the legislatures
of each state. The requirement to apportion direct taxes is the
only mandate that appears twice in the Constitution, because they wanted
to emphasize this limit on federal taxing powers. This ensured
that the federal government could
never burden or
economically enslave individual citizens within each state or tax state
"The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and
the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative
rights of state and national governments are many;
but for a very long time
this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing
power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political
subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to
that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power
which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler,
[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1,
298 U.S. 513; 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)]
The founders imposed these restrictions on direct
taxation because they knew that direct taxes amounted to slavery and
they didn't want to become slaves to the federal government. Through
the requirement for apportionment, state legislatures became the intermediaries
for all federal appropriations that depended on other than indirect
taxes on foreign commerce. Any other approach would require citizens
in the states to serve two masters: state and federal, for the income
they earn. This is a fulfillment of the Bible, which said on this
“No one can serve two
masters [state and federal]: for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
6:24, Bible, NKJV]
Thomas Jefferson, one of our most important founding
fathers, confirmed the purpose of the separation of powers between state
and federal governments. He confirmed that the purpose of the
federal government was to regulate commerce and interaction with
and that it never had the authority or jurisdiction to invade
within states, either
through legislation or through police powers:
"The extent of our country was so great, and its former division
into distinct States so established, that
we thought it better to
confederate [U.S. government] as to foreign affairs only.
Every State retained
its self-government in domestic matters, as better qualified to
direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens, than
a general government so distant from its remoter citizens and so
little familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts."
[Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483]
"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and
the General Government
our foreign ones."
[Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450]
"My general plan
[for the federal government] would be, to make the States one as
to everything connected with foreign nations, and several
as to everything purely domestic."
[Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:227]
amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and
independent as to their internal administration, regularly
organized with a legislature and governor resting on the choice
of the people and enlightened by a free press, can never be so fascinated
by the arts of one man as to submit voluntarily to his usurpation.
Nor can they be constrained to it by any force he can possess. While
that may paralyze the single State in which it happens to be encamped,
[the] others, spread over a country of two thousand miles diameter,
rise up on every side, ready organized for deliberation by a constitutional
legislature and for action by their governor, constitutionally the
commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every
man in it able to bear arms."
[Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. ME 13:19]
You can read the above quotes from Thomas Jefferson
on our website at:
Note that Jefferson
said that the federal government was given jurisdiction over
foreign affairs only,
which includes foreign commerce. The
only exception to
this general rule is subject matter within the states over the following:
- Slavery under the
- Counterfeiting under
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
- Mail under
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution.
- Assaults and infractions against its own officers under Article
1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution.
- Treason under
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Every other type
of subject matter jurisdiction exercised by the federal government within
the states is not authorized by the Constitution, and therefore can
only be undertaken with the voluntary consent and participation of the
state governments and the people within them. This type of consensual
jurisdiction is called “comity”.
above are also fully consistent with our system of federal taxation.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution limits federal
taxation powers to commerce with foreign nations and
between, but not
26 CFR § 1.861-8(f) also reveals that the only specific sources
income” that are taxable under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue
Code are those associated with Domestic International Sales Corporations
(DISC) and Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs), both of whom are involved
in commerce with foreign countries
the IRS' own publications in the Federal Register confirm that this
was the original intent of the founders. Below is an excerpt from
the Federal Register, Volume 37, page 20960 dated October 5, 1972:
"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see
Paper #45]reveal clearly that
the framers of the Constitution
believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution]
that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government
would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping
and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted
to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons.
The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal
revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned
by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were
repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for
the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress
to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however,
the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government
was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds
from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more
levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment
of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the
supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."
What the IRS doesn't
tell you in the above is that the resort to internal taxation under
Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code was only authorized against
officers of the United States government and not against private citizens
living in the states of the Union. According to the U.S. Supreme
Court, the enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment didn't change that Constitutional
requirement one iota either. You can view this document on our
Those federal politicians,
legislators, and judges intent on becoming tyrants or expanding their
power must break down the separation of powers established by the founders
above if they want to concentrate power or take away powers from the
states or the people. They have done this over the years mainly
by the following means, which we devote nearly the entirety of this
book to exposing and explaining:
- Deliberately deceiving people about the intent and result of
Sixteenth Amendment. According to the U.S. Supreme Court,
Sixteenth Amendment “conferred no new power of taxation”
upon the federal government, but simply reinforced the idea that
federal income taxes are indirect excise taxes only on businesses.
Yet, to this day, your dishonest Congressman and the IRS itself
both insist that the Sixteenth Amendment is the basis for their
authority to tax the labor of a natural person, in spite of the
fact that these kind of taxes violate the Thirteenth Amendment and
constitute slavery and involuntary servitude.
- Eliminating separation of church and state by either taxing
churches or using the IRS to terrorize and gag them for their political
activities. This is already happening. See
the following website for details:
- 3. Eliminating separation of money and state by
eliminating the gold standard and transitioning to a fiat paper
currency. This was done in 1913 with the introduction of the
Federal Reserve Act on Dec. 23, 1913, shortly after the ratification
Sixteenth Amendment in February 1913.
- Eliminating separation of marriage and state by introducing
marriage licenses. This was done in a large scale starting
in 1923, with the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act of 1929.
See section 188.8.131.52 later for further details.
- Confusing the definitions of words to make the separation of
powers between state and federal unclear. For instance:
5.1. Confusing the definitions of “state”
5.2. Confusing the definition of “United
5.3. Not defining the word “foreign”
in the Internal
- Obfuscating the distinctions between “U.S.
citizen” and “national”
status. “U.S. citizens” were born in the federal United States
were born in states of the Union. See our pamphlet "Why
you are a 'national' or a 'state national' and not a 'U.S. citizen'"
for details on this scam.
- Judges violating the due process rights of the accused by making
frequent use of false presumption against litigants regarding citizenship
and “taxpayer” status without documenting in their rulings what
presumptions they are making or having to defend with evidence why
such presumptions are warranted. Remember that “presumption”
is the opposite of due process and also happens to be a sin in the
Bible. Refer to section 2.8.2 earlier for details.
- Refusing to acknowledge or recognize the limits of federal jurisdiction
within federal courtrooms. We have been informed of many individuals
being brutalized and abused by itinerant federal judges whose jurisdiction
- Suppressing any evidence or debate in courtrooms on the nature
of separation of powers.
- Using the proceeds of extorted or illegally-collected federal
income tax revenues to break down the separation of powers between
states and the federal government. For instance, depriving
states of federal revenues who do not do what the federal government
wants them to do. This is called “privilege-induced slavery”.
Section 6.1 of the
IRS Hoax explains that this kind of artifice has
been thoroughly exploited to create a
government that is completely at odds with the
separation of powers required by our
- Discrediting and slandering legal professionals who bring attention
to the separation of powers between state and federal jurisdiction
by calling them “frivolous” or “incompetent” and/or pulling their
license to practice law. The framing of
Congressman Traficant and Congressman George Hansen are examples
of this kind of political persecution by abusing the legal system
as a tool of persecution.
- Paying people in the legal publishing business to obfuscate
the definitions of words. We show later in section 6.8 of
IRS Hoax several instances of such corruption.
- Making the laws found in the
U.S. Code so confusing
that the average American can’t rely on his own understanding of
them to know what the law requires. Instead, he must compelled
to rely on a high-paid expert, such as a judge or lawyer, both of
whom have a conflict of interest in expanding their power, to say
what the law really requires. This transforms our society
from a “society of laws and not men” into a “society of men”.
- Suppressing and oppressing the
Petition guaranteed to We the People in the
First Amendment. The Founders believed that the people
had an inalienable right to withhold payment of taxes until their
petitions were heard and responded to. Federal courts have
evaded and avoided upholding this requirement, in what amounts to
treason against the Constitution punishable by death. See
the article on our website about this subject at:
The U.S. Supreme
Court in the case of Baker v. Carr,
369 U.S. 186 (1962) has developed some legal criteria for
determining whether a court may invade or undermine the duties of a
coordinate branch of government in its rulings and thereby undermine
the separation of powers. Below is the criteria:
- Has the issue been committed expressly by the Constitution to
a coordinate political branch of the government?
- Are there judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
deciding the case?
- Can the case be decided without some initial policy determination
of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion?
- Can the court decide the case independently without expressing
lack of respect due a coordinate branch of the government?
- Is there an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political
decision already made?
- Is there a potentiality for embarrassment from multifarious
decisions by different branches of the government on the same question?
In the criteria above,
the Executive and Legislative branches of the government are regarded
as “political branches”, while the judicial branch is not a political
branch, but exclusively a legal branch. Understanding these criteria
are important for readers who want to challenge the exercise of political
powers by the federal judiciary, such as in areas of:
- Interfering with ones political choice of
See section 5.4.5 later for details.
- Interfering with one’s political choice of
citizenship. See sections 4.11 through 4.11.13 later.
- Interfering with the exercise of
political rights or a political party. You as a private
individual constitute an independent sovereignty and political party
and a court may not interfere with your political choices.
See section 4.2.4 of the
IRS Hoax for a definition of political rights.
A court that interferes with or questions or undermines
a persons political affiliations above is involving itself in political
questions and the judge is overstepping his authority.
questions. Questions of which courts will [and
MUST] refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of
their purely political character, or because their determination
would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative
“Political questions doctrine” holds that certain issues
should not be decided by courts because their resolution is
committed to another branch of government and/or because those
issues are not capable, for one reason or another, of judicial
resolution. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 116 Misc.2d
590, 455 N.Y.S.2d 987, 990.
A matter of dispute which can
be handled more appropriately by another branch of the government
is not a “justiciable” matter for the courts. However,
a state apportionment statute is not such a political question
as to render it nonjusticiable. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.
186, 208-210, 82 S.Ct. 691, 705-706, 7 L.Ed.2d 663.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
The U.S. Supreme Court has also insightfully defined
the very harmful affect on society when the judicial branch of the government
involves itself in political questions of the above nature in the case
of Luther v. Borden:
"But, fortunately for our freedom from political excitements
in judicial duties, this
court [the U.S. Supreme Court] can never with propriety be called
on officially to be the umpire in questions merely political.
The adjustment of these questions belongs to the people and their
political representatives, either in the State or general government.
These questions relate
to matters not to be settled on strict legal principles.
They are adjusted rather by inclination, or prejudice or compromise,
[. . .]
alarming and little foreseen, involved in regarding these as questions
for the final arbitrament of judges would be that, in such an event,
all political privileges and rights would, in a dispute among the
people, depend on our decision finally. We would possess the power
to decide against, as well as for, them, and, under a prejudiced
or arbitrary judiciary, the public liberties and popular privileges
might thus be much perverted, if not entirely prostrated.
But, allowing the people to make constitutions and unmake them,
allowing their representatives to make laws and unmake them, and
without our interference as to their principles or policy in doing
it, yet, when constitutions and laws are made and put in force by
others, then the courts, as empowered by the State or the Union,
commence their functions and may decide on the rights which conflicting
parties can legally set up under them, rather than about their formation
itself. Our power begins
after theirs [the Sovereign People] ends. Constitutions and laws
precede the judiciary, and we act only under and after them, and
as to disputed rights beneath them, rather than disputed points
in making them. We speak what is
the law, jus dicere, we speak or construe what is the constitution,
after both are made, but we make, or revise, or control neither.
The disputed rights
beneath constitutions already made are to be governed by precedents,
by sound legal principles, by positive legislation e.g. "positive
law"], clear contracts, moral duties, and fixed rules;
they are per se questions of law, and are well suited to the education
and habits of the bench. But the other disputed
points in making constitutions, depending often, as before shown,
on policy, inclination, popular resolves and popular will and arising
not in respect to private rights, not what is meum and tuum, but
in relation to politics, they belong to politics, and they are settled
by political tribunals, and are too dear to a people bred in the
school of Sydney and Russel for them ever to intrust their final
decision, when disputed, to a class of men who are so far removed
from them as the judiciary, a class also who might decide them erroneously,
as well as right, and if in the former way,
the consequences might
not be able to be averted except by a revolution, while a wrong
decision by a political forum can often be peacefully corrected
by new elections or instructions in a single month; and if the people,
in the distribution of powers under the constitution, should ever
think of making judges supreme arbiters in political controversies
when not selected by nor, frequently, amenable to them nor at liberty
to follow such various considerations in their judgments as [48
U.S. 53] belong to mere political questions, they will dethrone
themselves and lose one of their own invaluable birthrights; building
up in this way -- slowly, but surely -- a new sovereign power in
the republic, in most respects irresponsible and unchangeable for
life, and one more dangerous, in theory at least, than the worst
elective oligarchy in the worst of times.
Again, instead of controlling the
people in political affairs,
the judiciary in our
system was designed rather to control individuals, on the one hand,
when encroaching, or to defend them, on the other, under the Constitution
and the laws, when they are encroached upon. And
if the judiciary at times seems to fill the important station of
a check in the government, it is rather a check on the legislature,
who may attempt to pass laws contrary to the Constitution, or on
the executive, who may violate both the laws and Constitution, than
on the people themselves in their primary capacity as makers and
amenders of constitutions."
[Luther v. Borden,
48 U.S. 1 (1849)]
Paper #45 for confirmation of this fact.
See See Stanton
v. Baltic Mining,
240 U.S. 103 (1916), Peck v. Lowe,
247 U.S. 165 (1918), and many others.
If you would like a more thorough analysis of why courts do not have
jurisdiction over "political questions" and why your choice of citizenship
and domicile are political questions, please see the following excellent
memorandum of law: