FORUMS
(Discuss this)

START HERE!
(Path to Freedom)

• Lawfully Avoiding the Military Draft, Form #09.003 (OFFSITE LINK)-shows how to lawfully avoid the military draft
• Letter that Got SSS to Excuse Someone from Registering for the Draft-very interesting
• Selective Service System website
• Selective Service Act
  • Local copy
  • Selective Service System website
• Military Selective Service Act, under 50 U.S.C.
• Selective Service Act Regulations-Department of Defense
• Why you are a "national" or a "state national" and not a "U.S. citizen"-pamphlet from this website
• Tax Deposition Questions, Section 14: Citizenship-exhaustive proof of why you aren't a "U.S. citizen" or a "citizen of the United States" under federal law
• Titles that are positive law and therefore binding-legislative notes under 1 U.S.C. §204
• Sovereignty Forms and Instructions, step 3.13: Change your U.S. citizenship status

Click here to learn why the Selective Service System Information Desk agrees with this article

• Sections 4.11 through 4.11.13 of our Great IRS Hoax book. 
• Our pamphlet above entitled "Why you are a 'national' or a 'state national' and not a 'U.S. citizen'"

We won't repeat ourselves on that subject here.  Below are some legal authorities that prove you must first be a "U.S. citizen" before you are subject to selective service.

1. Pursuant to the Military Selective Service Act of June 24, 1948, Ch 625, 62 Stat. 604, one must be a "citizen of the United States" under 32 CFR § 1602.3(b)(1) to be subject to the Selective Service act.
2. The Military Selective Service Act of June 24, 1948, Ch 625, 62 Stat. 604, is within Title 50 of the United States Code (see 50 U.S.C. §460), which is not positive law. See legislative notes under 1 U.S.C. §204.  Consequently, the Selective Service Act applies only to "U.S. citizens" of Washington DC and its territories, and even then, whatever section of Title 50 that the government wants to assert must be demonstrated to be positive law, because the Title is not positive law.  Only positive law can impose a legal duty on anyone.  See the following article for details:
   http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Consent.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
3. The only applicable section of Presidential Proclamation No. 4771 which might apply seems to be "1-101. Male citizens of the United States and other males residing in the United States, unless exempted by the Military Selective Service Act, as amended, who were born on or after January 1, 1960, and who have attained their eighteenth birthday, shall present themselves for registration in the manner and at the time and places as hereinafter provided." The nexus would seem to be "residing in the United States".  Americans who are born within and reside within a status of the Union do not live in the "United States" as defined under most federal laws, nor do they live within any federal enclave within the boundaries of the sovereign states where federal legislative jurisdiction exists, as described in U.S. Const 1:8:17, 4:3:2, and Hooven & Allison v. Evatt [2]. Consequently, they are not the proper subject of nearly all acts of Congress, and certainly not to even a positive law that only has jurisdiction within the "federal zone".
4. Below is what the founding fathers said about the legislative intent of the Constitution as far as the draft is concerned, from Federalist Paper #15:

   "The existing Confederation’s great and fundamental defect is the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES in their COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES rather than for the INDIVIDUALS living in the States. Although this principle does not apply to all the powers delegated to the Union, it pervades those on which the effectiveness of the rest depends. Except for the rule of apportionment, the United States has indefinite discretion to requisition men and money. But it has no authority to raise either directly from individual citizens of America." (Emph added). [Federalist Paper #15, 15 FP § 6: ]

   The implication of the above is that the federal government MUST apportion its requisition of men according to the population of each state, and must go through the state governments to obtain the men.  They MAY NOT directly draft anyone.  The draft notice has to come from the state government, and not the federal government.

5. Below is how the term "United States" is defined in section 466 of the Military Selective Service Act, section 466(b):

   Military Selective Service Act

   Section 466: Definitions

   (b) The term ''United States'', when used in a geographical sense, shall be deemed to
   mean the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
   and Guam.

6. Conspicuously absent from the definition of "United States" above is a supporting definition for "State".  If you search the entire Title 50, you will not find a definition, and the reason is because they don't want you to know that below is what it REALLY means, and most people don't live in one of these:

   4 U.S.C. §110

   (d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

7. The Supreme Court confirmed that the federal government has NO legislative jurisdiction internal to states of the Union, and Title 50 of the U.S. Code, the Selective Service System, qualifies as "legislation" under the ruling below.

"It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation. The question in respect of the inherent power of that government as to the external affairs of the Nation and in the field of international law is a wholly different matter which it is not necessary now to consider. See, however, Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212 , 11 S.Ct. 80; Nishimur Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 , 12 S.Ct. 336; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 705 et seq., 13 S.Ct. 1016; Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 396 , 53 S.Ct. 457, 86 A.L.R. 747. " [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]

8. On the subject of the draft, the U.S. Supreme Court has said the following.  Note that the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT account for the above facts in its ruling, and therefore it is attempting to usurp jurisdiction where none exists.  In point of fact, there is a way to assemble an army, and that method is through apportionment AFTER war has been officially declared by Congress and NOT the President:

"As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it, on the face of the Constitution the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice. It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon, therefore the power conferred upon Congress to raise armies was only coterminous with United States citizenship and could not be exerted so as to cause that citizenship to lose its dependent character and dominate state citizenship. But the proposition simply denies to Congress the power to raise armies which the Constitution gives. That power by the very terms of the Constitution, being delegated, is supreme. Article 6. In truth the contention simply assails the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in conferring authority on Congress and in not retaining it as it was under the Confederation in the several states."

[Arver vs United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)]

In fact, the only area over which Congress can have legislative jurisdiction is in areas where it has general/exclusive legislative jurisdiction, which is limited to the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.  These areas, in fact, are what the "State" term refers to above in 4 U.S.C.  110(d) above.

With all the above facts fresh in our mind, its reasonable to ask: 

"So if the Constitution doesn't authorize a direct draft by the Federal Government of people born in and living within states of the Union, then how the heck can states of the Union tacitly consent by their silence and acquiescence to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond the clear limits of the Constitution?  Is it legal for them to do that?  How can they basically allow their citizens to be kidnapped by the federal mafia, be required to register, and be required to provide a Slave Surveillance Number on a Driver's License application that is also used to register them to be drafted?"

The Supreme Court has already conclusively answered that question very definitively in the negative as follows:

“State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.”  [New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 142; 112 S.Ct. 2408; 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992)]

In fact, the legal obligation of the states of the Union under the federal constitution is to Protect you from being drafted by the federal government directly, which is an invasion of your rights, and instead to apportion the requisition for men and handle the draft themselves.

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship