Introduction to Dulocracy



“If in the opinion of the people, distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” George Washington.

Security Number is Tattooed

Leon Roofener, 45-year-old building engineer for a Memphis theater, is almost certain he will not lose his Social Security Act number. He has it tattooed on his left arm.
Nashville Banner, January 13, 1937

“WE HAVE THEM NOW!” a smiling Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the Committee of Seven [1] in January, 1937 after being informed that 22 million federal licenses to engage in interstate commerce had been issued to employees across the United States. For four long years Roosevelt and his Brain Trust worked diligently to achieve the president’s vision of an all-powerful centralized government. The seedling that was planted in America’s political soil in 1933 had taken root and this tree was finally starting to bear fruit. Roosevelt’s fruit of dulocracy was ripe and ready for the harvest.

Dulocracy in America, Book One: The Commerce “Claws” is in no sense a biography of President Franklin Roosevelt. It rather sets out some of the legal history behind his New Deal legislation and how these programs were utilized in the United States, at both the state and federal levels. The story is one of subterfuge and apostasy. It illustrates how the opportunists in government have worked diligently to create a scheme for relieving an uninformed citizenry of their inherent and constitutionally secured rights, through a process that has been evolving for over one hundred years. In the first half of the twentieth century, the citizenry by clearly abandoning their individual responsibilities to their posterity, aided in the transformation of this nation from a constitutional democracy in republican form to a cleverly cloaked socialistic oligarchy. [2]  What was conceived as a nation of confederated sovereign states united by and under the Constitution as the result of the direct and deliberate act of the duly authorized representatives of a once free and self-regulating People, metamorphosed into a collective endeavor pointed to the management of a large population under principles legally associated with mass peonage; the citizenry being converted into little more than commodities or resources, to be consumed and controlled for the purpose of promoting a socialistic concept of utopia founded on a hopelessly insolvent welfare state. The saddest part of the story is that the people, by active counter-revolutionary endeavor or by indolent acquiescence have, with the rarest exceptions, both promoted and enforced upon their neighbors, the values and norms of this usurpation system.

In attempting to understand the relationships of the different materials presented in The Commerce “Claws,” it is important to understand the following:

1. The form of the government in the United States is expressed in a written constitution. A constitution is a form of rules by which the members of a society agree to be governed. The persons forming an association draft a set of rules setting forth the objects of the association declaring what officers it shall have, and prescribing the powers and duties of each, and the manner of conducting its operations. So the rules adopted by the people of a state or nation for their government, are called the constitution. They are in the nature of articles of agreement by which the people mutually agree to be governed.

The object of a constitution is two-fold. It is intended, first to guard the rights and liberties of the people against infringement by those entrusted with the powers of government. It points out the rights and privileges of the people, and prescribes the powers and duties of the principal officers of the government; so that it may be known when they transcend their powers, or neglect their duties: and, by limiting their terms of office, it secures to the people the right of displacing, at stated periods, those who are unfaithful to their trust, by electing others in their stead.

2. The laws (statutes) of the various states of the Union are passed under the sovereign authority of the several state legislatures. The state constitutions have been considered by both the federal judiciary and the courts of the various states to be declarations of “limitations of power” placed by a sovereign people upon the government they created as their own free and voluntary act. It is clear, to any legitimate thinker, that while the state may theoretically possess unlimited power to provide for its own self-preservation, it cannot, by any legally proper means, hold any greater power than any one of the people who comprise the least common denominator of the political power that created it. In other words, the state cannot properly exercise its “police powers” in excess of the limitations express, or of necessity implied, in its respective constitution. The federal government, on the other hand, is a creature constructed upon the basis of “granted powers.” These powers are expressly stated in the Constitution and are conclusive evidence of the extent of the power possessed by the federal organism. If the Constitution does not evidence a power expressly, or by necessary implication, where such is allowed by the language of that instrument, then that power does not legally exist.

The statutes passed by Congress are the law of the land and inasmuch as they are not repugnant to the principles of the Constitution, but are passed, or made, in pursuance thereto, are the supreme Law of the Land. So it is with treaties. But, no law or treaty may be of legal force if it operates in excess, or contravention of the Constitution, for to do so would be to violate the national common law. Therefore, all statutes must pass the test of consistency with the Constitution.

3. Among the powers granted Congress, perhaps the greatest of all is the power to control interstate commerce. Virtually all statutes passed by Congress since the mid 1930’s hinge upon the “commerce clause” and the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution. It is through the commerce clause that Congress claims jurisdiction over the U.S. citizen. However, the only way such a process can be “legally” binding is by first converting the Citizenry from their private and individual capacities into that of commercial agents of government. Voluntarily participating in schemes, i.e. federal entitlement programs, licenses, etc. which effectively constitutes the government as one’s guardian provides the needed “legal magic” to allow the regulatory laws of the government to directly affect said person. For example, in 1936, the Social Security number was originally issued as a federal license to engage in interstate commerce. [3]  By use of the number the holder is presumed to be a “person” who is engaged in congressionally controlled and regulated interstate business. By 1940, the number had evolved from a license to engage in commerce into an additional pledge of surety for the national debt.

Unfortunately, the people apparently never seriously considered the cunning of Congress, nor the declarations of the Supreme Court when it, on several occasions, has stated that no vested rights exist in any entitlement program, including Social Security. [4]   So we see liberty under God traded for the bowl of sour pottage. Sweet in the mouth, yet bitter in the belly.



[1]  The origin of the Committee of Seven is discussed in Chapter 11 – The “Great Secret.”

[2]  An oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society.

[3]  See Chapter 11 – The “Great Secret.”

[4]  Flemming v. Nester, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).  The Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security benefits.  Speaking for the Court, Justice John Harlan said:  “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands.  It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it “[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the Act.”

Click here to return to Why Dulocracy.

If you have any questions about the book Contact Us. We will promptly respond to your email.