The constitution

[bowtiedaddy]

So, let's play with a bit of logic. There are people who claim via a few unrelated court cases that apparently the constitution does not apply to the common citizen, but really... what is the constitution? It wasn't written at the begining of time. It's an idea. An idea of how a civilized society can be organized to restrain the powers of the state, and to ensure a society in which individual liberty is upheld. So... if people believe the constitution is valid to everyone, why is it not? You say we claim our rights... well, the average American claims the constitution and bill of rights as their right... so they have done that, thus making it valid, as if there was any mention publically that these rights were not applicable, there would be countless spikes lining the Potomic with heads of public officials impaled on them before the day was out.

The consitution and bill of rights are just pieces of paper, but the ideas behind them are what really holds the power. As long as people claim them to be their rights, it will be their rights. If the people decide it doesn't matter anymore, they'll lose their rights. So.. really.. what the fuck does it matter the contract law nit picking.

[yozhik]

well, the average American claims the constitution and bill of rights as their right... so they have done that, thus making it valid, as if there was any mention publically that these rights were not applicable, there would be countless spikes lining the Potomic with heads of public officials impaled on them before the day was out.


Right here ... a public mention;

"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, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs.
Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520

[yozhik]

Constitution of the United States. The Constitution as it was adopted in the Convention of 1787, was ratified by the states, and went into effect on March 4, 1789, together with the Amendments to that constitution, duly adopted and ratified.
(Ballentines, 3rd edition, page 254)

constitution.
A system of fundamental laws or principles for the government of a nation, state, society, corporation, or other aggregation of individuals. 16 Am J2d Const L § 1.
(Ballentines, 3rd edition, Page 253)

of.
Belonging to. Denoting possession or ownership. Davidson v Click, 31 NM 543, 47 ALR 1016, 249 P 100.
(Ballantines, 3rd edition, page 880)

United States.
The Union of several states, each equal in power, dignity, and authority, brought into being by the Constitution, emanating from and adopted by the people in whom the sovereignty resides. McCulloch v Maryland (US) 4 Wheat 316, 4 L. Ed 579. A body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created, by the means which are necessary for their attainment. Van brocklin v Tennessee, 117 US 151, 29 L. Ed 845, 6 S Ct 670.
A Federal government was created in 1777 by the union of thirteen colonies of Great Britain in "certain articles of confederation and perpetual union," the first one of which declared that "the stile of this confederacy shall be the United States of America." Each member of the confederacy was denominated a "state." The confederacy, owing to well-known historical reasons, having proven a failure, a new Constitution was formed in 1787, by "The people of the United States" "for the United States of America," as its preamble declares. Downes v Bidwell, 182 US 244, 249, 45 1, Ed 1088, 1092, 21 S Ct 770.
(Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1318)


people.
The state; the nation; any consolidated political body. United States v Three friends, 166 US 1, 41 L Ed 897, 17 S Ct 495.

"The popular leaders, who in all ages have called themselves the people," etc. See 4 Bl Comm 438.

(Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 931)

[bowtiedaddy]

I see.

Well... but what I said is still true IMO. It by default applies to the citizenry because of the demand and concequences if it didn't. Just as was said, you just have to claim your right. Well, these are rights that people over here have claimed, whether they are applicable on paper or not.

[revolutionary_jam]

the idea is it's there to protect the people from the state
of course the state gets to decide how and when it's applied



god i wish there was no state :/

[bowtiedaddy]

god i wish there was no state :/

Then your neighbor becomes the tyrant who takes your freedoms. No matter what you do, unless you protect against it, SOMEONE will try to enslave you. Whether it's the state, a power hungry peer, a corporation, or a religion.

The best thing, IMO is to just have protections that are enforced (as in the constitution, whether technically or not... it is asumed, even by politicians--as long as they are enforced). Anarchy is an atractive idea, until you realize...FUCK.. it'll just reorganize itself naturally so the most ruthless end up as The State all over again. I do agree that the less authority, the better, so long as there are certain minimal protections, and having an armed forces that isn't abused isn't such a bad idea either-A militia would be preferrable IMO.

[revolutionary_jam]

it'll just reorganize itself naturally so the most ruthless end up as The State all over again.I don't really agree, in the past anarchic places have only had states imposed on them from outside

you say the neighbour will enslave me but no one in my community has a vested interest in ahving slavers around so they are likely to side with me not the neighbour

[christophera]

Then your neighbor becomes the tyrant who takes your freedoms. No matter what you do, unless you protect against it, SOMEONE will try to enslave you. Whether it's the state, a power hungry peer, a corporation, or a religion.

The best thing, IMO is to just have protections that are enforced (as in the constitution, whether technically or not... it is asumed, even by politicians--as long as they are enforced). Anarchy is an atractive idea, until you realize...FUCK.. it'll just reorganize itself naturally so the most ruthless end up as The State all over again. I do agree that the less authority, the better, so long as there are certain minimal protections, and having an armed forces that isn't abused isn't such a bad idea either-A militia would be preferrable IMO.

That is a very cognizant statement regarding anarchy. It sems true because the chaos that can easily reult is an extreme. After a period of that, the population is easy to sway to accept the opposite, which can then grow to an extreme again.

That is a very cognizant statement regarding anarchy and accordingly I'm going to test you with a question that reaches to the extremes mentioned and why they exist as they do. The simplist way I can do this is to state a maxim, and if you agree with it it is most likely because you understand it from a place where peace, justice, rights and freedom are the goal, judging by your capacity to make the statement you have.

MAXIM:
The anarchy that succeeds forever with peace, justice, rights and freedom is one where everyone in it knows and respects the sacredness of needs, never confusing them with wants, and is never ready to place their wants over the needs of another or themselves.

[coco]

Yoz raises interesting points that I think should be considered. You and I think we know what a democracy is, what a republic is - we used to pledge allegiance to the flag in primary school after all.

Quickie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Democracy is a form government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), "popular government",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), "people" and κράτος (krátos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[4][5][6]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[7][8] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.[9][10][11] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively[12] and procedurally.[13] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[14][15]

Another quickie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public thing".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch,[6] but many historical republics contained an aristocratic class with hereditary titles and privileges.[citation needed] In republics such as the USA and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage; in the United States Republicans often claim republic refers to representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy.[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[8]

In some republics, the impersonal nature of executive power is a legal fiction: in the Roman Republic and the Dutch Republic, the office of head of state became de facto hereditary.[citation needed] Others, including the historical Republic of China, did not go back to a hereditary system.[vague][citation needed]

Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance the Soviet Union was composed of distinct Soviet Socialist Republics. Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."[9]

Remember this?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the [I]Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. Every single day right after morning prayer the next thing was to hold hand over heart, face the flag and Pledge Allegiance.

I clearly remember the discussion had in Kindergarten: What is a democracy?

We can do whatever we want, when we want, and we can move wherever we want and don't have to ask anybody, not like those people in Russia, and we've never lost any wars either. We were never corrected. At least at the number of schools I attended both public and private.

I really remember that, I promise. Don't know why. Memory is strange, no? It was damn sure a long time ago.

I add this was during the very long and dragged out Vietnam conflict which took a massive grass roots effort by many family members of deceased soldiers and surviving former Vietnam soldiers to be officially declared a war years after the withdraw so they could receive full benefits due war veterans.

[yozhik]

I'm somewhat surprised that there has not been any outrage or defence of the Constitution expressed by any "Patriots", in opposition to some info posted in this thread.

Do I take it that silence is agreement?
The general consensus is that the Constitution IS a piece of fiction and doesn't exist in the form it has been "sold" to billions of Americans, through the centuries?

[bsmurph83]

seems sad that so many would-be patriots in America endlessly refer to returning to the constitution or what-have-you... fiction for the strawpeople/legal fictions...

[chesterd]

As always the real truth is found in the meaning of words.Remember the "Constitution" is a legal document.
A Constitution is written by a Constitutor

Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition ...

CONSTITUTOR......civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

In the case of the u s of A.After the revolutionary war, the money owed to the "Crown" that was borrowed had to be repaid.The Constitution was a legal document that held the people liable for the repayment.The rights listed on the Constitution are there for "CITIZENS" and citizens must apply to the State for licenses for guns , cars, houses ect ect.
Those licenses grant the State an "Interest" in those possessions.The possessions are "registered sureties" against the debt incurred.

So in short The Constitution was a way to hold the people liable for the debt incurred by way of funding the war.

Why anyone would need a piece of hemp paper to tell them that they are free beats me.Just like I hear people crying "they are taking my liberties away".Well for me at least you can keep your liberty as "Liberty" is a granting of rights.No one grants me my rights as they are mine, I was born with them.

Peace

[burnttoast]

As always the real truth is found in the meaning of words.Remember the "Constitution" is a legal document.
A Constitution is written by a Constitutor

Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition ...

CONSTITUTOR......civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

In the case of the u s of A.After the revolutionary war, the money owed to the "Crown" that was borrowed had to be repaid.The Constitution was a legal document that held the people liable for the repayment.The rights listed on the Constitution are there for "CITIZENS" and citizens must apply to the State for licenses for guns , cars, houses ect ect.
Those licenses grant the State an "Interest" in those possessions.The possessions are "registered sureties" against the debt incurred.

So in short The Constitution was a way to hold the people liable for the debt incurred by way of funding the war.

Why anyone would need a piece of hemp paper to tell them that they are free beats me.Just like I hear people crying "they are taking my liberties away".Well for me at least you can keep your liberty as "Liberty" is a granting of rights.No one grants me my rights as they are mine, I was born with them.

Peace

Excellent fact chesterd...

[christophera]

I'm somewhat surprised that there has not been any outrage or defence of the Constitution expressed by any "Patriots", in opposition to some info posted in this thread.

Do I take it that silence is agreement?
The general consensus is that the Constitution IS a piece of fiction and doesn't exist in the form it has been "sold" to billions of Americans, through the centuries?

Silence is fear.

As far as I can tell, the masses can choose to live under any agreement they need to. Such seems the reason the ptb fear the "tyranny of the masses". However, the masses have little idea of what their needs are.

There is good evidence that the Magna Carta is the first in a chain of social contracts that the ptb respect.

The problem is that Americans are stuck to watching the TV and have learned a large part of what they know from it, so know nothing useful in appreciating how such contracts might serve their futures.

If they knew, it might be a different story.

[bowtiedaddy]

I don't really agree, in the past anarchic places have only had states imposed on them from outside

you say the neighbour will enslave me but no one in my community has a vested interest in ahving slavers around so they are likely to side with me not the neighbour

We're talking long term. Even in animal packs there will be some sort of naturally organizing pecking order. The strongest in an Anarchic society, if they aren't strong in the conscience department, will easily start to force control over others, unless people kill them first.

[bowtiedaddy]

MAXIM:
The anarchy that succeeds forever with peace, justice, rights and freedom is one where everyone in it knows and respects the sacredness of needs, never confusing them with wants, and is never ready to place their wants over the needs of another or themselves.

Sure. But do you see a whole lot of evidence in modern day, or in the past, that would say that this would ever actually occur? Sure, Anarchy would be fucking great.. but then you have to realize, that it won't last that way. It'll just turn into some form of tyranny, until you can protect against the more ruthless of the population, which then is essentially "the state". Now... what you make "the state" IMO is much more important than whether or not to have one.

[bowtiedaddy]

Yoz raises interesting points that I think should be considered. You and I think we know what a democracy is, what a republic is - we used to pledge allegiance to the flag in primary school after all.

Quickie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Democracy is a form government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), "popular government",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), "people" and κράτος (krátos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[4][5][6]

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[7][8] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.[9][10][11] The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively[12] and procedurally.[13] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[14][15]

Another quickie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public thing".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch,[6] but many historical republics contained an aristocratic class with hereditary titles and privileges.[citation needed] In republics such as the USA and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage; in the United States Republicans often claim republic refers to representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy.[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[8]

In some republics, the impersonal nature of executive power is a legal fiction: in the Roman Republic and the Dutch Republic, the office of head of state became de facto hereditary.[citation needed] Others, including the historical Republic of China, did not go back to a hereditary system.[vague][citation needed]

Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance the Soviet Union was composed of distinct Soviet Socialist Republics. Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."[9]

Remember this?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the [I]Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. Every single day right after morning prayer the next thing was to hold hand over heart, face the flag and Pledge Allegiance.

I clearly remember the discussion had in Kindergarten: What is a democracy?

We can do whatever we want, when we want, and we can move wherever we want and don't have to ask anybody, not like those people in Russia, and we've never lost any wars either. We were never corrected. At least at the number of schools I attended both public and private.

I really remember that, I promise. Don't know why. Memory is strange, no? It was damn sure a long time ago.

I add this was during the very long and dragged out Vietnam conflict which took a massive grass roots effort by many family members of deceased soldiers and surviving former Vietnam soldiers to be officially declared a war years after the withdraw so they could receive full benefits due war veterans.

The pledge came about almost at the end of the 19th century by a socialist Eugenics supporter that Hitler admired. It has nothing to do with the Republic that was essentially lost far before that point. THe executive branch in the way it is today is not how it is supposed to be, in fact, it is supposed to be subservient to the representative branches of government.

In a true democracy, we'd all be fucked...since the average person things the kind of tyranny that the minority we belong to fights against, is a great idea.

Sure, a republic is a very broad term. However, if you set up a republic in a way that champions the rule of the people, without allowing them to destroy themselves via being manipulated by propaganda (in a full on democracy)... that's the best in my book.

In a full on democracy, we would have banned virtually all forms of free speech by now, nuclear bombed nearly every country on the planet, and a modern day Adolf Hitler (beyond even what Obama is) would be in power.

Sorry to say, but the average idiot scares me about as much as David Rockefeller himself. After all, Obama, Bush and all of them were very popular at first.

[alisa2]

yozh wrote: 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, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520

The court is correct because the Constitution is a political compact. Only citizens (voters) can be parties to the Constitution. If you sue the government calling yourself a private person or private individual the Constitution would not apply to you. Citizens are parties. We the People of the United States were the Citizens of the several states.

[christophera]

Padelford Fey, ........... Hmmm, seems a common law court could go a long way to dealing with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAOA0-YYztg&feature=PlayList&p=32D020C8B354461F&index=0

[christophera]

seems sad that so many would-be patriots in America endlessly refer to returning to the constitution or what-have-you... fiction for the strawpeople/legal fictions...

On one hand yes, but only from the position of respect for courts NOT having the authority by common law to dispense with rights ancient.

[christophera]

what you make "the state" IMO is much more important than whether or not to have one.

Agreed, but my point was that the only anarchy that can succeed is one where everyone knows everything about needs. That is a state of mind that it is hard to imagine in relation to modern populations and it is a state of mind that makes an official "state" completely unecessary.

The fact that "we need to know our needs" means that once you start the loop consciously of knowing in a society, it will likely never leave the populations and they will advance significantly without the meaning of the commitment diminishing.

[yozhik]

yozh wrote:

The court is correct because the Constitution is a political compact. Only citizens (voters) can be parties to the Constitution. If you sue the government calling yourself a private person or private individual the Constitution would not apply to you. Citizens are parties. We the People of the United States were the Citizens of the several states.

Where do you acquire this interpretation from?
Is there any precedent or supporting argument?
Would be interesting to look at.

Compared to this interpretation;

a new Constitution was formed in 1787, by "The people of the United States" "for the United States of America," as its preamble declares. Downes v Bidwell, 182 US 244, 249, 45 1, Ed 1088, 1092, 21 S Ct 770.
(Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1318)


people. The state; the nation; any consolidated political body. United States v Three friends, 166 US 1, 41 L Ed 897, 17 S Ct 495.

"The popular leaders, who in all ages have called themselves the people," etc. See 4 Bl Comm 438.

(Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 931)

I would suggest "the people of the United States" are a completely different crowd to "the people of the united States".

Also interesting that the Constitution was formed "for the United States of America".
Why not for "the people of the United States of America?"

Why would the preamble specify that the Constitution was formed by the people of the United States for the United States of America? That makes no sense whatsoever.

It's like Armstrong saying;
One small step for man; one giant step.

It is missing a crucial ingredient.

[alisa2]

We the People of the United States were the Citizens of the several states.

Where do you acquire this interpretation from?
Is there any precedent or supporting argument?
Would be interesting to look at.

Compared to this interpretation;

a new Constitution was formed in 1787, by "The people of the United States" "for the United States of America," as its preamble declares. Downes v Bidwell, 182 US 244, 249, 45 1, Ed 1088, 1092, 21 S Ct 770.
(Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1318) people. The state; the nation; any consolidated political body. United States v Three friends, 166 US 1, 41 L Ed 897, 17 S Ct 495.


I was not interpreting anything. It's only common sense. Who else would We the people of the United States be if not the people of the several States who were Citizens?


I would suggest "the people of the United States" are a completely different crowd to "the people of the united States".

There was never any distinction between the United States and united States in 1787. United States was the same as united States.

Also interesting that the Constitution was formed "for the United States of America". Why not for "the people of the United States of America?" Why would the preamble specify that the Constitution was formed by the people of the United States for the United States of America? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, the founders wanted the people of the United States to think they created a government for themselves. It worked didn't it?

[yozhik]

I was not interpreting anything. It's only common sense. Who else would We the people of the United States be if not the people of the several States who were Citizens?
Asked and answered.
Information re: who "the people" refers to has been provided a number of times.

There was never any distinction between the United States and united States in 1787. United States was the same as united States.
No.
They are completely different.
"united" is an adjective.
"United" is part of the corporation name - capitalised as you do with a Proper noun.

instead of the "united States of America", they could have called it the "agreeing States of America" or the "thinking-as-one States of America" or the "on-this-issue-we speak-as-one States of America"

"United States of America" is the same style and status as "United Airlines'"

Of course there was "a distinction"!!!
FFS ... it was even specified how this new entity was to be stiled [sic].
Do you REALLY expect us to believe this was not an intentional act of obfuscation and deception???????

Oh pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssse :rolleyes:

Well, the founders wanted the people of the United States to think they created a government for themselves. It worked didn't it?
Think it ... yes.
Defend it as if real ... yes.
But actually create it? No.

[alisa2]

Asked and answered.
Information re: who "the people" refers to has been provided a number of times.


No.
They are completely different.
"united" is an adjective.
"United" is part of the corporation name - capitalised as you do with a Proper noun.

instead of the "united States of America", they could have called it the "agreeing States of America" or the "thinking-as-one States of America" or the "on-this-issue-we speak-as-one States of America"

"United States of America" is the same style and status as "United Airlines'"

Of course there was "a distinction"!!!
FFS ... it was even specified how this new entity was to be stiled [sic].
Do you REALLY expect us to believe this was not an intentional act of obfuscation and deception???????

Oh pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssse :rolleyes:


Think it ... yes.
Defend it as if real ... yes.
But actually create it? No.

The whole thing is an intentional act of deception.

What are YOU going to do about it ?

[yozhik]

The whole thing is an intentional act of deception.

What are YOU going to do about it ?

Geeeez ... you're feisty.
I'm still confused as to where you're coming from on this.
Seems you flip flop more than a US politician ... :D

What is an act of deception?
The Constitution?
I thought earlier you were championing its cause.

... and how did this now become a challenge re: what am I going to do about it?

Why so defensive/aggressive? http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/images/smilies/hide.gif

Deep breaths ... relax ... breathe ... now, slowly ... from the beginning ... let's start this one again ...

[bsmurph83]

Asked and answered.
Information re: who "the people" refers to has been provided a number of times.


No.
They are completely different.
"united" is an adjective.
"United" is part of the corporation name - capitalised as you do with a Proper noun.

instead of the "united States of America", they could have called it the "agreeing States of America" or the "thinking-as-one States of America" or the "on-this-issue-we speak-as-one States of America"

"United States of America" is the same style and status as "United Airlines'"

Of course there was "a distinction"!!!
FFS ... it was even specified how this new entity was to be stiled [sic].
Do you REALLY expect us to believe this was not an intentional act of obfuscation and deception???????

Oh pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssse :rolleyes:


Think it ... yes.
Defend it as if real ... yes.
But actually create it? No.

i think by 1787 there would have been a clear distinction being made by those creating the legislation. it seems to have all been a matter of corporate expansion... in light of the discussion that has gone so far, i think this quote from The Biggest Secret to be relevant:

In 1604, a group of leading politicians, businessmen, merchants, manufacturers and
bankers, met in Greenwich, then in the English county of Kent, and formed a
corporation called the Virginia Company in anticipation of the imminent influx of white
Europeans, mostly British at first, into the North American continent. Its main stockholder was the reptilian, King James I, and the original charter for the company
was completed by April 10th 1606. This and later updates to the charter established the
following:
• The Virginia Company comprised of two branches, the London Company and the
Plymouth or New England Company. The former was responsible for the first
permanent colony in America at Jamestown on May 14th 1607 and the latter were
the so-called ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ who arrived at Cape Cod in the ship the Mayflower,
in November 1620, and went on to land in Plymouth Harbour on December 21st.
The ‘Pilgrims’ of American historical myth were, in fact, members of the second
Virginia Company branch called the New England Company
• The Virginia Company owned most of the land of what we now call the USA, and
any lands up to 900 miles offshore. This included Bermuda and most of what is now
known as the Caribbean Islands. The Virginia Company (the British Crown and the
bloodline families) had rights to 50%, yes 50%, of the ore of all gold and silver
mined on its lands, plus percentages of other minerals and raw materials, and 5% of
all profits from other ventures. These rights, the charters detailed, were to be passed
on to all heirs of the owners of the Virginia Company and therefore continue to
apply... forever! The controlling members of the Virginia Company who were to
enjoy these rights became known as the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and
Planters of the City of London.
• After the first 21 years from the formation of the Virginia Company, all ‘duties,
imposts, and excises’ paid on trading activities in the colonies had to be paid directly
to the British Crown through the Crown treasurer. No trader could export goods out
of the colonies without the permission of the British Crown and to do so would
involve the seizure of all their goods and the ship or vehicle which carried them.
• The lands of the Virginia Company were granted to the colonies under a Deed of
Trust (on lease) and therefore they could not claim ownership of the land. They
could pass on the perpetual use of the land to their heirs or sell the perpetual use, but
they could never own it. Ownership was retained by the British Crown.
• The colonial lands were to be governed by two Colonial Councils, each with 13
members (that number again), but the Kings Council in London had the final say on
all decisions. The sitting British monarch also chose the Governor of the American
Colonies, who we would today call the President.
• The monarch, through his Council for the Colonies, insisted that members of the
colonies impose the Christian religion on all the people, including the Native
Americans. To use the language of the time... “with all diligence, care and respect,
do provide that the true word of God and Christian faith be preached, planted and
used, not only within every of the several said colonies and plantations, but also as
much as they may amongst the savage people which do or shall adjoin us to them or
border upon them, according to the doctrine, rights, and religion, now professed and
established within our realm of England.” If the Native Americans did not accept theChristian religion, they would have to be forced to, the Crown insisted. This was the
order to destroy the culture and knowledge of the native peoples of North America
and also to maintain the white colonists under the vicious yoke of Christian
terrorism peddled by the Calvinist-Puritans. It was a free licence to kill, torture and
kidnap the native peoples with complete immunity from prosecution.
• The criminal courts on the lands of the Virginia Company were to be operated under
Admiralty Law, the law of the sea, and the civil courts under common law, the law
of the land. This is a crucial point which I will come to in a second.
Now, get this. All of the above still applies today! Read those percentages once more
and let the magnitude of that sink in. After the original 13 (again!) American colonies
won their ‘independence’ and an ‘independent’ country was formed after 1783, the
Virginia Company simply changed its name to... the United States of America. You see
there are two USAs, or rather a USA and a usA. The united states of America with a
lower case ‘u’ and ‘5’ are the lands of the various states. These lands, as we have seen,
are still owned by the British Crown as the head of the old Virginia Company, although
there is something to add about this in a moment. Then there is the United States of
America, capital ‘U’ and ‘S’, which is the 68 square miles of land west of the Potomac
River on which is built the federal capital, Washington DC and the District of
Columbia. It also includes the US protectorates of Guam and Puerto Rico. The United
States of America is not a country, it is a corporation owned by the same Brotherhood
reptilian bloodlines who owned the Virginia Company, because the USA is the Virginia
Company! When Americans agree to have a social security number the citizens of the
united states surrender their sovereignty and agree to become franchisees of the United
States (the Virginia Company of the British Crown).

[christophera]

Whoa, that is a big secret bsmurph83, and it does seem to have aspects matching conditions today.

[bsmurph83]

i'm open to correction on this but it appears to me that the whole Constitution concept might have just been yet another example of the 'elite' burying common law, the law of the land, under a bunch of legal BS...? after all, the United States is a corporate entity operating in admiralty/commerce. has been since the 1600s... it appears that the 'franchisees' or 'general managers' or whatever you want to call them who were helping to expand the Virginia Company into America from England could have simply - if they'd wanted to - ensured that the public were educated with their rights under common law when they were building the nation? i mean, why would you need a constitution if everyone simply knew what common law was? it provides all the freedom and unalienable rights you could ever need... seems to me that the Constitution could be a fundamental deception designed to induce the men and women int considering themselves as 'citizens' (secretly under Admiralty) thinking that the Constitution would then apply to them and protect them. Assuming the identity of citizens/slaves/chattel/vessels effectively destroys their sovereignty and renders them lost confused sheep who don't know where to turn for remedy even when they do realise they're being screwed.

i admit i know little of the contents of the Constitution of the US and i think i'm exposing my ignorance on a couple of issues here but i welcome any comments... (you never read The Biggest Secret, chris? great book. i forget who it's by... teehee)

[christophera]

i mean, why would you need a constitution if everyone simply knew what common law was? it provides all the freedom and unalienable rights you could ever need... seems to me that the Constitution could be a fundamental deception designed to induce the men and women int considering themselves as 'citizens' (secretly under Admiralty) thinking that the Constitution would then apply to them and protect them.

As far as I can tell, the level of dysfunction in the functional excercise of law is so great, that any passionate interest to serve its purpose is welcome.

Good question above. I would venture an answer in our best interest of course, although not so flattering. You would be surprised how many this questons this answer, answers.

People are lazy and keeping the exact knowledge needed to hold common law with its true understanding present in society is hard work. People who are not carefully educated in their needs and how to meet them from early childhood become indulgent and dependent on any material power nearby.

The document in question has aspects far too idealistic to presume that those composing it did not sincerely wish for its manifestation. It is safe to assume that they knew of the Magna Carta and honored it or desired to see it honored. I say this because the reconstruction era civil rights resemble aspects of the Charter.
It is also safe to assume that a secret elite had already determined how to subvert it and allowed it to be created because they were as prepared within the meaning of "people are lazy" to do it again as they had already done with the Magna Carta.

Now, to be fair, people really are not lazy. They are afraid to use their own abilities to learn, keep, hold and use knowledge in the way they must, overtly. The secret elite do it covertly as heretics under the protection fo the church mandate. However, the secrete elites DO preserve the knowledge of the historical, original laws and how to work with them, even if it is just to continually subvert them.

That way of keeping, holding and using knowledge utilizes the unconscious mind. Things that are learned by it go directly into long term memory and are recalled on the simple condition of something related invoking it.

The reason all of our discussion, study, research etc, into "common law", courts of common law or admiralty, fictions, straw me etc, is totally confined to the fremen excercising free speech rather than something you might read about in the paper or see on TV or be taught, is because those in control of those things learned about all the different labrynths of knowledge unconscioius and simply negotiate the channels with out thought or question fully recognizing the validity of each others moves and ignoring ours.

[solarwindspirit]

i'm open to correction on this but it appears to me that the whole Constitution concept might have just been yet another example of the 'elite' burying common law, the law of the land, under a bunch of legal BS...? after all, the United States is a corporate entity operating in admiralty/commerce. has been since the 1600s... it appears that the 'franchisees' or 'general managers' or whatever you want to call them who were helping to expand the Virginia Company into America from England could have simply - if they'd wanted to - ensured that the public were educated with their rights under common law when they were building the nation? i mean, why would you need a constitution if everyone simply knew what common law was? it provides all the freedom and unalienable rights you could ever need... seems to me that the Constitution could be a fundamental deception designed to induce the men and women int considering themselves as 'citizens' (secretly under Admiralty) thinking that the Constitution would then apply to them and protect them. Assuming the identity of citizens/slaves/chattel/vessels effectively destroys their sovereignty and renders them lost confused sheep who don't know where to turn for remedy even when they do realise they're being screwed.

i admit i know little of the contents of the Constitution of the US and i think i'm exposing my ignorance on a couple of issues here but i welcome any comments... (you never read The Biggest Secret, chris? great book. i forget who it's by... teehee)

Well, let me ask since you are so much into cover up and lies. This country was founded on burning women on the stake as sacrifices. Do you claim responsiblity for that act in America too?

[bsmurph83]

Well, let me ask since you are so much into cover up and lies. This country was founded on burning women on the stake as sacrifices. Do you claim responsiblity for that act in America too?

um.... qe? lol

i don't claim responsibility for the Constitution, the hijacking of america by the corporate entity known as the United States of America, 911, fluoride in the drinking water OR witches being burned at the stake in America. i also don't calim responsibility for Hitler's actions, the international financiers who hijacked the Fed, halitosis or the Easter Bunny...

um, ok, you're right, i have no idea what exactly you're getting at. explain yourself. slowly. clearly. i've already said i don't know much about the American Constitution. if you are an expert then please contribute your expertise to the thread and develop some of the themes running here.

oh, i didn't do Oklahoma either. cheers!

[christophera]

Well, let me ask since you are so much into cover up and lies. This country was founded on burning women on the stake as sacrifices. Do you claim responsiblity for that act in America too?

Perhaps you've misinterpreted bsmurphs ironic perspective in his galloping summary of conquest, genocide and secrecy that tiptoes through the halls of ancient mechanisms of interacting with the "secret society".

I do fully understand your position, but there is far more to Salem and the genocide of crusade disguised as mere conquest than history pretends to share.

I've produced a 1 hour documentary about the "Keepers of the Western Gate" and their efforts to preserve the sacred knowledge of the creator, what and where it got them and what the crusaders learned, then used exposing their intentions. What it means to us and our futures.

The intro is provided by the producer of an Ann Arbor Michigan public access show to help those not of the area I'm in to understand.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2186665538066585011&ei=YCQXSbqMMYTyqAPGmc36AQ&q=forbidden+knowledge

[alisa2]

Padelford Fey, ........... Hmmm, seems a common law court could go a long way to dealing with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAOA0-YYztg&feature=PlayList&p=32D020C8B354461F&index=0


What I got out of that video is: The Constitution is a license to steal. It was created for the Posterity of the United States of America, the bankers. The bankers inherited USA because we (America) allegedly owed a debt to the war financiers (bankers). We had no money to pay the war debt back so the Constitution was created as guarantee to the Posterity (the bankers). It is document used to justify theft. It is a non revocable living trust.

[alisa2]

The Constitution sure sounds smack of a Non-revocable living trust to me
Comments in brackets[ ] are mine:


"Non-revocable, or irrevocable trusts are generally used for transfer of assets during one's lifetime, often for tax purposes. For example, an irrevocable trust could be established to provide income to certain heirs during their lifetime, with the assets going to charity after the heir's deaths. This is often used to avoid estate taxes. The creator ["We the People"], however, cannot revoke and usually may not change the terms of the trust or take back the assets. They are no longer owned by the creator of the trust.

The principal difference between the two types of living trusts is that with a revocable trust, the creator of the trust continues to own and control the assets placed into the trust; and with a irrevocable trust, the creator ["We the People"] of the trust gives up ownership and control of the assets. There may be exceptions to this general explanation, but these are the principal distinctions.



http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Difference-Between-a-Revocable-Living-Trust-and-a-Non-Revocable-Living-Trust&id=2384011

[seamus]

Then your neighbor becomes the tyrant who takes your freedoms. No matter what you do, unless you protect against it, SOMEONE will try to enslave you. Whether it's the state, a power hungry peer, a corporation, or a religion.You only say that because, look in your heart now, that's the way you yourself would behave. Those who wish only for peace, find the potential for peace in situations with no oppressor. Those who wish to get one up on their neighbor find only problems when the "protection" of the "authorities" is removed from the scenario. That's just how it is.

The core of the problem is the illusion of separation. This is what we need to overcome. There IS NO "us" and "them". They ARE a reflection of what the majority of the energy focuses on. However, positive, inclusive thinking is exponential in its power. This is the principle behind the saying "wherever 2 or 3 are gathered, there I am". 3 people focusing their energy in a positive, loving way outpower 10 people focusing their energy in a selfish, segregating way. And I am talking about the kind of power that causes the true manifestation of experience, not FORCE. Force is a function of the illusion of power. Manifestation is a function of the power of the illusion.The best thing, IMO is to just have protections that are enforced (as in the constitution, whether technically or not... it is asumed, even by politicians--as long as they are enforced). Anarchy is an atractive idea, until you realize...FUCK.. it'll just reorganize itself naturally so the most ruthless end up as The State all over again.The earth is finished with that level of experience. It is beyond any individual or group's control at this point. She is ready to ascend, with or without the human species. I believe many of the human species will make it, but more will not. They'll have to continue their petty little games elsewhere.I do agree that the less authority, the better, so long as there are certain minimal protections, and having an armed forces that isn't abused isn't such a bad idea either-A militia would be preferrable IMO.A militia is the only lawful form of military according to the constitution. Early on this was subverted, and the first use of the abbreviation "USA" was for "United States Army", a for-profit corporation. But that's another subject for another thread. Yes, indeed, less "authority" is better. But you need to bear in mind that it will not be possible until those who lust for power over others are dealt with decisively.

Peace

S

[yozhik]

You have to take your hats of to them; the plan has worked fantastically.

The Constitution was written for the benefit of a corporation, but then via propaganda and spin, those enslaved were led to believe it was written to protect THEM ... and so spilt blood in the name of defending it and wage wars of words, claiming it.

It is a beautiful deception.
Enslave the masses and have the masses defend the enslaving system.
Be-a-utiful.

The power of the people is not embodied in a corporate document; it is within the body.

[seamus]

You have to take your hats of to them; the plan has worked fantastically.

The Constitution was written for the benefit of a corporation, but then via propaganda and spin, those enslaved were led to believe it was written to protect THEM ... and so spilt blood in the name of defending it and wage wars of words, claiming it.

It is a beautiful deception.
Enslave the masses and have the masses defend the enslaving system.
Be-a-utiful.

The power of the people is not embodied in a corporate document; it is within the body.
this is especially explicit in the Yick Wo vs. Hopkins decision...

MATTHEWS, J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
118 U.S. 356
Yick Wo v. Hopkins


APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Argued: --- Decided: May 10, 1886 Excerpted quote: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

S

[bsmurph83]

You only say that because, look in your heart now, that's the way you yourself would behave. Those who wish only for peace, find the potential for peace in situations with no oppressor. Those who wish to get one up on their neighbor find only problems when the "protection" of the "authorities" is removed from the scenario. That's just how it is.

The core of the problem is the illusion of separation. This is what we need to overcome. There IS NO "us" and "them". They ARE a reflection of what the majority of the energy focuses on. However, positive, inclusive thinking is exponential in its power. This is the principle behind the saying "wherever 2 or 3 are gathered, there I am". 3 people focusing their energy in a positive, loving way outpower 10 people focusing their energy in a selfish, segregating way. And I am talking about the kind of power that causes the true manifestation of experience, not FORCE. Force is a function of the illusion of power. Manifestation is a function of the power of the illusion.The earth is finished with that level of experience. It is beyond any individual or group's control at this point. She is ready to ascend, with or without the human species. I believe many of the human species will make it, but more will not. They'll have to continue their petty little games elsewhere.A militia is the only lawful form of military according to the constitution. Early on this was subverted, and the first use of the abbreviation "USA" was for "United States Army", a for-profit corporation. But that's another subject for another thread. Yes, indeed, less "authority" is better. But you need to bear in mind that it will not be possible until those who lust for power over others are dealt with decisively.

Peace

S

this is a great post, S. as much as some may balk at the metaphysical orientation, i tend to agree deep down. perhaps i'd say that the earth is not so much 'finished' with the game of 'might equals right', but that it is FINISHING and moving into the next phase gradually. this will be based in peace and mutual respect and a basic recognition of our togetherness as one species on this planet. there's something bigger happening than anything the NWO can deal with. sure, they can continue to create carnage until conditions preclude them from doing so, but in the end, they are merely our shadow, and the shadow always flees in the face of light. the contents of our subconscious are gradually being purged, and yeh, it's gonna continue to be messy for a while, but it IS leading somewhere as seamus ably points out. and we (solar system or whole galaxy?) are apparently moving into a 'photon band' after all... other topics like the mayan calendar and other tidbits begin to surface in the mind as it's all related but it's a diversion from the thread. i'll stop rambling.

in short, the freeman movement is one of many symptoms of a fundamental energetic shift in the section of the multidimensional universe we inhabit. the changes occurring are bigger than any movement or agenda. the choice is simply to work with the flow of things or fight (consciously or otherwies) against it. i know which i'd rather be doing! :D