Reserved Rights - U.S. Constitution

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

 

And to imagine Madison was one of the elite and the defendant in Marbury v. Madison. Personally one of my favorites would be Patrick Henry wherein on the constitutional convention refused to attend and declared: "I smell a rat."

 

When you feel a little froggy, go ahead and jump and bang your butt when you land, then little froggy stands corrected, it doesn't have wings. Bu non-contributions and criticisms, you mean offing a strong opinion that is not only contradictory to your own but involves questions which you can't seem to answer.

Know you, I would dare suggest as to whether you know yourself. As previously stated, I have no desire to personally know you at all, AT ALL. But then I do know you, quite well as a matter of fact by the philosophical values you project. You have very clearly exposed your metaphysics, your epistemology, your ethics and your politics.

A principle in a technology business, please explain how that somehow qualifies you for anything outside your personal little realm much less qualified in law, especially the law of contracts. The "especially" is based on your declarations here of some contract that does not exist no matter how many times you try and assert otherwise. My objection has nothing to do with your fallacy of superiority but you are absolutely correct about your lack of knowledge.

You keep stating the same unsubstantiated assertions that when challenged, you restate the same unsubstantiated assertion that begs the question but does not answer it. Now if that is what you state as superiority, then I accept the assertion. Something smells but it's not a duck, there has been no quack or walk, no duck just the same assertion with not one single proof of any element of a contract, not one. No, just because you want it to be does not make those four pieces of parchment a contract.

And you keep coming back to that same tired assertion of something magical about Marbury v. Madison where power was seized. But as with all else, you offer no substantiation. On what page number and what words did this magical seizure occur? Where within that magical seizure was Amendment X violated? In fact I'll be more lenient than that, just show where any part of the constitution was violated.

But then I really don't expect any real response, just more assertions where selective items used out of context is supposed to form some conclusion without question.

 

Oh, so Madison agreed with a foundational principle, then got involved to give the U.S. Supreme Court more power means that there is something wrong with what he said????

Your attempt to discredit what I quoted baffles me. There are issues I agree with some founding fathers on and disagree with them on others. Madison and Monroe, for example rarely agreed on much of anything... but they did agree on a few things.

The one thing that most leaders agreed on in the founding of this country was the concept of unalienable Rights. Whether Madison fully agreed with the concept is irrelevant. He acknowledged it. He was a politician. Had he not taken that stand, he probably could never been elected.

You see the same thing with politicians today. For example, they parrot the right lines about immigration and they have no real loyalty to the subject. They figure much of it will predictably fail in the courts and / or be marginalized by future administrations. But, they can say they voted with the people.

If you'd like a thesis on unalienable Rights, I'm sure we can arrange it.

 

Jefferson, like yourself wasn't there. So how is this anything other than a collection of pretty words with no real meaning. However, unlike yourself, Jefferson personally knew those that were there. But then again in common, you like Jefferson ignored those that disagreed with those debates.

Or in the infamous words of Patrick Henry; "I smell a rat."

 

This is the only portion of your post worth responding to, the rest consists of the usual insulting garbage.

Marbury v Madison established that the courts had the power of judicial review. The concept of judicial review preceded Marbury v Madison, but that's an aside. But that morphed into the power to interpret the Constitution. I don't even have to cite anything in Marbury v Madison to prove that the Supreme Court seized that power, it is stated on its website:

"... the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

The purpose of judicial review is to review laws for constitutional compliance, a power granted to the judiciary by Article III. Nowhere does that power include the power to interpret the Constitution. That seized power is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment. Case closed. You disagree? That's fine with me, it's not relevant to me. What is relevant is the above bolded assertion, I didn't invent it.

Other opinions:

https://no-consent.org/2012/10/29/marbury-v-madison/
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/03/08/the-myth-of-marbury-v-madison/

 

And neither were you.

 

Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. Of that document, Jefferson stated:

“The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1819

Yes, the American people got screwed by the Marbury decision. But, at the same time, Jefferson laid out a foundational principle that was presented to the colonists as the basis for our Republic. It was more than pretty words for many years later, the United States Supreme Court had this to say:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.; While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v.Gothard (1901)

So, now what Jefferson says is more than pretty words. The concept of Liberty as an unalienable Right is established. Those who smelled the rat were justifiably concerned, but Congress did include the Bill of Rights which codified that foundational principle of unalienable Rights in order to get the Constitution ratified. Yes, even Benjamin Franklin knew that our Constitution would be under attack from within. That is why he said it was a "Republic if you can keep it."

They are pretty words, but unless we're willing to defend them, they are meaningless.

 

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams in a letter regarding Marbury v Madison, 1804.

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825.

I'm sure Patrick Henry would not have been amused by Marbury v Madison, but he was dead when that case went to court. The same can be said of Benjamin Franklin.

Marbury v. Madison, in the end, was legislating from the bench and should have been opposed then and should be opposed today lest the Constitution become meaningless.

 

To which "original intent" are you trying to imply, a declaration for a free man or a declaration for enslavement?

 

Let's start with your quote which is false in and of itself. That quote is from John Adams, not James Madison, to wit:

​

It would seem that it was yourself that discredited what you quoted. Beware of using anonymous sources on quotes without checking authenticity as they are frequently wrong.

To which founding father's are you implying? Personally I agree wholeheartedly with the real founding fathers but disagree with all the imposters. Therefore why do I give a good rat's butt what Madison or Monroe agreed or disagreed about. Neither were among the signatories on the founding document for this country nor the Articles of Confederation. Madison but not Monroe did sign the Constitution.

Madison, such a great President:

a man you could be proud of. I would question whether he actually believed in anything as he seemed to be always hanging on to someone's coattails.

While I have full faith in politicians, I can't say I agree with your analogy.

As to your your offer of a thesis on inalienable rights, I would love to hear it if you dare but start another thread as that would be hijacking this one.[/quote]​

 

And that would be your opinion and I believe I have made it perfectly clear by my posts that opinion, while yours, means very little to me substantively. Your opinion here are just the musings of one without any evidence, just your feeling of what you want to be right.

And all the little kiddies go round and round, round and round, round and round.

Same tired statement, same lack of any evidence of fact. Of course you're not going to use substantiate anything, you just keep repeating the same tired allegation with no proof of fact. So you try a fallacy, a plead to authority, that has no bearing whatsoever on your claim.

Again, neither you or I was there, Hamilton was not only there but the prime instigator in it's adoption as "law". So the saying on the courts website is not a material fact in your claim.

As to your cites to other sites, perhaps you should read them as their claims are as full of holes as yours. However most notable is the no-consent.org that at least used the context of Jefferson's letter to William Johnson which you keep using Jefferson's quote out of context. You should try reading the actual letter, Jefferson's side of the argument with Marshall, prejudicial to the core. Actually while I detest Marshall, I admire to the utmost his admonishment of Madison, hence Jefferson.

But I get an extreme kick out of your second cite which seems to confirm first that you did not read it as it makes your whole supposition false. That whole opinion so clearly follows almost the same road as my argument that I could almost be said to have plagiarized it but for the fact Michael Stokes Paulsen is much younger than I. But as this is the first time I have become familiar with his work and I doubt seriously if he has read any of mine, it would seem that following the correct tract ultimately leads to the truth.

Too bad for your opinion that the requisite time was not spent on understanding fact before making unfounded assertions. And by the way, if you were to know how to shepardize a law, you would discover that even after 214 years, not a single item of Marbury v. Madison has ever been overturned.

 

Yes it is but it is shared by many who know and understand the travesty (not that it really matters). Because it's fact based. And no matter how much huffing and puffing and other hot air you spew, the fact remains that the Supremes seized a power (originating with Marbury v Madison) never granted to them by the Constitution. The fact remains that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants the Supremes the power to interpret the Constitution. The fact remains that the Supremes proudly boast such power on their own website among many other places. A DICTATORIAL power that has been incrementally destroying the Republic guaranteed by the Constitution. And that power, among other things, produced insanely outrageous, dangerous and treasonous "interpretations" such as (a recent example) corporations (a paper created fiction) have the same protected rights under the Bill of Rights as human beings (Citizens United v FEC).

Based on the volume of hot air you spew in response to my posts, you could have fooled me. Regardless, ask me if I care.

Well duh no shnitt sherlock. Why do you suppose that is? How many times in the history of governments have any of them relinquished any of their powers voluntarily?

 

As I have never claimed to be as that would be ridiculous in and of itself. But I have taken to time over the last couple of decades to concentrate my readings on what was offered by those that were. I own the books on the letters of Jefferson, the debates on the constitution, the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers and many many more.

But what does any of that matter when you, yourself, offered up a cite that totally contradicts all you are trying to allege and completely supports my argument. It was so great I will offer it up again for clarity.

Do you have anything else or did this shoot your wad?

 

So then why post such nonsense about me in the first place? Ah yes, hot air.

Congratulations.

If you read for comprehension, all I posted was:

I never said anywhere I agree 100% with 100% of the contents. Having said that, you quoted:

So Marbury v Madison included an INTERPRETATION of the Constitution that the judiciary were granted the power to INTERPRET the Constitution.

What more do you need? It's obvious to me you've been suckered into believing the Supremes have the IMPLIED power to interpret the Constitution because they said so. Far be it for me to try to convince you otherwise. I couldn't if I wanted to and it isn't my job or purpose to try. I'm merely stating my opinion, same as you.

Do you have any more hot air to spew or did this shoot your wad?

 

Again you base an argument on a dubious quote that can't be substantiated and seems to be blatantly false. Upon a search of your quote their are but three sources of which one is this post I am responding to. Another is a religious source with an unclaimed source. And then there is the Family Guardian which uses as their source as a letter written to Samuel Adams Wells in 1819, The Lipscomb-Bergh Memorial edition, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 15, Page 200. That turned out to be the letter written on May 12, 1819. Nowhere in that letter, much less page 200 are there any such words as you are quoting. Also, this is the only letter written to Well in the year 1819.

I would caution using anything from Family Guardian without a lot of cross referencing as many in jail have discovered the hard way.

Funny that you should choose an opinion of those mystical beings based on Amendment 14 which was passed by Congress some 4 decades after Jefferson's demise. Should of had him rolling over in his grave, laughing uncontrollably over the fate of the suckers being Amendment 14 is the antithesis of the Declaration of Independence.

But just where was the unalienable right of liberty established when those words were followed by:

The proposition of slavery so long as we have the right when we can't suffer any longer to choose new masters. Never has the most beautiful of words been so closely followed by the ugliest words in the English language. And I would dare say Franklin knew much more than that.

 

Because you keep implying some mystical knowledge of proceedings not available anywhere else therefore nonsense/you, indivisible.

It seems to be obvious that in regards to content, you have none. You post something you had no clue as to what that in the end said your opinion should be wiped and flushed. Posting contrary to what you are trying to imply seems to be the only substantive content you have provided. What you are trying to offer as opinion has been reduced to pure fallacy by your very cite. Otherwise you have posted nothing that supports your assertions being anything but false even by your own admission by the link to TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

Your whole argument is "you believe" and you have not been able to offer one iota of fact, just you believe. While I "believe" in nothing, I am able to state the fact that you are clueless of the facts of your "belief".

So unless you can offer some argument, I am out of crackers and will move on.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Insult Removed<<< So, because you catch one faux pas by own misattribution, you want to try that silliness that every quote is suspect. Dude, you are literally grasping at straws, unable to engage in any serious discourse. OTOH, let's humor you:

1) My religious source as you call it is very much accurate. The "city on a hill" reference is mentioned in Wikipedia with these words:

"The phrase entered the American lexicon early in its colonial history through the 1630 sermon "A Model of Christian Charity" preached by Puritan John Winthrop while still aboard the ship Arbella. Winthrop admonished the future Massachusetts Bay colonists that their new community would be "as a city upon a hill", watched by the world—which became the ideal that the New England colonists placed upon their hilly capital city of Boston."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill

Wikipedia's citing source is:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html

2) Whatever Thomas Jefferson quote you are trying to disprove, you did not make it very plain in what you quoted, so of course, we can call B.S. on that one

3) I'm not sure where you want to go with the 14th Amendment. It appears that you are on some really high potency drugs as I never referred to any "mystical beings." When I have brought up the 14th Amendment, I have stated, repeatedly, it was illegally ratified. Still the courts uphold it and we have every Right to demand that the courts make good on the guarantee

4) You're asking me to answer for an unsubstantiated quote from who in the Hell knows??? You find fault with MY sources?

My source for establishing unalienable Rights is found, first in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Here is a link so that you can begin the elementary study of America's first principles:

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/what-were-the-founding-principles

The man most quoted by the founders of this country was John Locke. You may want to read his Second Treatise. Here are what others had to say regarding this important figure:

http://selfdeprecate.com/politics-articles/john-locke-founding-fathers/

https://wallbuilders.com/john-locke-philosophical-founder-america/

https://www.bartleby.com/essay/John-Lockes-Influence-on-the-Founding-Fathers-FKWFR6ZVC

My use of these links does not indicate that I agree with every word in them. So how much of a disclaimer must I use so that you understand that the purpose is to convey only an idea about what first principles are without the song and dance you're about to do?

Moving along, some people did not like the fact that there was no specific guarantee of our Rights and they refused to sign onto the Constitution until it contained a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights codified the language of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

From a government website:

"It has been said that “the Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment.”

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Site/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf

The codification of the principles found in the Declaration of Independence was officially enacted into law pursuant to H.R. 1215 and signed into law by President Grant on 22 June 1874. All of the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence are now guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

 

Agreed, however you lost your crackers long before this post.

Please do, you have nothing of substance to offer.

 

The Constitution was not drawn up by the People... It was drawn up by the Leaders for the People..

So the You who drew up a contract with me would be... You = Government ; Me = individual. But I, me, don't make the Government sign anything...

There is no promise of: If you sign something I made I will lead properly. Unless the People come up with a new People's Constitution to which the People make a certain Person to sign so as to have the People's Constitution defended and safeguarded.

Could you think of a Country in which the Constitution was initiated by the People for the People to be led by a person? Most Countries I know of have had their Constitutions formed by the Leading Magistrates at the time their Constitution was written.. The ruling Powers in State or Territory has always been one of Proper Authority Acknowledging. Going back to Ancient Egypt or Ancient Babylon, the Pharoah was considered the Ruling Party and in Babylon the King was considered the Ruling Party. From what I can remember, it has always been this way, with a ruling class leading the territory or Land with other members within the House of Rule to help.

Now if you are looking at Dictatorshipism and Despotism, I can't give any ancient examples.. I can give you the examples of how Germany, Italy and Japan turned Totalitarian during the lives of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito right before WWII. Anything previous to them, I wouldn't have any knowledge of. And with these countries, there was no agreement of 1 leader. Germany had a President and Chancellor seat, Japan had an Emperor and Prime Minister seat, and Italy had a King and Prime Minister seat. Hitler took both seats in Germany, Hirohito took both seats in Japan and Mussolini took both seats in Italy.

Constitutions are often written up so such occurrences will NOT happen..

Children who grow up with wrong ideas of Constitution and grown ups who believe on wrong ideas of Constitution are the ones who feel most threatened when something comes around. And they are the ones who usually begin anti-Government objections. The US Constitution never forbade same sex intercourse. The US Constitution never forbade Privacy. The US Constitution never forbade Freedom of Speech. It is only after Amendments are placed in Conjunction with the already set liberties that Freedom increases to a larger scale.. And it is within these larger 'liberties' of freedoms that crime can also get larger. Law and Freedom go hand in hand... When the Freedom liberties increase, crime will increase which means Law Enforcing will also have to increase... It should get into a balance eventually but 1 change in the Tradition of the Constitution has these results... The citizens of that place can NO longer grow within the 'mold' which was placed before them and a new 'mold' must be set in for peoples to grow within...


Mold:

-a hollow container used to give shape to molten or hot liquid material (such as wax or metal) when it cools and hardens.
-a distinctive and typical style, form, or character.

But all too oddly, the very strange thing to all of this is how God has His Hand, also very deliberately, involved..

Think of it this way.... It isn't because God isn't preventing such things to occur but that it IS because God is allowing such things to occur.

And it's within this chaos when people begin losing their balance and begin seeking things they never would have... It's almost as if their foundations have been broken apart... With no foundations we are back on sinking sand.

The non religious will not know what this means but the closest similarity would be as if an employee was 'layed off' for no apparent reason and with no unemployment benefits..

Following 'rules' with Government and with Religion should prove safe. Government and Religion have been separated and it is said that Religion cannot play any role in Government. However, Government has a greater influence on Church than Church has on Government.


When Church begins to lose grounding or foundations because of Government, the Church will begin losing some of THEIR traditions which were left to them.. And with such breakings off from Church Traditions, more 'freedoms and liberties' enter in. However since Church has God's Laws being applicable to her, The Church should remain 'safe' if they adhere to God's Laws which He has given in The Holy Bible.

Man has his set of rules.. And God is NOT man that HE should do as man. And so we have Man's Laws and we have God's Laws.

Proverbs 2:1-4 asks, "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."

For some reason it is within the heart of man to gather the 'lost' to set themselves against God and His Anointed. For some very strange macabre reason, people think no harmful thing in doing such... But yet our very family members might be the very ones being indoctrinated into this vain plot against God and against His Anointed, Christ Jesus. And having a loved one being an enemy of God can get frightening, not because of what they might do, but because of what they might have done to them by God. Trying to protect an enemy of God, or trying to convert and enemy of God, might be too untaught for anyone to know what should be done within God's Laws if it comes down to having their own family members or loved ones being the enemies of God.

 

If the Church is being made to accept the violent because there is no other way for safety sake, then I cannot see how God would be forcing His Own into Breaking His Own Laws... Although Jesus Christ is Grace, He also had God's Laws written in His Heart and was NOT ASHAMED to proclaim it in the assembly..

Psalm 40:6-10
"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.

I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation."


Hebrews 10:5-7
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."


And yet it is also written: Joshua 1:9 "Haven't I commanded you: be strong and courageous? Do not be afraid or discouraged, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go."

So who would be preaching any 'fear' or 'bondage' if God commands Courage and Strength?

Love is always Good but remember that The Church should always first Love Itself in Love and in Edification before thinking of Loving others.

When Jesus said: John 13:34 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." He may have been referring to His Body (The Church) loving one another...

As far as the non-believers, He said, Matthew 28:19-20 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

And what new arrival into Church will receive any of God's Words if God's Words are not preached Truthfully?

(The pastor says it is okay for women to preach.. The newly arrived reads in The Holy Bible that women ought not speak in Church.. What will the newly arrived think of The Holy Bible and God's Steadfastness to His Own Word?)

God's Word which is supposed to be light and non burdensome will become a heavy burden if it contradicts The Holy Bible's Writ. And only through man's explanations can such differences be accepted since no one would be willing to be Strong and Courageous in God's Word.

And so they Matthew 15:9 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

The more and more The Church begins to Love one another and the more and more that Love becomes deeper, the more and more the members will not enjoy having a woman preaching in Church. This is my belief. God is male. Let US create Man in our image. The first created was Adam and out of ADAM'S body, his rib, God created woman. The Church will begin to adore God, Christ Jesus and His Father, more and more the more they begin to do as Christ instructed. The Scriptures will begin to open up and The Law and Prophets will begin to make 'logic and reason' and The Epistles of The Apostles will be seen in clearer Light. God is Love and from His Love He desires to with-hold nothing..

I believe that no person will be 'condemned' by God for asking His Church for the Truth of God... regardless if it means having to walk away because noone was able to give any answers...

This same scenario can be applied to National Constitution also.. If a newly arrived immigrant asks for the truth pertaining to the US Constitution, what sorts of answers might he/she receive?

 

Your quote was from the Family Guardian to wit"

But by your reckoning some Wikipedia source based on a 1630 sermon somehow verifies a 1819 letter.

The christian source really wasn't religious but Christianity: The Antidote to the New World Order Must Be Eradicated, an article on Christianity that uses the same quote with no source. That same quote onFamily Guardian which uses as their source as a letter written to Samuel Adams Wells in 1819, The Lipscomb-Bergh Memorial edition, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 15, Page 200, that turned out to be the letter written on May 12, 1819. Nowhere in that letter, much less page 200 are there any such words as you are quoting. Also, this is the only letter written to Wells in the year 1819.

But the big question would be why during a search, this thread on this forum shows up but Wikipedia does not? So unless you can come up with a source that supports your claim instead of a deflection, you again are posting false information with no verification of it's authenticity.

So using the childish ploy of an Argumentum ad hominem attack means you cannot address the challenge posted proved by your failed attempt using deflection and Argumentum ad nauseam.

Actually I wasn't going anywhere, it was yourself that was sidetracking an argument. The argument was on the fourth amendment and you pipe up with a claim from those mystical being in black robes (no, I did not nor do not attribute this to you at all) arguing the 14th Amendment, Charles Cotting v. Godard 14, 15 1899, 183 U.S. 79, 22 S.Ct. 30, 46 L.Ed. 92 (1900). I could care less about whether or not it was illegally ratified as it is what it is. Besides that is not the point, the point being your attempted use of a quote in support of Amendment IV with a case based on Amendment XIV.

While I love a good debate, I'm starting to realize with you that all I can expect is ad hominem attacks and deflections from the subject instead of you standing and either defending or modifying your response. So be it, it is what it is.

So are you now trying to state that your quotes are mainly unsubstantiated, well that is what I have been stating all along. But what I find really amusing is that you keep quoting the same passage of the Declaration of Independence but then fail to recognize the very next sentence in that same document, to wit:

Therefore are we to take away from this declaration that you do not understand any of what you quote but just use if for a trite little comment? I mean here you don't even have to stretch the imagine or effort, it is the very next sentence.

Now from this you implied that the unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness connotates some sort of liberty. My challenge was in light of what followed can you justify declaring that liberty or freedom was to follow?

I would suggest perhaps you stop and read what you have linked for a start. While I have read his complete Second Treatise, it would seem obvious that you have not or you would have relied on the actual work rather than other people's opinions of it. My question would be, do you own any opinions on your own?

While most of the founding fathers were well read and used many sources, it is not doubt about Locke's influence on the wording of the Declaration of Independence. As to the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson mailed a whole crate of books from France to James Madison to help in his efforts to draft that document.

Now you claim and post all of these links on John Locke's Second Treatises of Government but now as then most prefer to ignore another of his works,The Social Contract Theory. As so well stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Imagine, ignoring history to keep from having to declare his work flawed. And there can be no doubt this country was formed by force and violence. The violence of the British in trying to disarm the King's subjects and bring them back in line followed by the force of the colonist to repel the thought and trade one tyrant for many tyrants to follow.

So please, try to somehow justify your claims!

And look, there is your quote on an official document but still nowhere in Jefferson's papers that I have read to date confirms this. But if you do find the source feel free to jump right in and prove me wrong.

Again you are mistaken. First the only bill passed by Congress was that is even close is under 18 Statutes at Large, page 113, chapter 333 which approved to printer and allocated the number of copies at government expense to each agency of the revised statutes to include any new statutes passed by congress. Nothing to do with what you claim, as usual.

But the whole struggle for the constitution was the Federalist against the Anti-Federalist, sort of like republicans against democrats but with a real difference of where they stood unlike the false from of the red team against the blue team.

The Anti-Federalist was divided into those that attended the convention and got many changes and those that were not privy to the convention but objected to the whole concept of the constitution such as Patrick Henry. And then there were those that would only accept the constitution with a bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights did not codify anything, it reminded the government that the people had rights and they were not to be thread upon, hence the negative language of that document complete with it's own preamble:

 

Very simple Al the government and the people both had their attorneys on opposite sides of the table negotiating, when both agreed the terms and conditions were acceptable the gubmint signed it with their hand written signatures and the people signed it with their votes and ratification creating a legitimate contract-trust-compact-covenant pick which ever label you will. Yes I know the gubmint officers are trustees.

That's that's not exactly correct immigrants had to swear a pledge of ALL-Leige to the United States same as brit subjects.

The fact remains the Constitution would not exist had the Bill of Rights not been added to it, hence the term 'Reserved Rights'.

The rights were reserved by the people, gubmint no accept constitution no exist. The gubmint has no authority call it what you will, contract, trust, or by any other label to legitimately adjudicate anything with regard to reserved rights which have been set 'outside' their jurisdiction, and to do so is the equivalent of racketeering.

.....and before you waste your time with an attempt to lecture me on trust law, show me any property that you wont pay taxes on regardless if you accept gubmint 'beneficiary' services.

 

Before I respond in full, let me comment on context. If this response where but a fictional story to be discussed, then I would have to accept your analogy as presented and move on. But within the context of your OP and this response, I have to accept an analogy of a real situation and that is the basis of my response.

Actually that would be a falsehood, the states had called a convention because of some severe flaws with the Articles of Confederation mainly along the lines of commerce but with other flaws like finance also. True, lawyers were involved, if memory serves me correctly, 37 of the 57 delegates were lawyers.

But imagine, a constitutional convention called for a specific reason and then what, treason? Only the convention delegates signed it (well three refused), the Confederation Congress approved it and sent it to the states for ratification. During the ratification, only Rhode Island submitted to to popular vote and it failed. The rest of the states had these state chosen delegates to make the choice.

Therefore, it is a trust because if it were a contract, it would have died with the originators. As you state, the government is the trustee, the states (the originator by delegate and ratification) are the trustors and the people are the beneficiaries. As the Declaration of Independence declares; "...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...". Accept the benefits, become the beneficiary, become a citizen, your consent to be governed. Right in line with our document of declared independence.

Wrong tense, immigrants wishing to become "citizens" have to swear allegiance, such a sad day even though I gifted a friend dinner for him and his wife on me when they became "citizens". They were a nice couple from St. Lucia and this was their dream. But to reality, was I actually kind to them, not really it would have been somewhat cruel but we had had conversations on freedom and it was their choice. I rewarded the accomplishment of their dream, not their action.

But if one actually faces the facts, they would be like my ex, stay with the green card and refuse citizenship. She is actually free, freer that any American that accepts federal citizenship or actually citizenship in general. Personally I'm a resident within the true definition of the word, not in the slave definition of government.

Actually that is not true. The constitution was ratified when the ninth state, New Hampshire ratified on June 21, 1788 followed closely by Virginia on June 25.

Done deal, period. As to them bill of rights:

Got to love those idiots from North Carolina and to imagine I have chosen to die among them, well at least they are entertaining. Anyway back to the narrative.

Of those states ratifying, the sixth state, Massachusetts ratified but request 19 alterations. The eighth state, South Carolina requests two alterations. The ninth state, New Hampshire request 12 alterations. And hey, here it is all over, constitution ratified as written but let's continue. The tenth state, Virginia requests 20 alterations. The eleventh state, New York request 33 alterations. Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789 elected by the 11 states that ratified. The twelfth state, North Carolina ratifies on November 21 and requests 26 alterations. May 29, 1790, Rhode Island becomes the thirteenth and final state to ratify and requests 21 alterations.

As to your "Reserved Rights":

Not only is it not an issue of having a "Bill of Rights" for ratification but the fact that a "government" instituted and elected by the ratified constitution uses Article V or that constitution to pass articles of amendment and send to states for ratification.

Before we get to the bill of rights, let's state that the trust establishes certain rules under which the trust may operate, all else is null and void. And even then it only applies to the consent of the governed. The Bill of Rights is but a restatement to the trust of areas that are not to tread. Then came Amendment 14 wherein the subjects have privileges and immunities. All else is gone.

I know where you are trying to go and I agree with the destination but not the route. Your whole theorem is falling apart, piece by piece.

Please explain to me how I show you that which does not exist? As to real estate, I do pay my property tax because it is so low that it would require at least 30 years of no taxes for payback on the effort and I will not be around that long. As to my truck and my large enclosed trailer, I would show you my registrations but gee I don't have any.

But otherwise, if you have argument with what I have posted, I would love to hear it.

 

Imagine this town/city if it were overrun with homeless and drug abusers... It would become a shame if it did.





I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to keep your neighborhood and city clean and in order...


----------------------------------------

We've got to remember that those 'homeless and drug abusing' persons did not pop into the world out of thin air. They have pasts, they have families, they have parents. They graduated schools, they had neighborhood friends. They didn't just pop into the world as homeless and drug abusing...








http://news.streetroots.org/2009/09/30/return-dragon-heroin-takes-over-portlands-streets