Reserved Rights - U.S. Constitution

Nothing you claim changes anything that I've said.
You have two choices either this government is by consent or it is not.
The people are both the trustor and trustee, we created the trust for ourselves, hence the government exists by our behest not the other way around.
If we do not have the power to dissolve the government then this is not a government by consent instead government by the conquest of its inhabitants.

I don't know where you got the idea that every type of trust that exists disconnects the creators of the trust forcing them strictly to a beneficiary status, except buy condition number 2 Conquest.

Furthermore if you want to argue that a trust is not a contract it most certainly is a contract and bears the same requirements as any other contract.

If what you say is true then we should have lots of people that do not come under the jurisdiction please give me the citation or point out any such circumstance that can possibly exist in the United States that demonstrates no jurisdiction.

Not wrong! You are confused about what the meaning of Allegiance is I suggest you look it up the etymology of it and if you have a citation in law that shows it is not what it is been over hundreds of years then I'm open to reviewing that premise.

If you are a resident you are a slave of government all we need do is look at the national debt, you got to pay the debt that your parents made that is slavery my friend.

In so far as ratification is concerned you are 1/2 correct, and for what ever reason only tell us 1/2 the story since it is well understood the 'union' would have failed without the addition of the bor. The reamining states simply said FU no bor count us out!

So your claim is patently false, mine is 100% accurate. Claiming the bor was not prequisite to ratification is false because it would have ended at the 9 states and the reast would have made another constitution for themselves. Hence 'Reserved Rights', without them the constitution was doomed to fail and would have fell right on its ass.

That being the case and even without the Bill of Rights it would still be reserved rights since the british bor carried forward which is why some argued it was not needed.

Anything not enumerated in the Constitution does not come under government per view and anything enumerated not under gubmint purview should be incontrovertibly clear Since as we can see the only states that prior to the bor the constitution that incidentally they were not authorized to draw up in the first place would only have effect for nine states we would have wound up with a split Constitution had it not been sent back up to Congress.


This isn't about you or your property or your taxes or your truck or anything else the point being made here is that they use the commercial venue to force you under their umbrella and then expand that umbrella to counting the peanuts in your **** for tax purposes no different than the king of England would have done to anybody who is on his property that is 'his' property.

Futhermore its extremely simply to prove the US is a feudal gubmint but this one is about 'reserved rights', the fact that it was impossible to get more than 9 states to ratify with the remaining states rejecting it in its original since it did not include the bor proves beyond any doubt that successful ratification of the constitution was entirely dependent upon the addition of the Reserved Rights demanded in the bor.

 

Maybe your google is broken?

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

 

Unfortunately, when some people troll on this site, it is well within the rules. EVERYTHING I posted on this site is verifiable, but one individual seized upon one single faux pas I made while tired and posting late at night to apparently make his case based upon that. Now, there will be this tactic to call into question every fact by accusing our side of lying. From this point, forward, every fact will be called a lie; every conclusion you reach will be deemed to be in error. You can expect misrepresentations to be used to call the truth a lie.

What you and I can do is make sure that this kind of Internet bullying is exposed by doing just what you did there. No one person can possibly be right 100 percent of the time so we can trust fellow posters to examine this and reach their own conclusions. My advice is to call into question every statement as in belittling famguardian -( though I got that quote from the same place you did) and make the detractors prove their cynicism from fact based, unbiased sources.

 

Fam Gaurd...is a great repository for the way things 'should' be, however its important when looking at these historical repositories to make asure and shepardize before running it through court as there is virtually nohting in gubmint today that has not been usurped in favor of the gubmint mob.

The real story put in context was that they did not have 9 votes to pass the constitution into law and only got that 9th vote because they were promised that it would be later amended with the bor.

So anyone reading Al's spin, spin because its clear it was intended to deceive for people to think the constitution went right on through and the bor was nohting more than a convenient after thought, an obvious attempt to sweep under the carpet the fact that the passing of the constitution was actually contingent upon promise made to the states that the bor will become part of it. Reserved Rights, a double whamy because the 1649 british bill of rights was 100% still in effect.

This is no different than when we took over iraq and turned it back over to them. What the gubmint calls a democracy the rest of the world calls a kleptocracy.

 

I'm well aware of what you speak of.

OTOH, some people like to question every point you make, knowing it just means a bit more work just to have a casual conversation and discuss the topic.

It's a difficult thing to post here. If you submit ten paragraphs, most people won't read the post. Do over ten and you get trolls that want to drag that out to a hundred. And, if you take the time to cite cases, shepardize them and make sure they would hold up in a court of law, the mods may edit it (as they do me daily) simply because the people who know how to manipulate the moderators start losing based upon the facts.

If we are obligated to respond to every misquote, misrepresentation and lie we are subjected to, we'd never discuss the issue. Just today, I had a thread go 70 posts with a poster that started out trolling me when I initially agreed with him!

Be that as it may, what you said about the Constitution is easily verified by anyone that wants to look it up. The federalists wanted the Constitutional Convention held in secret. That made Patrick Henry (an anti-federalist) proclaim in disgust, "I smell a rat." We would have no Constitution save of the promise to add a Bill of Rights.

Much beyond that may be conjecture, but most of the American people were of the opinion that Liberty was the cause; our new nation would respect the rights of the states; unalienable Rights would never be subservient to the will of the state. The government we have today is 180 degrees opposite of what was promised because, as a people, we've become lazy, apathetic, indifferent, uneducated, ill-informed, and put out of touch with reality because of the drone of political propaganda prostitutes repeating lies over and over and over again.

 

Your error is expanding and misapplication of the word request. The facts are that Massechusetts did not 'request' a bill of rights they demanded that the 'rights of man' be stipulated by the gubmint contingent on ratification, after the 'promise' was made that a bor will be added 'then' placed a suggested list of rights [request] they wanted for congressional approval. What actually happend and the way you are stating is is completely different.

On the other hand, I agree with Al on the 14th which completely undermines the the rights of man, converting them to privileges of state

that and you really should take 5 minutes to look up the words you think you understand, then get back to me.

Allegiance:
https://books.google.com/books?id=L...HUOZBv8Q6AEIUzAJ#v=onepage&q=legiance&f=false

So we have the 14th and we have the requirement of swearing allegiance to the US feudal lord and king, in complete 'legal' contradiction to the constitution and we have been operating under that despotic coup ever since.

It was said britain would retake america without ever firing a shot and there you have it, deceit, subversion, subterfuge rules the day in our kleptocracy, done deal.

 

With regard to the 180 degrees of what was promised as you said all of this is easily verifiable.


We the People? or We the States?

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence. While recognizing the need to augment the financial resources of the confederation congress, he was critical of the extensive of powers given to the central government by the Constitution of 1787. Patrick Henry's speech on June 4, 1788, was Henry's opening speech to the Virginia Convention that was debating whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States. This Convention met in Richmond from June 2 to June 27, 1788. By a vote of 79 to 88 on June 26 the Convention ratified the Constitution and recommended twenty amendments and a bill of rights based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government--a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states--a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.

The present circumstances of France--the good offices rendered us by that kingdom--require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?--and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government--say it is composed by any thing but inspiration--you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. [Has there ever been a prediction more true?]

It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this

 

And those are some of the reasons why it's called the CONstitution. But the founders did leave us a mechanism to try to fix it in Article V. So if anyone has any suggestions (besides scrapping it altogether and creating a new one or collectively asserting our individual right and duty enshrined in the Declaration - see my signature), please contribute here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/

 

Search engine, detest google, not broken. Seen that pamphlet published by some unknown beauracrap in the office of citizenship. Doubt that even checked a source, they just saw it and thought it was cute much like someone else did.

Can you show which letter of Jefferson's contains that quote? After all his words in his 1819 letters, Jefferson states his hands were in pain and he did not write cherish writing. Besides don't need a search engine as I own the book.

My favorite of Jefferson's 1819 letters was his last of that year on October 31 to William Short, appropriately titled "I too am an Epicurean".

 

If you have truly read the Constitution and its Amendments and have paid attention to the news at all then you would know that Congress and the State Legislatures violate the Constitution on a regular basis for decades.

NYS, NYC, Mass., Calif., NJ, Md., and Hawaii are the very worst.

 

Still no source, a government source with the same error as you is not verification. I have reread all of Jefferson's 1819 writings, in printed form, and he never said that in 1819, period.

So let's recap, you state a quote from Adams was from Madison. You state a quote from Jefferson which he never made. And there were other instances where your source was questioned and you deflected, not answered. Anyway, moving on.

 

They listed their references, not to mention I have no doubt that is published by the GPO which makes it 100% official as far as the gubmint courts are concerned.

For more information you should contact these guys, they give you the reference:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA for their assistance in the development of this educational product. For more information on the National Constitution Center and its mission, please visit http://www.constitutioncenter.org/
Independence Mall
525 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215.409.6600

In every bit of documentation I have ever seen they are very careful to clearly point out the constitution was only in effect for those who ratified it and several it was in effect contingent on the promise of a BoR being added, if it had not been these states would have withdrawn their ratification in response to the broken promise, hence the term 'Reserved Rights', [being outside their legitimate venue of adjudication] the constitution passed because first and foremost they promised to keep their filthy hands off our rights and we have it in writing on a piece of paper best used to wipe our asses with now days.

 

Its pretty clear you missed a few Al then go on to draw a flase conclusion. You read all that you know of in print then claim he never said it which is a false claim especially after informing us you only read what you had available and did not perform an exhaustive investigation, all the while the gubmint admits he said it in their own documentation with references to the source.

 

Actually the setiment was best characterized by:

The new government was the new government, without a Bill of Rights. The only compromise was that the new Congress would consider but regardless, they were the new government and at the time of the first congress, minus North Carolina and Rhode Island.

Again, their was no promise just a compromise to consider. Whether the Congress considered or not, the constitution was ratified and operation for 11 of the previous Confederation states.

 

It would seem that history does not support you.

​

A document once ratified is ratified for all intents and purposes. Any amendments would be a request after ratification. If required, then you cannot ratify but must reject until such amendments are reduced to a new document, period. Seems the Massachusetts convention stated the same.

First, you are aware that this nation divorced the king in 1776, aren't you? Within the document most call the Declaration of Independence, the people became the sovereign. So by your definition, allegiance owed to the sovereign would be owed to one's self. But by law according to this document you declare your are enslaved to:

Or if you prefer, the book of the mystical beings in black robes:

By your proclamation, the government affords no protects therefore by operation of law, you owe no allegiance. There is case law that states this very fact but I do not have it at hand nor have the time to do the research but it works for me.

 

You have a lot backwards al.

The people became sovereign until the constitution was created and they were once again 'presumed' vassals of the state.

and again you are incorrect the gubmint is in breach of contract as there are several cases stating the gubmint has no obligation to protect you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189

Thanks your cut n paste ungrounded opinion about Mass...and some statists intentional attempt to water down the fact the constitution would have died right then and there had no promise been made to include the bor.

Nice try on allegiance LOL Your quote only says who owes allegiance, not what allegiance is, you are zero in 3 Al.

 

Yes on the condition a bor would be added, once again thanks for the cut n paste ungrounded opinions that attampt to dismiss the fact the constitution would have died on the spot with out the promise of a bill of rights, and had the bor failed there would have been 9 states and we would have had a less perfect 2 unions. LOL

 

As usual.

Not to mention SCOTUS "interpreted" the Constitution and decided it's perfectly ok for the government (the police in this case) to lie. But if you lie to the police, it's a felony. Sorry I don't remember the case. And not to mention there's a 100 mile Constitution free zone along all US borders which incorporates the vast majority of the population of the US. And not to mention NDAA 2011 includes a clause where anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be incarcerated indefinitely without notice, without the right to an attorney and without any due process protections.

Welcome to Amerika, land of the free, with liberty and justice for all ... billionaires. Sieg Heil!

"Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.

 

As I said in another thread about how wacked out people are, they cannot show me any stipulations in the constitution what so ever to 'exercising'-religion, speech, arms, privacy, redress of grievances and assembly, yet they accept without question the usurpation of those rights 'as stipulations', almost like we have a whole country of programmed bots designed to turn their heads and look the other way while the states and feds usurp and trample on all our rights slice by slice. Well that piece of pie is nearly gone, whats next? Not only has the gubmint established themselves as a religion but clearly the gubmint has created a class system when they are immune and the people are penalized for doing the same thing, no different from pre-revolution england!

 

It's actually even worse. The primary cause of the Revolution was over taxation and taxation without representation. Today everything is taxed, double taxed and triple taxed and the only representatives in Congress are those who represent billionaires, specific corporations and especially the military industrial complex.

 

yep and we are right back to taxation without representation, since lipservice representation is not representation at all, its fraud bordering on treason and without question deriliction of duty/willful negligence.

 

You can add racketeering as defined by the RICO Act to that list. Most of them engage in insider trading shenanigans. Most of them leave CONgress much wealthier than when they started their first term. And if they pander to the right entities, they can get positions with those entities at lucrative compensation after they leave CONgress.

 

Yep, racketerring, collusion, conspiracy against the constitution, virtually runs contrary to every law they have.

 

Power does corrupt, especially when government cops control the drug trade in a given area and when they harass and kill with impunity. Too bad society disregarded Serpico or this would be a better and safer place to live.

 

I happened to see a story (I think NYT) about a number of cops who showed up to support Kaepernick the QB, and among them was Frank Serpico.