Bill of Rights...what makes america....america

This is false on both counts. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1777 after the Colonies had left the control of the King of England.

The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and were not a revision to the Articles of Confederation. While some of the provisions of the Articles of Confederation made it into the US Constitution the US Constitution was a document created from scratch.

It is true that Americans are left at a disadvantage related to our government but we do have the ACLU that has been standing up to protect the civil Rights of Americans without charge since 1920. Every American should be a card carrying member of the ACLU as it has more to protect the Rights of Americans than any other organization. If any American values their civil Rights then they should financially support the ACLU.

 

when the articles were ratified is irrelevant.

if you would prefer then I will say that the constitution was the reinstatement of british rule in america.

Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article. XVI.

[Proposed 1909; Questionably Ratified 1913] The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This was all the norm in britain under the king even before the declaration of independence they were able to change their contract with the government, the government needed consent and were the executors of the people. (in some states, others not)

I would agree to the constitution was created in addition to the AOC, but not replaced it in the sense it is not longer a force of law any more than the AOC replaced the Magna Charta.


Now here is the million dollar question that most people do not think about.

If the declaration of independence was abolished or rendered ineffective by the constitution then how can the united states legally exist?

I posted that old colonial law as an example that this constitution is nothing that did not already exist in england.

 

read pitkins, what he does not say and what he alludes to is as important as to what he does say.

here is a description in wiki:

Timothy Pitkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Timothy Pitkin (Farmington, Connecticut, January 21, 1766 - New Haven, Connecticut, December 18, 1847) was an American lawyer, politician, and historian.




He graduated from Yale in 1785, taught in the academy at Plainfield, Connecticut for a year, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1788. He served in the State Legislature of Connecticut in 1790, 1792, and 1794‑1805, serving as Clerk of the House 1800‑1802 and as Speaker 1803‑1805. He was elected as a Federalist to the United States Congress in the Ninth Congress to fill in part the vacancies caused by the resignations of Calvin Goddard and Roger Griswold; and was reëlected to the Tenth and to the five succeeding Congresses, thus serving from September 16, 1805, to March 3, 1819.


He was not a candidate for renomination to the Federal Congress in 1818, but was a delegate to the convention which framed the new State constitution in that year. Resuming his private law practice, he also returned to serve as a member of the Connecticut State House of Representatives from 1819 to 1830. His writing on and gathering of statistical materials are the accomplishments which accord him a special place in the history of the United States. Written with great care, A Statistical View of the Commerce of the United States of America (1816) and Political and Civil History of the United States from 1763 to the Close of Washington's Administration (two volumes, 182 are valuable reference works for students of American history. He is buried in New Haven, in Grove Street Cemetery.


He was the maternal uncle of Roger Sherman Baldwin's wife Emily Pitkin Perkins.




more..... good stuff

right to life liberty again






now ya gotta love this one:

FREE? what does that mean?

 

While it is quite true that much of US law and the US Constitution had foundation based upon British law there was a fundatmental difference between the two. In America sovereignty originated with the People based upon the inalienable Rights of the People whereas in Britian sovereignty originated with the Crown based upon the Divine Right of Kings.

I believe that even today the Crown in Britian can abolish the Parliment but the US President cannot abolish the Congress. The parlamentary and judicial authority in Britian comes from the Crown whereas in the United States the Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial authority comes from the State legislatures and ultimately from the People that elect those legislatures.

A failure to understand this fundamental difference leads to a complete misconception related to the United States and social contracts required for a Constitutional Republic.

 

sorta yes mostly no.

people created corporations and associations to protect themselves. (we do to this day)

The early angle/sax kings were local chieftans and they would have a contract with every e-"state" for the collection of a "fee" certain to pay for the knights and costs of supporting an army and protecting the realm.

That was the whole intended purpose of government in the first place, to protect various groups who wanted to live in their manner and culture from invasion.

Granted with the norman invasion later roman and germanic influence this became corrupted and to assume absolute power over the people the kings claimed divinity, that they were in fact god and therefore everything they did is infallible and above reproach.

Divinity is not the origin but the corruption of the monarchy and usurping of contracts by the overlords.

It worked for a while till the magna charta, at which pont the people ONLY said you went to far and still recognized that they needed protection so left the king in power for that purpose with rules set in black and white or the kings head will roll.

Next Sovereignty requires a living body!

Force of sovereign power does not. The US is a "fiction" in law to create taxation and jurisdictional boundaries and to distinguish between them.

The word "People" is a pronoun, meaning a specific "People" not necesarily the "people" at large as we may without research assume. The declaration of independence specifies who those "People" are. (and they are NOT you or I)

Same with the word owner, you can own property and the state has complete control over it. The unsaid part is that you really only purchased an "interest" in a "bundle of privileges" aka the misnomer "rights". "Rights" are declared not granted! The reality speaks for itself. (eminent domain) Hence you can only in reality own property in usufruct as a tenant. If you disbelieve me try doing what several people have done and write the county a legal declaration stating their services are no longer required and then do not use their services and they will be right on your doorstep with guns forcing you to accept their services or give up your home so they can get a "TENANT" in there who pays "THEIR" bills.

As I posted above in the original intent where the constitutors state that if they can tax it you do not own it!

I digress.

That said you need to research just who the "People" are? Any people? Certain People?

If People means you and I then the government we have today is completely outlaw.

If it means a certain group by grant of authority of ancient contracts, then what we have today is precisely what was intended.

I believe the latter to be the case since the ends follow means.

Then you get into the fun stuff.....Sovereignty.

a Sovereign has complete authority over their dominion and realm. YOur home and the boudaries within. (in England each e-state [Manor etc] had their own court system, you would first go to the land "lord" with your complaint and could continue to the king, county vs supreme court here)

A sovereign can tell you that you cannot sue them and it will stand in any court leaving you the option of force. (war) be it with your next door neighbor or whatever. When sovereignties cannot come to an agreement it goes to acquiescence or someone dies and the winner takes over the territory by "conquest".

Sovereignty is a contravance of the king.

It is a "sole" corporation called "KING" that is not emphasis but legally correct. KING not King. JAMES the xyz THE STATE OF XYZ and so forth and so on for the lexicon.

The SOLE corporation is the KING, who has incorprated ALL the unalienable rights of his living divine "person" into the now incorporated fictional "PERSON' that assumes the position of head of STATE for contemplation in law.
See Blackstones 4th section not sure what part off the top of my head.

The difference and RIPOFF is that the king in fact does have unalienable rights in his role as KING but the people as JOHN DOE do not. The people are "citizens" with privileges and immunities, (generally summed up as rights) but privileges "granted" by another man ie government non the less.

In law the KING and his "assigns and appointees" can assert his/their unalienable rights while the lower "citizen" and subject class cannot as their rights derive from the STATE of which the KING or in the case of the US the appointees of the sovereignty is the head.

The King created a fiction with the intent of circumventing ecclesiastic and parts of the common law with the idea that we could jail the non existant "fiction" and the living man was exempt!

Blackstone points out that only seems to be "honored? for the king not others who have created sole corporations for the same purpose. You can see th egrave importance to insure you are never more than a "citizen" or "subject".

Yes we do get to elect people to rule us under the sovereignty and they are bound by the covenants to uphold the "established" sovereignty above all else.

What difference does it make if there is a rule book that every one has to go by and that rule book set up by sovereign king and that book is unchanged for 10,000 years. The original sovereign no longer needs to be present the corporation that never dies and its by-laws and those who enforce them insure eternal rule as long as it exists as a function legal entity.

Yes the crown could, but so can the queen, few people understand the power of the monarchy, the monarcy can also dissolve parliament and the crown if so desired, but that would dissolve all the contracts under it as well if not renegotiated under the TRUST and by virtue would have no protection to maintain her sovereignty.

This is a HUGE topic.

The King created the colonies and claimed all land and resources discovered by his subjects to belong to him and under his dominion. They pushed everyone else, (the indians etc) out and forced them to go under brit law. The king "extended" the sovereignty to the "e-states" which were land grants from the king to those in the heraldry and created fictions called states for the estates and plantation lords to rule over the inhabitants within declared boundaries of each estate.

The people did not fight over abolishing the monarchy, they fought because they were not being represented and someone across the pond could not fairly tax them. Transferring the power of governance to another is nothing more than a trust compact. The king created The United States of America, The United States of America created the UNITED STATES, the STATES were created under the UNITED STATES and without any of that original law none of this could exist.

Oh and social contract is not a technical term in law, that is merely a philisophical term. The term in law would be "trust" indenture which creates and is accepted as the organic law.



Couple quick final points, how can a group of slaves create a Sovereign?

It created double mindedness. I self-govern all my actions in public and private yet another man or body of persons claim superior governance over me. Who in their right mind would agree to such a thing?

If we the people created the "Sovereign" state then where did our sovereignty diappear to? I never signed any contract to go under and be "ruled" by any other soveriegn did you?

So if we created the "Sovereign" government then we must severally and jointly be "Sovereigns". Fundamental reasoning.

Try acting on that sometime, it took 200 years for the PONDS case to come to bear.

They own you and you have no claim to the bill of rights because you were not a party to it! US SUpreme Court SPIES exparte case.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) editing timer,

They own you and you have no claim to the bill of rights because you were not a party to it! US SUpreme Court SPIES exparte case. You can only claim privileges as a "subject to" and UNDER stated government allowed privileges.

A complete reversal where you will find unalienable rights do not exist, only gubafia authorized privileges under the presumtption that you have the infinite "unalienalienable" right to contract and if you do not understand the terms of the contract you agreed to thats not anyones problem but yours!

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, 60 MILLION of them not with standing!

 

And what good is a tyranny of the majority? Ask the French how it worked for them.

 

Read up on John Locke, Edmund Burke, and Robert Nozick.

 

Sovereignty can best be addressed by who has the final say in the affairs of government. Based upon the (edit) Article V and the Constitutions of the States the People can force their legislatures to call for a Constitutional convention and the People can appoint who goes to the Constitutional convention. At such a Constitutional convention the States Representatives have the ultimate authority and could desolve the entire United States. Once again, under the 5th Amendment and State Constitutions the People can force the ratification of the dissolution of the entire United States regardless of any attempts by the federal government and even the State legislatures to prevent it.

The sovereignty (power) of the United States ultimately resides with the People and not with the government. That is an enumerated power delegated in Article V of the Constitution to the States which are under the direct control of the People.

 

but those are all empty words.

What do they mean?

you did an impasse on literally every point I made and responded outside any point I made.

Who are the "People" in your opinion?

You and I?

Next, how does anyone less than a sovereign appoint and create a "sovereign" "state"?

Can slaves create a sovereign?

Can free-men create a sovereign? (free-men using the english definition of 1776)

Can inhabitants create a sovereign?

Who has the power to create a sovereign and if you cant resist the temptation to duck the question by over simplifyingly stating the "People" then refer to the bold and define who what what standing and how they got it were those who created the states as sovereign.

 

the problem you have with the "best address of sovereignty" is that the 5th does no such thing.

If you say the People then that would in plain language be construed to intend you and I, however we know that is not the case since you and I have never and do NOT have the authority to vote on any constitutional amendment at the federal level.

There are no laws what so ever in place in any of the states that require the legislature to act in conjunction and commensurate with the will of people or that federal matters be put before the people for a vote.

Which is why no one has ever voted on any constitutional amendment, hence we have representation in theory, but functionally and in practice none.

Feel free to dispute that with court cases and or legislation to the contrary NOT your naked opinions.

As an example Russia has even better toilet paper than we do.

In many ways the russian constitution is better than ours and in many others worse.

At least they go so far as to distinguish between the "man" and the "citizen" which america has abolished and replaced a bastardized psuedo commercialization of roman, maritime and common law equity nasty tasting stew but russia gives even better lip service than america does.

If you think the people can "force" a convention without revolting against the government and being labeled and jailed as a terrorist in todays society do post how that can be done.

YOu can get 300 million people to sit in DC and protest and none of them can do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing to effect change to the constitution as that is not within their "LEGAL" realm, that is the sole duty of the representatives who can vote any way they please.

So which toilet paper is better? I think the russian version is more colorful personally.

 

as long as Obama,Gingrich,santorium,or Romney gets elected, they of course will continue to be infringed upon.

 

I don't typically address irrelevancy so I ignored it.

All citizens and residents of a territory are the People of that territory.

In a Constutional Republic the State is not sovereign, the People are. The State is merely a contracted entity of the People.

Slavery violates the inalienable Right of Sovereignty and cannot exist in a free State. Simply stated there is no rational foundation for slavery so slavery cannot legally exist in a State based upon the inalienable Right of Sovereignty of the People.

The "English definition" of free-men applies to all individuals as slavery is a fundamental violation of an inalienable Right of the Individual. In short slavery violates the very definition of "free men" if it is allowed.

The can select an individual to represent their individual sovereignty but because individual sovereignty is an inalienable Right it cannot be given away by the individual nor can government of any kind that away an inalienable Right. Government can infringe upon an inalienable Right but cannot take it away.

As noted, because sovereignty is an inalienable Right of the Individual it cannot be "given away" but the individuals in society (i.e. the People) can select any entity, including an individual to be a monarch, to represent their individual sovereignty.

In the United States we must remember that "dual sovereignty" of government, acting on behalf of the sovereign individuals with their consent, exists. We have State government which is the direct government of the People. This is establised by a contract of the People in the State Constitution. We then have a government of the States, not the People, and that that was established by a contract between the State in the US Constitution. In the creation of the federal government the States basically "subcontracted" roles and responsibilities delegated to the State in the State Constitution to a newly created Government of the United States in the US Constitution.

By analogy I generally use the example of the an individual car owner (the People) contracting with an auto repair shop (the State Government) to do a brake job. A State Constitution does that. Then the repair shop (the State Government) in turn subcontracts the turning of the rotors to a machine shop (the Federal government). The US Constitution does that. Both State Constitutions and the US Constitutions are nothing more than (social) Contracts and must always be viewed from that perspective. They are subject to Contract Law just like any business contract.

With that in mind we must also address the fact that under contract law the auto repair shop (State Government) cannot send the engine to the car our to be rebuilt to an engine shop (Federal Government) without the express written consent of the vehicle owner (the People) nor can an enginer rebuild shop (the Federal Government) decide to rebuild the engine without the express written consent of the auto repair shop (state government).

In short the States cannot logically ratify and Amendment to the US Constition authorizing the Federal government to do anything that hasn't been delegated to the State by the People in the State Constitution.

 

It still amazes me that Americans worship Locke. The man was part of a long line of 17th century liberals who would being the weakening of our once great Monarchy. Locke planted the seed for the French Revolution and the tyranny that followed it. Burke was a typical Tory who saw the American Revolution as a worthy cause because the gentry and wealthy Merchants in the colonies desired an increased share of the political pie at Westminster.

 

The monarchies of the 18th Century represented tyranny much as dictatorships do today. There is much to be admired about the early advocates of the natural Rights of the People and certainly some things that can be condemned but remember, they only started the ball rolling towards overcoming the tyranny of government. For example the founders of America took Locke's philosophy of natural Rights one step further but then the allowed slavery to continue in the United States.

Great stride were made by the early advocates of the natural Rights of the Individual to overcome tyranny but they left much more to be done. It is up to us to further the development and implementation of the philosophy they fundamentally created but a task left unfinished. We have made some progress but tyranny still exists and we have much to do. We should give them credit for sowing the seeds of freedom and liberty from oppression but then we must do our part in implementing the changes necessary to make individual freedom and liberty a reality.

 

If you think that Locke and Burke are not inspired choices ,take a look at one of the central tenets that made Nozick well regarded .

Nozick's Four Conditions for S's knowing that P were:
P is true
S believes that P
If it were the case that (not-P), S would not believe that P
If it were the case that P, S would believe that P
Nozick's third and fourth conditions are counterfactuals. Nozick calls his theory the "tracking theory" of knowledge. Nozick believes that the counterfactual conditionals bring out an important aspect of our intuitive grasp of knowledge: For any given fact, the believer's method must reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In this way, Nozick's theory is similar to reliabilism.


You can't invent rubbish like that and hold a room full of Savvies for more than ten seconds .
I suspect the truth goes a little like this :-
Give us an author who appears to be writing in English and gives the impression of writing meaningful sentences .
Throw in buzz words randomly .
Bow and then kneel .

 

And what tyranny were the common people of England faced with at the dawn of the 17th century? Perhaps it was the tyranny of Puritans and other dissenters who would follow them? The common Englishman was concerned with feeding his family and living free of true tyranny. I will yet again ask this question on this forum; Is an entrenched ruling class a requirement for civilisation to thrive? The history of each continent would seem to indicate that a strong ruling class is indeed needed to bring prosperity to those they rule. What texts were the early Socialists reading? Were they Monarchist works by Filmer? I think not.

 

It was not irrelevant however, just a bit deeper than most care to look at.

Stated specifically "exactly" the way you did I would agree, however United States has 3 completely different meanings.

Then how come we do not hear the word "People" in there anywhere?

Sovereignty is not an unalienable right. It is a rank or status, mostly political.

Slavery is alive and well unless you wish to completely close your eyes and ignore the fact that every time a new born breathes its first breath it has a debt over its head of roughly 40 grand and climbing.

That my friend is what is called "bond" slavery, bondage etc. We are a nation of bond men and women and that is one of several forms of slavery and you and I did not get to vote on it did we?


The only thing we got to vote on is who we get to rule this time.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE"]Wont Get Fooled Again - YouTube[/ame]

Here comes the new boss just like the old boss!

The english definition of free man means one who has a citizenship or subject franchise. Not free from anything but chains.

In other words you are freed from iron chains and put into contract chains with the king. Just another form of slavery as we are in the US where the US claims everyone is a citizen so it can tax you!





as you can plainly see that free is one thing and a free man is entirely another.

A free man is a different flavor of slave.

Note the contradiction in terms with that mystical magical word "free".





all they did was take off one set of chains and put on another and called it "freedom"






That benefit is that if the state legislated crap that is used to circumvent the common law!

The state as did the king grant special privileges in the form of grants and licenses and non other than statutes!

Common law forces an injured party that in most penal states of the US has been abolished so they can fine you for any (*)(*)(*)(*) thing they want to use to make money from you! Grass too long! Smoking a cigarette in a no smoking area "outside"!





US blacks law dictionary:

That is propaganda. You can contract all rights away. You have the unalienable right to contract!

A representative remember functions exactly like an attorney, or is supposed to be nothing more than a conduit for YOUR sovereign will. When was they last time they voted the way the People wanted?

Borders? NAFTA? GATT? and on and on!

It evolved into that is more like it. It was intended to be strictly a friendly agreement of amity and good will towards each other, a league of states, and the constitution create a "union", not a more perfect union but the union, and yes that union is a contract, that supposedly evolved directly from our votes to our assemblies and from our assemblies to the federal level and we know that is not true and it did not happen that way dont we?

Horrible analogy not even in the same universe, and I must be reaching the 10,000 word limit so we save that one.

that works great in theory.

 

More:

The problem you wind up with when trying to support the constitution and especially the government we have is that it is like an onion.

It has a zillion layers. You think you have a place to hang your hat, that at least something was accomplished above board only to find out that they are nothing but a bunch of thugs!


Who or what did authorize them to use the name of the "People" rather than the name of the states?

Nothing exists! Its all bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

If people want more information read about how the east india company colonized and took over various ares of the planet and the indigenous people to convert it to one huge tax base for themselves and their posterity.

The government could be next door it may as well be on the moon, we have no more representation now than we did before the revolution!

 

The grievences of the original colonies against the King of England were expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

While the merits of the grievences expressed could be a subject of historical debate what is undeniable is that grievences did exist and were deemed substantial enough for the People to revolt against the monarchy of England.

 

Patrick Henry was a leader of the anti-Federalists and I would agree with him here. The US government was not created by "We, the People.." but instead was a contract entity created by the States.

The enumeration of the Rights of the People itself was based upon the objections to the US Constitution put forward by the anti-Federalists with Patrick Henry leading and that fact alone represents how powerful their arguments were. The arguments of the anti-Federalist were so powerful that in the end even James Madison, often cited as the Father of the US Constitution and a leader of the Federalist movement, reversed his position in opposing the enumeration of protected Rights and was the author of the Bill of Rights.

If I was to cite anyone that acccurately defined government in the United States it would be Patrick Henry. He understood that sovereignty existed with the People and not with the government. He understood that based upon the Ideals established in the Declaration of Independence, which he agreed with, that government's were a contracted entity of the People.

We can very accurately relate to this by analogy today when we look at a corporation. The corporation is a contracted entity of the stockholders. The corporation has no Rights except for the Rights of the Individual stockholders. We saw this in a recent Supreme Court decision where the statutory limitation on political spending by corporations was overturned. The Right of Freedom of Speech, protected by the 1st Amendment, is Right of the Individual stockholders in the corporation. The corporation has no "Rights" but the owners which are People do.

So it is with our government. The People have sovereign power and they delegate limited powers that they possess to the State government by contract. The States, in turn, in 1786 delegated a very limited amount of power to the Federal government in a subcontract authorized by the People in their contract which established the State government.

A government has no "Rights" but instead has "power" and that "power" is the "power" of the People based upon the Right of Individual Sovereignty of the People. The "powers of government" in the United States are delegated powers granted by a contract of the People. Those powers are expressly limited and restricted within the Contract (in the Bill of Rights) either by the enumeration of a Right of the People (e.g. the "Right to keep and bear arms") or by expressed limitations and prohibitions (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.).

There are two points related to this that I have addressed in the past.

With a prohibition, such as the 8th Amendment as cited above, imposes a restriction and prohibition upon our government it is universal related to any action of our government. It does not enumerate a protected Right for the American People but instead protects Rights of the People by prohibiting actions by government. It is a universal prohibition related to any actions of our government and, as such, it far more expansive in application than just saying the "people of the United States cannot be tortured" by our government. It prohibits the US government from ever inflicting "cruel and unusual punishment" at anytime regardless of any circumstances. The US government is prohibited from ever committing acts that would be cruel and unusual punishment, ever.

Next I have a serious problem where laws are passed that don't reflect a "power" of the People. As an example we, the People, do not have the Right or "power" to commit premeditated murder. We can use lethal force in self-defense but we cannot murder another person in cold blood. Capital punishment reflects "murder in cold blood" as an act of revenge for a crime committed. The People have do not possess the "Right of Revenge" or the "Right to commit murder in cold blood" and authorizing capital punishment is not based upon a Right or Power of the People. If the individual can't do it then they cannot delegate that power to the government.

 

Therein lies the rub. Patrick Henry identified the flaw in the debate for the Constitution. It was known in Congress that under the Articles of Confederation the Constitutional Convention was not binding, or legal for that matter, Madison and Hamilton talked around it in the Federalists Papers. But the leaders of Congress knew this also, that the Articles were not working to solve even the most mundane problems faced daily and that (gulp) perhaps Great Britain might have something to teach us. Under the ruse of making a common currency plan for the states Madison gathered delegates from all the States (some left after hearing the agenda) and proposed basically a new type of government. It is good to note here that Hamiliton thought of this much earlier. We all know that the Constitution was ratified and we live under it now, but we should also understand that more than one interpretation came out of it, and Hamilton died as a mortal enemy of Madison and Jefferson even though Madison and Hamilton split the writings of the Federalist. Much to the angst of those on the right we have followed Hamilton's interpretation of a larger centralized government, don't like it? Get a time machine and go back to 1790 and shoot Hamilton before he becomes first Sec of the Treasury or deal with the fact that the meaning of the Constitution is that of a living document.

 

you may not realize it but you are proving beyond the shadow of any doubt what so ever that the people in fact have no sovereign power what so ever and never have.

A Sovereign does have the right to kill in cold blood!

When a sovereign cannot come to an agreement of amity with another sovereign "war" is declared and someone dies.

Thats the way it is in sovereign land!

That said since the government does in fact do it then "its" sovereignty had to by law have been established by a sovereign that had that power at their disposal.

We the people have had 200 years of political programming in that we instead of thinking the matters through to their ultimate end miss seemingly insignificant yet crucial "elements" of construction in these matters that combined with a few honorific bad court decisions take us in complete incorrect directions, only to build straw houses.

That said further to its logical and reasonable conclusion would form all the elemental building blocks to conclude a sovereign with that power exists somewhere. But where? Whom? I personally do not have to look too far to answer that question.

Just think if you were one of say 100 sovereigns in existence would you when creating colonizing and creating your world create it in such a way that you would some day have competition? I think not!

I surely wouldnt!



So "To People" is to create a community. I do not hear "individual" in there anywhere?






"To STOCK with INHABITANTS"?

If the "People" are the "commonality" and are NOT the princes, Nobles or Kings annexed to a "Sovereign Status", therefore how then can they "in fact" be the sovereigns?

Would settlers come under that term? How about good indians and mexicans?

Has that nation building under the king sound to it to me!

How about the North west ordinance?

The requirement for 60,000 inhabitants to be eligible to create a state?
(Yes I have bonafide resources for every bit of this!)

That just coincidentally is the same number used in europe when one country would take over another and dish out the spoils to the kings loyal subjects insuring their mafia pyramid scheme would survive!

The constitution states "WE" the People, "plural", not singular!

Where are individual rights! I didnt hear "individual" rights in there anywhere!

Settlers came over here and they were required to "pledge allegiance" to the sovereign US. Anyone ever look up what a "Liege" is? You know [Al]liegience?


That one can be had right out of merriam websters:

Definition of LIEGE

1
a : having the right to feudal allegiance or service <his liege lord>

b : obligated to render feudal allegiance and service
















What sense does it make for the people pledge allegiance to themselves?

What possible purpose could that serve?

again we go to:
If the "People" are the "commonality" and are NOT the princes, Nobles or Kings annexed to a "Sovereign Status", therefore how then can they "in fact" be the sovereigns?

The people which are synonymous with the "common" inhabitants are not princes nobles and kings, therefore cannot be part of the sovereignty.

Worse they tricked us by making it a mandatory requirement to "pledge allegiance" to a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rag! When you pledge allegiance you are giving everything you are and will ever be to the state NOT God! (If you believe in God)

That said, definitions given, how the hell can any "individual" be sovereign when it is used in the plural?

-and:
Who gave the "plural" version (corporation), the ability to "magically" transform from a vassal of obedience to a Sovereign to a Sovereign proprietor of the Law? ~unto themselves no less?

Are we starting to see a complete failure and breakdown of reason and logic when putting what they did into perspective?

Yeh as silly as it sounds when you get involved with this trash and I do mean trash we call government you need to do silly (*)(*)(*)(*) like look up the word "people".

Who would think it would come to that?

We have been lied to, upon lie, upon more lies.

Yours truly
~Feudal America
East India Company

 

Once great?

Still great, never changed!

The only thing that changed is they went underground with everything the people did not like.

Set up trusts and hid away their assets, set up "administrators" to administer the very same government for all intents and purposes and reserved unto themselves the power to wipe it all out at the whisp of a pen!

Not only did they want a larger share of the political pie but they set up the same fundamental process here.

In fact if you are not aware New York operated under overt feudal law well into the middle 1800's, and being so obvious steps were taken to put one of those layers over it.

Keep in mind that there is a very distinct reason for the part of the constitution that states "ALL existing contracts will remain honored", since the crown after all owned, (owns?), most of the land in the US.

I have not seen anything that divests the original sovereigns that came here of their land!!!!! and many people think the treaty of 1783 somehow divested them of their land rights and ability to charge "rents" to those with the fee.

My question is "where" is the bonafide documentation that that conveyed the land? Just because someone conquers a nation that does not automatically reconvey the land, much un-be-known to most people.

That is the reason the first thing the victor of a battle would do is burn the records! (1812---whitehouse), so that they could steal the land and claim no one had a higher title to it than they did!

Nice and leeeego like.

 

No strides were made for individuals. I think I have sufficiently shown that people as used in the constitutions refer to the "MOB", you know, deMOBcracy! But there is that disconnect since we do not have direct democracy but a representative which is nothing more than a some scum attorney between us and the law making.

the way it really works is the scum bags in legislature waltz down to their legislative attorneys, drop the paperwork on their desk and go over this and see if we can get it past the courts, this is what we want to do. "that is from the lips of an honest attorney that works for our legislature" regarding our discussion of how the courts rule country NOT any people as everyone would like to believe!

That is why everything is supposed to be adjudicated with a trial by JURY, judging both LAW and FACT (and I have supreme court cases on that also), *I would extend that to ALL cases, criminal, civil, mechantile anything adjudicable, JURY as SOLE JUDGE and put those legal ministers back in their hole where they belong! to prevent this kind of thing from happening but the people of this country are so ignorant they wouldnt be able to find their ass in a dim lit room if there were neon signs pointing to it and their life depended on it, bought into this expediency of lets save a buck drop the jury and let a judge decide on say a traffic ticket and that is now costing us a no not small but HUGE fortune and the likely hood we will get that back with the cash cow they have our of it is ....well you get the picture.