Expressed RIGHTS are 100% Absolute - US Constitution

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 8, 2019.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Nov 14, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Yes, I did not stutter, your rights ARE absolute, and this will show you the subterfuge used by the government to destroy your rights and convert them into privileges they can regulate.

    Today you have 'NO RIGHTS'

    -as intended by the Constitution, you have privileges,
    -no different than you had before the revolution.

    Exactly as predicted the British won the revolutionary war without firing so much as one shot, in fact the US and Britain are bosom buddies allies.

    That said:

    The distinction between rights and privileges are:

    Rights are absolute limited only to the boundaries stipulated in the contract. (there are no stipulations)

    Privileges are regulated 100%, 40%, 0%, fully under the legitimate jurisdiction of the governing body.

    Very simply, when 2 parties have a meeting of the minds and come to an agreement the rights of the parties are stated and stand as stated. Neither party can lawfully change so much as one jot or jittle or change any meaning without the consent of the other party.

    So lets start at the beginning;

    The people accepted the the creation of a self governing body (government) contingent to and upon the agreement by government that the government agrees to protect their rights which is the sole purpose of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

    The ratification of the constitution hinged on the addition of the Bill of Rights' as Amendments.

    These are known as 'Reserved Rights'. Rights stand as stated in the contract.

    Had the addition of the Bill of Rights been rejected, the Constitution would have failed ratification.

    So the government agreed that they will respect and protect the Rights of the People.

    Today the Bill of Rights is a ruse, a nice football to kick around from time to time.

    Skipping to the punch line;

    If it can be regulated its NOT a right but merely a privilege!

    When a right becomes subject to regulation it is converted to a privilege.

    Our ABSOLUTE RIGHTS have been relentlessly attacked and destroyed by the very government chartered to protect them.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise [of your religion] thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    TO ABRIDGE, In law it signifies particularly the making of a declaration or count shorter, by taking or severing away some of the substance from it. Brook, tit. Abridgment; Com. Dig. Abridgment; 1 Vin. Ab. 109. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

    ABRIDGE - to reduce the effect of a law, privilege or power.
    Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

    The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal law. The act banned men having more than one wife at the same time (bigamy)

    This Supreme Court Case focuses on a case which tested the limits of religious liberty: Reynolds v. United States (1879). The Court ruled unanimously that a law banning polygamy was constitutional, and did not infringe upon individuals' First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

    The law forced Mormons to cease and desist exercising one of the primary religious tenets and the despot court contrived that was not infringement.


    The case began when George Reynolds, a resident of the Territory of Utah, was sentenced to two years at hard labor and assessed a $500 fine by a federal court for violating a federal anti-bigamy law. Congress had passed the statute against polygamy because it perceived that such a practice contravened good order and peace.

    Reynolds, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormon Church), was following what was then one of the central tenets of his religion. Appealing his case to the Supreme Court, Reynolds argued that the anti-bigamy law was in direct violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
    [Reynolds is correct]

    [Apparently in some invisible Amendment we do not know exists:]

    Court said government could regulate actions that violated "police powers"

    [The is saying that the states police powers are above the constitution]

    Although the Court agreed with Reynolds that the free exercise of religion underlay the founding of the United States, it also held that government officials have a right to regulate behavior as part of religious practices that are considered odious and violate basic notions of morality.

    [Creating the state as a religious establishment by degree]
    Until the inception of the Mormon Church, the Court noted, the northern and western nations of Europe and every state had criminalized polygamy.

    [People came to America to be FREE from those very nations]

    The Supreme Court's ruling in 1879 that a federal law prohibiting polygamy was not a violation of religious liberty led to its important belief-action dichotomy for free exercise clause cases.

    [You have only philosophy, ethics if you cannot exercise your beliefs and philosophy you have no not religion]

    A government can't interfere with a person's religious beliefs except when the religious practice violates certain notions of healthy, safety and morality. Polygamy continues to be prosecuted in the United States.

    [2 wives, a health and safety matter? Who can take that seriously! Morality of which religion judge?]

    More important, the Court created a belief-action dichotomy for free exercise clause cases.

    It held that the federal government cannot interfere with a person’s religious beliefs, except when a religious practice violates certain notions of health, safety, and morality — commonly called police powers.

    Reynolds, therefore, had the freedom to believe in polygamy, but he could not practice it, because the action violated national police powers.

    [General police powers superced your rights, because they said so, no vote from you required]

    If the federal government could not regulate certain religious actions, the Court concluded, religious doctrines would become the superior law of the land.

    [it most certainly is unless your actions damage or injures someone]

    Indeed, in oft-cited language, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

    Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

    [It most certainly can, that is why we created courts.]

    Belief-action dichotomy has become a central principle of free exercise jurisprudence

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED But how did they do it?


    noun: subterfuge; plural noun: subterfuges

    deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.
    "he had to use subterfuge and bluff on many occasions"

    The government and the judges of this country were simply to stupid to conceive and consider the most simple concept known even to low 2 digit IQ retards that YOUR RIGHTS END AT THE TIP OF THE OTHER GUYS NOSE, Yep too difficult for SCOTUS to conceive the intention and proper execution of those rights.

    Instead they had to inflict their [unlawful government] moral standards by establishing a religious principle that violated Reynolds Inalienable Reserved Rights, then creating a statute no different than any despotic King in Britain would have done ESTABLISHING A RELIGIOUS BASED POLICE STATE OVER YOUR RIGHTS.

    Had the despotic Congress desired to protect EVERYONE'S RIGHTS rather than destroy them, they would never have made a law abridging the rights of the people in the first place. Clearly the law was crated for 'other' purposes! CONTROL

    Had the despotic collusive Supreme Court desired to protect your rights rather than destroy them, the proper procedure for these matters to accomplish that end would have been to strike down the unconstitutional law created by congress that they admit abridges religious rights.

    Matters of this nature must be dealt with on a case by case basis where there must be an injured party before the court can hear the case.

    This is how the law was intended to be executed which rules out human sacrifice and all other types of stupidity government stooges use to apologize for the governments violation of our Rights.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    Shook likes this.
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Nov 14, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Your rights as 'expressed' and 'reserved' without stipulation in the Bill of Rights are absolute, government regulated privileges are not.

    Congress in Collusion with SCOTUS premeditated, undermined, violated and usurped your rights converting them to government regulated privileges that can be taken away for the purpose of gaining the iron fist control they have today of the very people who's rights they were chartered and trusted to protect.

    They used this same technique on all our original rights memorialized in the Bill of Rights that have been long since converted to privileges.

    We lost the revolutionary war!

    Bow, pay homage to your lord!
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Nov 14, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Xenamnes where are you?

    I informed you that I made this thread with you in mind (and of course everyone else who wants to discuss the matter further) as the appropriate thread to respond to your questions and the claims that you made with regard to the apologetics for the kleptocracy and their subterfuge.

    You wanted answers well now you got them, as I said in the other thread this is the place to argue your points if you are unhappy with the answers.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  4. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Jun 17, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Once you start thinking of government as the largest of organized criminal gangs, it becomes no question that it's authority is illegitimate and any subversion of your natural rights a crime.

Share This Page