Reserved Rights - U.S. Constitution

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Kokomojojo, Apr 19, 2017.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,465
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if you (the people)
    draw up a contract with me (the gubmint)
    and I (the gubmint) promise that if you sign the document
    and allow me (the gubmint) to govern, that I (the gubmint) promise to recognize
    and defend your (the people) right to

    1) Exercise Your Religion
    2) Exercise Your Free Speech
    3) Exercise Owning/Bearing Arms
    4) Exercise Privacy in Your Personal Affairs
    5) To be Heard by a Jury of peers in all criminal and civil cases greater then 20 Dollars
    6) Exercise Freedom of Press.

    At which point does that document authorize me (the gubmint) to infringe and trespass upon areas ( 1 - 6 ) which are 'expressly' Reserved 'outside' the purview of me (the gubmint) by you (the people), hence 'expressly' removed from me (the gubmints) jurisdiction to regulate you (the people) in those areas?

    Exactly where did you (the people) give me (the gubmint) the authority to stick my nose in to even the least degree what so ever much worse, trump you (the people the creators of the contract) and regulate areas 1 - 6 contrary to the agreement? :evileye:
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  2. AGWisFAKEsillyBABYKILLERS

    AGWisFAKEsillyBABYKILLERS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the cities where the brainwashin happens on the less intelligent..
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,328
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Constitution is a contract between The People and their government, an employer/employee contract if you will.

    In Marbury vs Madison (1803), the 3rd branch (the Judiciary), a bunch of employees wearing black robes, gave itself the power to "interpret" the Constitution, a power never granted to them by the Constitution. And The People, the employer, never batted an eyelash.

    So you as an employer hire an employee and get your employee to sign an employment contract. And now your employee declares that he has the power to interpret the employment contract and you don't bat an eyelash. So your employee now says that the clause about his $15 per hour wage really means for 120 hours per week (5 days X 24 hours) because he lives and breathes every second for all 5 days so instead of getting $600 for a 40 hour work week he should be getting $1,800 per week. Pay up sucker and you owe me a ton of back pay.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2017
    TheResister likes this.
  4. Imnotreallyhere

    Imnotreallyhere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    We get the government we deserve. This is true of all times and places.
     
    AlNewman, Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,635
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Too true, but the other side of the coin is that power corrupts, and humans in government have always attempted to usurp powers not theirs legally.
     
  6. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    First off, there are some glaring false allegations in the framing of your question that makes it impossible to present any argument. You declare this supposed document to be of the classification of a contract. To be a contract there needs to be a meeting of the minds of all the parties involved, either by themselves or their duly appointed agent. Being I would never leave something so important to an agent and we are personally unknown and unless you can prove some claim against me, there is no contract.

    Second, if you are trying to instill a relationship along the lines of the constitution, you would more properly be speaking along the lines of a trust wherein the states believing they were gods, appointed some representatives as trustees to anoint a trustee called "gubmint" for the benefit of the beneficiaries deemed "the people". Now if you accept the benefits, well you receive what you accept, slavery. Especially if one has taken the time to read and understand what that trust entails.

    But the mass majority just wonders how they got into such a mess and can't wait for the four years to expire so they can get a new leader. Personally I wonder just where the hell they are going that somehow requires them to be lead, sort of like little doggies on a leash, anxious to experience all that freedom as they are "led" along as the master see fit.
     
  7. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gee, I didn't know cities extended to that large of an area.
     
  8. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    To what contract are you referring? Are you aware what constitutes a contract? How many elements must a contract contain?

    Ah, my favorite opinion ever from those mystical beings in black robes written by one of the worse oligarchs to even sit upon the bench. A man so vile the Liberty Bell cracked tolling his death. But as to his writing of the opinion here I can find no fault. Of course the court as the third branch check and balance can declare acts unconstitutional and in Marbury v. Madison, the court offered so much food for thought in a paper where the court said they had no authority to act.

    Now to the meat of your argument or should I say lack of argument.
     
  9. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not really true in the logical sense. Government has always been government and all has ended in the same manner throughout history.

    Truer words have never been spoken on government that those of Ben Franklin as he left the constitution convention, "A republic, if you can keep it." He knew then that it couldn't be kept, never had up to his time and he understood that time may change but man never does.
     
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,635
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course man is an imperfect being, no question. But through his history there have been different forms of government, some better than others, some more successful than others.
     
  11. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's not really a question of man being an imperfect being, after all we are man not a god. But that is not the point at all. The point is the actions of man, actions that have occurred throughout history that keeps leading in circles, government.

    No there are not different forms of government, just different stages where man will go from the most natural stage of anarchy to republic to democracy to oligarchy to chaos. What you deem the "form" of government is but where along this path man has arrived at a specific point in time.

    As to successful, please point to be one that has ever been successful.
     
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,635
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113

    How shall we define successful? 10 years? 100 years? 200?

    I'm thinking Iceland has a fairly stable and successful form of government.
     
  13. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Define successful, obviously we don't. As to a term of years, how about we speak in term of millennia?

    Iceland successful, by what means. It was highly unstable a short time ago and then fired the illusion (bankers) while keeping the causation. Looking to join the EU were they? You call that stable then you have not studied history. They seem to just be on an accelerated path around the circle.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2017
  14. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Over the years I've failed to gain any traction on this subject, but thank you for bringing it up yet again.

    With respect to unalienable Rights - the government has no legitimate / de jure / lawful / legal / constitutional authority over them. The Bill of Rights, for lack of a better word, codified the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

    Preying upon the fears of the people, as well as ignorance, stubbornness, and outright stupidity, the federal government has been able to illegally seize control over our Rights without having to fight for them. On the left, the people wanted for forfeit their Right to keep and bear Arms for the illusion of safety. On the right, the people wanted a totalitarian militarized police force.

    It became the Nanny State v. the POLICE STATE with nobody left to challenge the status quo.

    In the original setup, the Constitution was ordained for the benefit of the signers and their posterity (which the courts interpreted to mean the white race.) That was expanded with the ratification of the 14th Amendment (albeit an illegally ratified Amendment.) So, through technical court decisions, the Supreme Court's usurpation of our Rights and their claim to powers they don't have - along with a generation of people who don't have a clue as to what the Constitution is even about, we've lost our Rights.

    It's past time to call the government on the guarantees. And, the government would argue that we've consented to the illegal takeover. But, I think most of us should get up to speed on our Rights and let the government know we're reclaiming our Rights because we've been the victims of fraud and duress. We have to exit their system and use all the nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress we have at our disposal and then, if the government cannot respect that, we consider extraordinary measures.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,328
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you abandoned the proposed Amendments thread in favor of this one.

    I believe I already went over this. The contract I'm referring to is called the Constitution. It's an employment contract between The People (the employer) and civil servants (the employees). The contract is a binding one, civil servants (employees) are financially compensated by The People (their employer) to serve them under the condition that they take an Oath of Office, a verbal agreement/signature ("I, do solemnly swear, ... to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" - the employment contract - all of its provisions).

    That's correct they can declare acts and laws unconstitutional, that is their job. What they can't do is interpret the Constitution, that is a violation of their Oath (as already explained) and should be grounds for dismissal.

    First you need to show what argument you have if any.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,635
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aren't we all?
     
  17. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ???????????
     
    TheResister likes this.
  18. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Then I would suggest you open your eyes, I have as yet abandoned neither.

    I would suggest first the you get yourself a good dictionary based on etymology. Second I would suggest you do some research on the law of contracts and the elements that make up a contract.

    A valid contract consists of but for actionable elements, offer, acceptance, consideration and performance. The underlying legal maxim for the contract requires a meeting of the minds, an understanding of all the elements by all parties involved. Perhaps if you would be so kind as to show me either your or my signature, or that of our appointed agents, on that document then we would be obligated to further examination of the other elements. And by the way if you want to say that it is a verbal agreement, then by the statute of frauds, it can have no term of more than a year without being reduced to writing and sealed.

    Also, contracts do not require oaths, oaths are pledges of trust before assuming a fiduciary responsibility. But then what does that oath matter when those most illustrious representatives are acting as an agent. An agent which bears no personal responsibility for their actions, it is the principle that is responsible. And as they were selected by secret ballot, just who are the principle(s)? Do you want to step up and take responsibility?

    So it is your interpretation that no one else may interpret that document? Perhaps you should take the time to read Article VI:

    Explain how that "notwithstanding" deal works with no interpretation?

    Actually I have but it just goes the way of the constitution being a contract, off into thin air. So let's just stick with your lack of any argument...
     
  19. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I would go one step further. Less than 3% of the people would recognize a right even if it stepped up and kicked them in the gonads.

    The founders of this once great nation, the ones that told the King to stick it where the sun don't shine, were the great heroes that set this continent on a wonderous journey of freedom. Then came those elite diseased anuses of camels that gave us a path to tyranny, a path we have managed to follow like little sheep just like all the others before us. The path of a circle that continues forever. As said by Alexis de Tocqueville.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

    “I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”​
     
  20. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can tell you that the people will not elect a person that stands up and says, as Madison did that, "you have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments." I've done everything short of actually running and, just like the self appointed gurus on this board, people want to debate you over what Rights are (as if they haven't been litigated enough in the courts.)
     
  21. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    4,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you will have some complications quoting your way to #4. The word 'privacy', and phrase 'personal affairs' are not in that contract. At best it is implied by the other bullet points and that is how SCOTUS got there. I love the destination, as much as anyone but I have to admit SCOTUS took the scenic route to get there.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  22. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing is implied about the Fourth Amendment. An article in Wikipedia puts it like this:

    "...the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. [17] This right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education, Griswold v. Connecticut, where a right to privacy was first established explicitly, Roe v. Wade, which struck down a Texas abortion law and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy.

    The 1890 Warren and Brandeis article "The Right To Privacy", is often cited as the first implicit declaration of a U.S. right to privacy.
    ...
    civil libertarians[who?] argue that the right invalidates many types of currently allowed civil surveillance (wiretaps, public cameras, etc.).

    Most states of the United States[who?]also grant a right to privacy and recognize four torts based on that right:

    1. Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs;
    2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts;
    3. Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; and
    4. Appropriation of name or likeness..."
     
  23. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    4,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I use the word 'implied' and you quote a two word phrase, "implicitly grants" as juxtaposed to explicitly grants. The reason you have to use that phrase, is because it is not sitting in a direct quote in that document. When you have to use a law review article from 1890, as a 'first declaration', its because nobody else seemed to see that implicit grant in the century before. When you are reaching into the first amendment, the third amendment, the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment to substantiate this privacy right that is not explicit enough in any of them that it was clear in any legal scholarship before a century went by, and then it takes another 30 years before Pierce v Society or Meyer v Nebraska even broadens the 14th enough for any recognizable assertion of civil liberties as we now understand them, it sort of proves my point. That is the scenic route.

    What you are trying to do, is defend this right of privacy, that I have not actually attacked as lacking legal merit. I just note that it is not as clearly spelled out as other 5 bullets in the OP, so you have to work harder than a quick quote from the bill of rights and you are going to get blowback from 'originalists with their very narrow interpretation.' I did not say I was among these originalists or that the scenic route I mention, involved any wrong turns.

    We probably agree more than not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
    TheResister likes this.
  24. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Originalists do not always believe what the founding fathers believed in. Case in point:

    If we return back to original intent, we have to consider the words of 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."

    Some may try to claim originalism dismisses a Right to Privacy because the Right does not appear, as a specific word, in the Declaration, the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. OTOH, they cannot dispute the fact that in authoring the DOI, Jefferson was clearly considering the views of James Otis relative to writs of assistance.

    A writ of assistance is a general search warrant. Of these Otis once stated:

    "...appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law that ever was found in an English lawbook.”

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/writ-of-assistance

    When Jefferson mentions the unalienable Rights of the people, be it the Rights to Life, Liberty and / or the pursuit of Happiness, these are clearly objectives that are personal and private to every individual. So important were these unalienable Rights that the Constitution wasn't ratified by all the requisite states until 1791 after the objections of anti-Federalists who demanded a Bill of Rights be included with the Constitution.

    Today, we have a society that demands everybody be subject to a pee test, blood test, hair sample, MVR check, credit check, criminal background check, check of mental health records, driver's license, Socialist Surveillance Number - ooops "Social Security Number," National ID / REAL ID Act National Identification Card, E-Verify, 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring, armed drones in the sky, and government / private entities having you under surveillance every moment of your life because wannabe originalists ignore the Declaration of Independence AND the Bill of Rights because they cannot find any application for them in the consummate POLICE STATE.

    Clearly some people really don't understand original intent.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,328
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I stand corrected then, you did not abandon the suggested amendments thread. Following that post you recently added to your prolific (negative) non-contributions and criticisms.

    As already noted, you don't know me and know nothing about me. Having been a principal in the technology business for a number of years, I've had to review and modify many proposed contracts drawn up by corporate attorneys. But throughout these discussions, your objective seems to always focus on my alleged lack of knowledge and your delusions of superiority.

    You can call the Constitution whatever you like and cite whatever supporting arguments you feel are necessary. If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck, etc. then it must be, yes a CONTRACT.

    To summarize, I never said no one, I said The People are the only ones who should have the power to officially interpret the Constitution preferably under a format similar to a jury system. And I also said the judiciary was never granted such a power by the Constitution and that such power was seized by the judiciary in Marbury vs Madison in violation of the 10th Amendment.

    See above.

    The usual insulting non sequitur.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017

Share This Page