Reserved Rights - U.S. Constitution

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

  1. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Again you base an argument on a dubious quote that can't be substantiated and seems to be blatantly false. Upon a search of your quote their are but three sources of which one is this post I am responding to. Another is a religious source with an unclaimed source. And then there is the Family Guardian which uses as their source as a letter written to Samuel Adams Wells in 1819, The Lipscomb-Bergh Memorial edition, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 15, Page 200. That turned out to be the letter written on May 12, 1819. Nowhere in that letter, much less page 200 are there any such words as you are quoting. Also, this is the only letter written to Well in the year 1819.

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

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

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


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

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Because you keep implying some mystical knowledge of proceedings not available anywhere else therefore nonsense/you, indivisible.

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

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

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

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83

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

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

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

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

    Wikipedia's citing source is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    From a government website:

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

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

    The codification of the principles found in the Declaration of Independence was officially enacted into law pursuant to H.R. 1215 and signed into law by President Grant on 22 June 1874. All of the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence are now guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2017
    Bob0627 likes this.
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,800
    Likes Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Agreed, however you lost your crackers long before this post.

    Please do, you have nothing of substance to offer.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  5. delade

    delade Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution was not drawn up by the People... It was drawn up by the Leaders for the People..

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Mold:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    For some reason it is within the heart of man to gather the 'lost' to set themselves against God and His Anointed. For some very strange macabre reason, people think no harmful thing in doing such... But yet our very family members might be the very ones being indoctrinated into this vain plot against God and against His Anointed, Christ Jesus. And having a loved one being an enemy of God can get frightening, not because of what they might do, but because of what they might have done to them by God. Trying to protect an enemy of God, or trying to convert and enemy of God, might be too untaught for anyone to know what should be done within God's Laws if it comes down to having their own family members or loved ones being the enemies of God.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  6. delade

    delade Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    If the Church is being made to accept the violent because there is no other way for safety sake, then I cannot see how God would be forcing His Own into Breaking His Own Laws... Although Jesus Christ is Grace, He also had God's Laws written in His Heart and was NOT ASHAMED to proclaim it in the assembly..

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This same scenario can be applied to National Constitution also.. If a newly arrived immigrant asks for the truth pertaining to the US Constitution, what sorts of answers might he/she receive?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  7. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48


    Your quote was from the Family Guardian to wit"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

    So please, try to somehow justify your claims!



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

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

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

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

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

     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,781
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48

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

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

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

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

    .....and before you waste your time with an attempt to lecture me on trust law, show me any property that you wont pay taxes on regardless if you accept gubmint 'beneficiary' services.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
    TheResister likes this.
  9. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Before I respond in full, let me comment on context. If this response where but a fictional story to be discussed, then I would have to accept your analogy as presented and move on. But within the context of your OP and this response, I have to accept an analogy of a real situation and that is the basis of my response.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    As to your "Reserved Rights":

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

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

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

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

    But otherwise, if you have argument with what I have posted, I would love to hear it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  10. delade

    delade Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

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


    [​IMG]


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


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

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


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


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

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,781
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
    Bob0627 and TheResister like this.
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,781
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48

    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
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  13. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,781
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  15. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,781
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    Bob0627 likes this.
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    10,781
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    TheResister likes this.
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,800
    Likes Received:
    220
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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/
     
  19. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,317
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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".
     
  20. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     

Share This Page