- Nice find, I remember reading several letters regarding the Senate and they all agreed with your find. They knew if the Senate was directly elected it would just become another arm of the Federal beast they feared and fought so long and hard to avoid so we would be free. It worked until the Progressives took hold and we have been paying a very steep price since then.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The formation of the Corporation was in my feeble old memory caused by the need to OWN land for the Capital which the Constitution did not provide. There was a fight over MD or Virginia as they were of differing Religions and to solve the situation the land was half in each state and created a separate Federal zone. Politics from the beginning IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is the Wisconsin Supreme court decision - it states that the lower court Judge USURPED Legislative powers which the State Constitution prohibits.There are several other cases sited that are interesting. Now we will see what the SCOTUS says. 5-4 on our side if we are lucky IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- In its application the document you mention is origianlly and correctly titled, "The Constitution FOR the United States of America".If you investigate Congress's Act of 1871 you will find that this is when the US was formally 'incorporated' IN its official 'headquarters' at Washington, D.C. It was then decided, according to what I believe I have learned, that the 'new' corporate body and its governing document was to be referred to as the, "Constitution OF the United States of America". There is a mjor difference between the two.The Bank of England also incorporated the "United States" around 1853 in London but that fact has also been obscurred in the recordation of the true history of our country. Speaking of this event in a speech before Congress is a part of the reason why the Bank of England had Abe Lincoln assassinated and attempted to assassinate Johnson and Seward. Honest politicians and patriots have LONG been aware of the threat of the European banking system. Yet that is exactly what we have in America today; the European (Rothschild's) banking empire.The central government was rightfully intended to enter into commerce and to some extend control interstate commerce thru The Commerce Clause. HOWEVER, the Commerce Clause does NOT supercede, negate, nor abrogate the REST OF the Constitution and its rules FOR government or the Bill of Rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The original Constitution states "of" in its text many times.Although I agree with your last paragraph, the 'incorporated' point of view you present as well have others, is not relevant. It is twisting the formation of Washington, DC, via a parsing operation, into something seemingly sinister IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I too have seen them (the words, "of" and "for") in reference to that document. I still say there is a difference, a significant difference, between the two:1-In the context of "for" means the Constitution are rules 'for' government to follow, and2-In the context of "of" means the Constitution had come "from" a body that has not been clearly identified.I ask you sir if you have read the Act of 1871? It can be Googled very easily. The language is not difficult to understand but the 'implications' are varied and vague. The Act is legalese double-speak, to me anyway.Let me give you another analogy (and there a bazillion of them) on double-speak. If someone asks me, "Where do you live?" my response used to be, "I live in Florida." My current response to that question is, "I live on Florida."If I live "in" Florida does that mean I live 'within' and under the the commercial government-agency corporation doing business as the State of Florida? I say "yes" to that question but sadly I have no 'proof' of it. However, as a Natural, living man I reject that I live 'in" Florida as I choose not to allow them to make me a corporate, legal-fiction ruled by the capricious and arbitrary Uniform Commercial Code. No one explained to me what implications (purported duties, obligations or loss of Rights, etc) that designation has in store for me so therefore I reject such status.On the other hand if I live "on" Florida does that mean the organic earth, water and sky Florida as was admitted to the Union as a free independent State? Again, I say, "Yes" to that question and that is the status by which I choose to establish for myself.Ole Teddy Roosevelt, the great Imperialist, once stated he would do, "Whatever is in the best interests of the United States of America". This sounds great but Ole Teddy (nor anyone else since) has bothered to definitively define just "what" the USA is.Was Ole Teddy referring to the USA as organic matter or was he insidiously referring to the corporate-agency form of 'government' we have today? One form has to do with control by sovereign citizens and the latter form is under the control of the Eurpean Bankers, the UCC and monopolistic corporations.Personally I do not believe that any of our military adventures around the World has been to the benefit of American taxpayers. I do not wish a peaceful rest for the treasonous Mr. Roosevelt (either of them).
- Permalink Reply by on
- I reviewed the links and find no particular facts that would change, alter, bend, amend, defeat, override, redefine or perform any damage or reduction of the FREEDOMS GUARANTEED by the Constitution of the Republic Know as the:
The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, doordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.I see no evidence of any type that ALL CAPS changes the legal position of any section or clauses of the Constitution. The Constitution is for a Republic form of government which is designed to protect the smallest minorityThe Sovereign Individual from an oppressive majority or government. I see no mention in the Constitution that would permit any change such as you describe in this CORPORATE THEORY therefore I would assume it is a false premise.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I merely point out that the Act of 1871 (if that is one of the "links" you say you investigated) formally designated DC as the "Commercial Zone" for what I believe to be the corporation calling itself the United States of America. This new 'entity' in this new 'zone', I believe, replaced our Republic.I did not mention anything about ALL CAPS, why did you?You wrote: "I see no evidence of any type that ALL CAPS changes the legal position of any section or clauses of the Constitution." If the ALL CAPS you mentioned have application you are correct in your statement that they CHANGE nothing. But they, I believe, have significance in their application within the Commerce Clause as these ALL CAPS designations may define corporate entities.In my opinion the thieves have circumvented the Constitution thru their use of the Commerce Clause. Today, everything in America is under the law of contract (equity). Our Republic has died and the Commerce Clause is our new 'living' document which I believe was institutionalized with the passage of the Act of 1871.The law of equity is dictated thru the Uniform Commercial Code which, at best, is arbitrary and totally capricious.Again you are correct when you state you see nothing in the Constitution that would permit any change, it is all un-Constitutional. In fact, kindly make us aware of ANYTHING they are doing today that IS Constitutional!De facto 'laws' prevail today and that is because not enough people are exposing the the root cause of all these maneuverings, the European Bankers (the Rothschild's dynasty) and one of its holdings, our Federal Reserve Bank.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I want to welcome you, but the conclusion you reach gives me doubts on how productive you'll be to the discussion. We have been over this over, and over, and over. Please save others some time and this discussion the distraction by reviewing the previous debates concerning your conclusion.Most here don't agree with the concept of assigning blame for most every major evil in the world to the boogy man banker clan. While we're all convinced you're convinced - having a constant flow of your clique passing through insisting on nobody having a clue but yourselves - most of us are not of the mindset that there is any productivity in demonizing and assigning blame to a mysterious brotherhood of money. It's not going to solve anything - even if your 100% correct. Nobody is going to have the power to jail anybody with as much power as you assign to them and even if by miracle that happened, the vacuum would be filled by week's end.... there is no solution provided in y'alls passionate release of anger towards who you believe is in control of the entire world.Where understanding, teaching and re-validating our Constitution is the solution to most of our individual concerns, including yours. I can see you're knowledgable in this arena - and am interested in your input towards such. But I'm pretty sure none of us are interested in yet another belittling boring debate over the skull and bones crowd.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thanks for your reply.I do not know who "yourselves" are but I basically do my own researching, thinking and writing.That "no one will be jailed" may be true but there is a slight possibility that if people were to understand how the banks create money and how they have slaughtered people all around the globe in their endeavor to gather wealth maybe they will get mad enough to take some action, sometime.I don't believe that you think things are working to the advantage of the citizens of this country. I don't believe that you don't understand the Constitution has been undermined and I don't believe you cannot fathom that the bankers are probably behind it all.What would you rather I do sit back and let them stand on my chest without doing anything?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey folks here’s something new and different for everyone’s consideration regarding the restoration of our Constitutional Republic. We have all postulated causes and proposed many solutions to our situation today. What if there’s a cause we’ve never understood existed or acknowledged? What if the system was designed to work on the basis of a universal reality that no longer exists? A cause so fundamental it pre-empts our current list of solutions.In Federalist 10 Madison argued that factions have and will always form, be bad and that the overall design of the system was intended to prevent them from executing any “schemes of oppression”.“Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.” He went on:“…If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.”I could take this to mean the system he helped design would in his view unavoidably fail if this were to happen. His solution to dangerous factions was to be found in a large Republic. By extending:“…the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens…” This observation seems logical. He goes on:“…or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.”Here I’ll suggest is the ‘universal reality that no longer exists’. Global real time communication trumps the plan at its foundation. Read Federalist 10 keeping in mind mankind could not communicate “schemes of oppression” like it can today.Consider the formation of the Tea Party or so called flash mobs or the revolution in Libya. Could these happen on the scale they do today without our ability to communicate our plans and ‘organize’?With this as a principle cause would any of our current proposed solutions work? Think about it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sure speed would be a factor. Another would be the mass of communication. Imagine no TV and your understanding of events formed only thru your mail box. Filled only with hand written letters, all copies hand written as well. What was going on inthe next State would easily become a bit murky and require much speculation. Workers of the world unite would be kind tough in that situation I would think.
No comments:
Post a Comment