-14 votes

The NDAA technically is not unconstitutional

First you must understand there is a difference between People of the United States and Citizens of the United States.

The People of the United States created the United States of America with the Constitution, therefor the United States of America is subject to the jurisdiction of the People of the United States. The United States of America created Citizens of the United States with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment even stipulates that in order to be a Citizen of the United States the citizen must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. This is not my interpretation, this interpretation comes from the book 'http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html see Senate Document 103-6 and 108-17 p. 1006, 1007, footnote 37. This is the interpretation of the U.S. Senate.

The 14th amendment uses the wording 'privileges' instead of rights. Let there be no question that Citizens of the United States have no rights but only those privileges that the United States of America affords them. The 14th amendment specifically protects those privileges of life, liberty, and property of being violated without due process of law by the several states. There is no mention of any privileges being protect from the United States of America. The federal government is implicitly allowed to deprive Citizens of the United States of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

Although, to identify someone as a Citizen of the United States is an accusation by itself. While the NDAA's provisions of indefinite detention of Citizens of the United States is not unconstitutional, the statute is unenforceable unless the person contractually agrees to be a citizen in the instance this statute is to be enforced. You would have to agree to be abducted voluntarily or unwittingly. Otherwise the execution of this statute would be a violation of the 5th amendment, which pertains to rights and guarantees the protection of life, liberty, and property exempted by due process of law to the People of the United States.

So please people stop calling yourselves citizens. Your ignorance dooms us all.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

American firearms says we are sovereign.

Anytime you want to bring over a piece of paper that says the opposite, I'll be glad to eat some lima beans and put it to good use.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

*banging my head against the monitor*

Technically, I know you have a point, but these things baffle me--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Remember..

There is a constitution of the United States of America and a constitution FOR the united states of Ameria. The constitution OF is the one the presidents now swear to uphold and it's for the Corporation of the United States. The constitution FOR is the original constitution and the one that puts "we the people" above everything else (other than our creator)

That is incorrect.

The original Constitution FOR the United States of America was the original trust indenture that was setup by the delegations sent to the convention through the electoral college. The original document had no effect other than being charged at that event, it did not have any authority charged by the States.

Once the electoral college completed their task the document was sent to the State for ratification. At that time that single document was complete, active and charged with George Washington as its first President (note that the senate APPOINTED a president at that time, there was no registered voters).

Once the States received the document they were disgusted with its form and would not ratify it as is. The anti federalists had their say and attached a "bill" (to keep the federal government in debt to the States) to the original document and then ratify it. Once ratified the new document was called the Constitution of the United States of America which consisted of the original trust indenture and the bill of rights (which is considered one document). Likewise, the original trust indenture, the Constitution FOR the United States of America still remained as its own stand alone document to this day with NO amendments attached to it.

Fast forward to 1871 when the municipal body corporate was created it nearly duplicated the Constitution of the United States of America with its 'US Constitution' which was nearly identical minus the [hidden] 13th amendment, democratic election of senators and register voters having a 'vote' whom were not landowners.

All in all there are 3 constitions;

Constitution for the United States of America:
This is the original Constitution as it was generated from the college of deputies that sat in convention to do what was necessary to resolve the problems of the Articles of Confederation. This Constitution had only the original seven Articles and no amendments. It formed the government after the pattern of a Trust; wherein, the people granted a limited portion of their individually inherent sovereign authority to be collectively used by the government in accord with the conditions stipulated in the Constitution; thus, providing the limited collective sovereignty necessary for the government to function. This Constitution bears the signatures of the signatures of the deputies so convened and its Title is found in the last seven words of its Preamble: “Constitution for the United States of America“;

Constitution of the United States of America:
History provides this original Constitution was formed by adding the Bill of Rights to the first Constitution listed hereabove. It was formed as a limiting contract each elected official of said government is required to take an oath of allegiance to; in order to serve in the capacity of the office so held. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights not only clearly distinguishes the distinct nature of the original Constitution (listed above) by both acknowledging its Resolution was made by the Congress that had been so formed by that Constitution and by acknowledging that several States had already adopted it and respectively requested that the Bill of Rights be amended to it; then designating the so amended document as the “Constitution of the United States of America”; and,

United States Constitution:
This final Constitution was not generated until 1871 where it acquired its ratification and name in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. It was simply called the United States Constitution. It can easily be distinguished from the two original constitutions by its lack of the original 13th Article of Amendment that was passed and ratified in 1818 in accord with the laws of our nation. Again, it is not our job to do your work for you. Rather, if you have an interest in discovering the evidence that supports the History.

Hope it helps!

I reserve the right to govern myself.

Now isn't that

interesting.

Totally wrong

14th Amendment

Section 1: All PERSONS BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILIGES AND IMMUNITIES(NOT RIGHTS!) of CITIZENS the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON(INCLUDING CITIZENS!) of life, liberty, or property(RIGHTS, NOT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES!), without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws(RIGHT!).

NDAA

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.

Everyone just HAS to have their little "GOTCHA" moment dont they :/

Ventura 2012

On a somewhat different

On a somewhat different topic:

Given that the Obama administration admittedly supported the Al-Qaeda terrorist Belhaj in overtaking Tripoli and Qaddafi in the spring of 2011 - isn't Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and any military officer who provided the money, training, equipment and most especially the armed air assaults and over-seas transport that facilitated the capture of Tripoli, culpable under this act?

Not my interpretation

go look it up in 'Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation' This book is published by the US senate and it changes as new legislation is passed. This interpretation of the 14th amendment that I posted was on pages 1006 and 1007 and referenced by senate document 108-17 footnote 37. It may not be there now as the NDAA of 2012 probably called for a revision.

Ok, I looked it up, footnote

Ok, I looked it up, footnote 37 of the 2002 Edition for the 14th Amendment section(not on page 1006-1007) says no such thing, it is simply a summary of the Slaughterhouse opinion. p. 1679

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-20...

When we talk about Sections 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment we are talking about RESTRICTIONS ON THE STATES, not the Federal Government. The Federal Government is still bound by the Bill of Rights.

The Slaughterhouse opinion narrowly defined the scope of the 14th Amendment Priviliges and Immunities clause to narrow P+I to only US Citizens. The Court did not bother to define what the P+I are, but simply distinguished US citizens from State citizens.In the Slaughter-House Cases the court recognized two types of citizenship. The rights citizens have by being citizens of the United States are covered under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, while the rights citizens have by being citizens of a state fall under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four.

Rather than overturn Slaughterhouse, the modern Court has INCORPORATED the Bill of Rights as a restriction on the action of the states through the 14th Amendment's DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.

Ventura 2012

Citizen vs citizen

Yes, I too have come to the conclusion that the real result of the so called Civil War (more aptly called the War of Northern Agression)was not ending individual slavery, but, creating collective slavery for all citizens. It is history to which we all need to be aware. It is something else to study to understand the depth of our losses, and how long it has taken us to get to the place we now inhabit. Ron Paul is only the start of changing this. He may be the captain at the helm but we have to run the ship and he cannot do it without us. The Ship of State is HUGE. Think about how long it takes to turn a HUGE ship at sea...We have a lot of work to do, over a long period of time into the futre, to restore the efficacy of our original American Constutition and Bill of Rights.

But first on the agenda, throw the current pirates at the helm overboard and restore control of the helm to a Constutionalist like Ron Paul. We must then continue to be the tireless ones ever vigilant...

VIVA rEVOLution!

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

~raising my hand~

I tried to stay with you....but you lost me. I guess I'm ignorant.

Can you make that a little easier to understand for the slow people in the room?

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” - Mark Twain

Let me explain differently

Lets say the military shows up at your door and arrests you, krayonc. You are taken away to a far away place kept in a far away prison.

Your friends and family start to wonder where did krayonc go?

Your government tells them, "Krayonc is suspected of aiding terrorists, so we detained krayonc in a far away prison."

Then your friends and family say, "But you can't just take krayonc away like that krayonc has rights. Krayonc is a Citizen of the United States. You know the United States the 'freeist' country in the world."

Then the government says "Krayonc is a Citizen of the United States you say? Well it says here in the 14th amendment that Citizens of the United States have privileges not rights and only states are not allowed to take those privileges away. So the United States can do that."

The 14th Amendment does not

The 14th Amendment does not say "privileges NOT rights" (emphasis added) - as you stated. It says privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. It also reiterates the right to life, liberty and property of the people. So whatever the scope of the privileges and immunities, they are in addition to the rights of the people, they do not replace them.

Thus the federal government is still bound by the 5th amendment whether you consider yourself a person of the united states or a citizen of the united states or both.

Got that part....

But are you saying that this is avoidable by simply not calling myself a citizen? Are you suggesting rescinding citizenship?

That's where you lost me.

If officials show up at my door to arrest me (and take me to a prison far away) I doubt they're going to give a rat's butt what I call myself. Those guys don't usually care anyway, they're just carrying out orders and tell you to "tell it to the judge".

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” - Mark Twain

When you are taken

you have no more ability to stop them from kidnapping you than you would an armed robber from robbing you. But when your friends and family go to rescue you it is important that they use the correct semantics or they will lose standing to get you free. Same goes for if you are one of the friends and family and someone you know and want to be freed.

Your friends and family should say "Krayonc is a People of the United States and as such has rights not privileges. You, the government, have exceeded your jurisdiction by taking krayonc to a far away prison."

SteveMT's picture

Do robbers use armed drones?

Can they put you in jail for tax evasion or other trumped-up charges? Do they have access to Project Echelon/data mining stores of information about us?

Don't think so.

That doesn't make any sense...

Couldn't they simply pull out a tax form I've signed where the "are you an american citizen" box is checked?

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” - Mark Twain

Think of a polaroid camera

You have The United States of America National Government, operating smoothly. Then our enemies come along with intent to infiltrate and usurp. They take a duplicate picture of our National Government and create a corporation called UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, year-1871. At that time the Officials of the National Government where the same Man as the Officers of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Everything is running smooth until 1912 when the corporation goes bankrupt, the GOVERNMENT lost our currency (Fed Reserve Act). They tweak a few things; such as senators being appointed, removing the 13th amendment (now known as the hidden 13th amendment). At this point a conflict of interest emerges that forces the Men holding office to make a choice to either seat the National Government or the Municipal Corporation; they all choose the Corporation. Thus, the National Government remained empty until the early 90's. We've had this foreign private corporation at the helm and it has everything to do with why everything is going in the wrong direction.

This GOVERNMENT creates its own employee class with its corporate 14th amendment called: us citizens. This 'citizen' class was created to house the newly freed black slaves directly after the civil war.

The People, mainly through their ignorance, follow this municipal corporate as if it was the true National Government not realizing that such GOVERNMENT was quit claim deeded to the international monetary fund in 1944 through the Brenton Woods Agreement when the UNITED STATES became the 'drawing account of the IMF'.

In 1944, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT became full property of entities foreign to the United States of America.

The people through their ignorance did not recognize the changes in the relationships occurring throughout their nations history but hopefully their starting too.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

UCC 1-207 "Without Prejudice"

It's all about how you identify which hat you are wearing at any particular time. Are you wearing your "American" hat or your statutory regulated "US Citizen" hat? I've also wondered if we even have a president of America right now. It seems to me that since I have been alive we have only had a president of the US, but no president of America. I keep thinking it would be cool if RP and Americans declared him as President of the united states of America and let Romney or Obama be President of the United States.

I admonish you to think twice

I admonish you to think twice before posting about such content until you've done much more reading and understanding. There are many things you've said that some would consider 'mythology' and/or 'disinformation' and those types of things shouldn't be passed along as truth.

Keep digging though, your on the right track !!

I reserve the right to govern myself.

I think people tend to overthink

things. Lawyers are busy lawyering up the Constitutional water, don't fall for it. Don't get involved with trying to unravel that mess. The Founding Fathers and The Founding Documents were very clear and straightforward, easy to understand. If a person really wants to understand, I'd suggest they read about both of them at the same time.

Once you see how the Founding Fathers lived, you'll begin to understand where they were coming from.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Although your research is clear, there are other elements

I commend you for not only doing the research necessary to gain knowledge and understanding but also having the courage to speak up.

Go Ron Paul!

You are technically correct in your interpretation(according to my understanding) however, consent is already established based on presumption. For instance, if one maintains a drivers license that required a Social Security Number (hereinafter: The Number) upon registration [contract] then you must acknowledge the existence of a contractual relationship between CorpUS and its subsidiaries.

Although the 14th did created corporate citizen/employees of the US Government it does not consent was not giving. Every time the number is used it is a form of consent because that relationship is active. You must be aware of General Partnership relationships and their impact on personalities involved in contract. The Number's are established for individuals whom are admittedly 'operating' in some sort of diminished capacity (like the sick and infirm - See Social Security Act of 1935). So the first thing is realizing that the number is not yours, its belongs to the 'State' [CorpUS/UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT]. If you are using that number as if it was yours; when you work, acquire assets or even contract at the doctors office (I've never once been required to provide The Number at a doctors office, and never will) you are contracting through the state for service. The relationship is that The Number belongs to the State and you have the 'privilege' to use it; right of use.

More clearly, you apply for a job and use The Number it was not you whom applied for the job; the state did you were just granted the privilege of controlling relationship. When your first check arrives you notice that it is written to a TITLE, that title is the State's 'name' that has contracted for the position. You deposit that check and use the funds as if they were yours not recognizing the State's relationship with The Number, in doing so a General Partnership is formed where the flesh/Man and The Number are joined and the Man becomes The Number. This is what I believe to be one of the keys for the body corporate to attain Lawful jurisdiction despite verbal non-consent/dissent.

The key is understanding that The Number is the primary mechanism the State uses in order to maintain jurisdiction through presumption. Interestingly though, the terms and conditions between the SSA and The People dictate that the people can change their relationship with such said number should they choose. Such person would have the 'exercise' their contracting muscles by perhaps modifying their relationship in writing and then requesting such information be added to the Master File. Once added, using the administrative procedures act, one could secure a certified copy of such relationship from the SSA proving in the flesh the nature of the current relationship between the Man and the State.

If knowledge is power, then secret knowledge is absolute power.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

Everytime...

I think I know something I find out how very little I really know. This concept of presumption, I will have to research this much more I think. This seems contrary to the idea that all contracts must be bilateral, and if one party decides to attribute other or more stipulations on an agreement than the other party is aware of then it cannot be in agreement. Would that not void the contract?

On a side note, my first drivers license was a real pain because at 16 I found out I had 2 social security numbers. My birth certificate was attached to one and my school records were on another.

Conceptually I think I understand

but you are speaking very abstractly. I wonder, can you give a better explanation of paragraph 6 where you talk about modifying the relationship? What would that technically look like, and can you explain what the modified relationship would mean?

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

I assume your speaking as to

I assume your speaking as to what form such a modification would take? If so, then your missing some key elements of understanding.

Well, first lets establish a few facts.
The SSA established a public trust for the elderly and infirm. A congressional promise was made that such a trust would not be used for tracking/identifying individuals ... broken promises ... Perhaps letting them know that you do not appreciate the broken promise is a good way to start.. or perhaps the recent data manipulation/compilation being conducted as the rise of homeland security continues poses an uncomfortable relationship between yourself and The Number.

Requesting such a letter be annexed to the Master File may evidence a disconsent with their service. Ideally, once the letter has been annexed, it would be wise to secure a copy of that with the seal of the SSA. Such a document will have weight in court where it can be used to prove the nature of the relationship between CorpUS, its agencies and the People.

Of course there is a great chance of non-cooperation, more likely due to great ignorance more that 'tyranny'. Should such an instance occur, their would be very little one can do to deal directly with such individuals; their offices are required to act but the Man does not fulfill his duty to act. Then what?

Recognize that the Administrative Procedures Act exists to hold federal agencies accountable to the duties of their office (to say the least). Read it, learn how to use it as it is a powerful tool. Use it to secure a copy w/ seal of the nature of the relationship between yourself and CorpUS and any of its subsidiaries such as: State of X, County of X, Township of X etc. With your ability to prove your relationship it would seem that the corporate state would be powerless to prosecute you in a court of Law.

A court of Lawlessness is a different story though, but that will never happen here unless The People themselves destroy such a beautiful court system.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

Unalianable rights

are given by the creator. As such, they may not be surrendered nor taken. Inalienable rights may not be taken, but can be surrendered. I think you are confusing unalienable rights with inalienable rights.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle642-20111030-07.html

So...

There would be no such thing as prisons and what is the purpose of due process of law if life, liberty, and property could not be alienated for any reason?

.

.

should we continue the discussion?

I felt this article and debate was dead.

I have gained new knowledge, perspective, and field of thought since posting this article.

The point of the article was to illustrate the difference between the federal government and the government of the several states. While the 14th amendment subjugates the citizens to the federal government it only places restrictions on the government of the several states. There are no restrictions on the federal government when it pertains to 14th amendment citizens. State governments are restricted, not the federal government. There is no other place to define a 'Citizen of the United States' other than the 14th amendment, so when I see people referring to themselves as citizens, I hope they proceed carefully for risk of voluntarily alienating their 'God given' rights.

If you infringe on others rights to all of those things

it's also dealt with in the Founding Documents but don't think the Founding Fathers took that lightly,as do today's laws and people that enforce them.

The Declaration of Independence line doesn't give us the right to rob others of their life.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.