-3 votes

Politicians don't sign the Constitution of the United States which means their oath doesn't bind them

Anyone out there who can legitimately refute this I would like to hear from you.

"This Constitution for the United States of America" which represents the document dated September 17, 1787 is the governing document everyone attributes government power in this Country the "United States" but why doesn't any politician sign their name to this document? Article IV states these individuals are to be bound to this document yet no one signs this document to support or uphold its meaning.

May I submit to you that by not signing this document no one politician legislator executive or any elected in the supposed employee related government is bound by "this Constitution for the United States of America" No one ever has since George Washington set the precedent on April 30 1789.

Since no one signs their name to this document my legal claim/complaint is FRAUD by the Statute of Frauds of 1677 which has been adopted in the United States keep in mind every single court case is based on someone's signature in this country every business deal is based on someone's signature in this country.

I am not interested in pure rhetoric but if you have somting to say worthwhile to dipute this please have at it, thanks.

Mike



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Who are THE PEOPLE

Who are THE PEOPLE anyways?!?!?!?!?

go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn37CpIUCOE

My understanding

I'm still somewhat new to this movement. May I take this time to walk through this and get some feedback on if I am on the right track?

The Constitution is a compact between the several States (read "Countries" in the 18th Century) which granted the new Federal Government certain enumerated powers originally derived from the people and States themselves. The Framers signed the Constitution on behalf of the American People, who ratified it during the debates in the State Legislatures. If we have a Republic, which is Rule by Law, then the law by which our Republic rests is the Constitution. This is evident by the "Supremacy Clause" in Article VI and reiterated by the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which states that any secondary law which comes in conflict with the Constitution is "null and void". Article VI, Section 3 states that public officials will be bound by Oath or Affirmation to the Constitution.

The Contract that IS the Constitution is still in effect (supposedly) and new signatories are not required. An Oath or Affirmation is all that is needed.

Question: Is the Constitution a contract between the States and the Federal Government? or is it a contract between Individiuals and the Federal Government? I'm assuming it's the former. I think I remember Patrick Henry saying "What gives this Government the right to speak the language of WE THE PEOPLE, instead of WE THE STATES."

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

We The People is a trick of deception

We the People is not pert of "This Constitution for the United States of America" "This Constitution" is rendered clear in the Document 10 times the Article VI oath to support"this Constitution" is clear it is a Constitutional oath not a legislated oath patterned after Article II clause 8
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The legislated oaths for all government aren't even patterned after Article VI but patterned after Article II Clause 8 which is the inherent deceit/fraud. In the English language there is a big difference between "this" Constitution and "the" Constitution.

Think like a lawyer folks. Remember the infamous Clinton?

Legislated oaths are a ruse and not binding to "this Constitution" but a constitutional oath is going to be bound by a signature according to the Statute of Frauds 1677.

The fact that the

word Constitution is capitalized in the oath shows to which constitution is pledged. Constitution is not normally capitalized for any thing can be constituted if it is ordained and established. The fact that it says "the Constitution" vs "this Constitution" is irrelevant.

Please tell us how the 'Statute of Frauds 1677' is relevant to the Constitution for the United States of America? Where the Constitution was created in Common Law and statutes do not apply.

The Statute of Frauds is Common Law :

jp***2006

>Please tell us how the 'Statute of Frauds 1677' is relevant to the Constitution for the United States of America? Where the Constitution was created in Common Law and statutes do not apply.<

Investopedia explains 'Statute of Frauds'

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-frauds.asp?Mo...

The statute of frauds has its roots in an act of the English Parliament passed in 1677. The act was meant to help prevent some of the misunderstandings and fraudulent activity that can occur with oral contracts. Therefore, the parliament decided to require a written contract for important transactions where a large amount of money was often at stake. The statute of frauds was adopted by the United States primarily as a common law concept, though it has since been formalized by statutes in certain jurisdiction

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

The Statute of Frauds require one's signature

to make any lawful transaction legitimate.

In the English language "the" and "this" are clearly two different words with two separate meanings.

Of course "this Constitution" is ordained (this comes from The Northwest Ordinance 13 July 1787) and established ( June 21 1788 when New Hampshire became the NINTH STATE to ratify "this Constitution"

Who then adopted "this Constitution"? "This Constitution for the United States of America" has never been adopted by anyone holding any government employment office because they are all employees and employees are servants and servants has no inherent power only the Master has power. Who then is the Master?

Ah, You Do Know...

..that Article VI of, you guessed it, the Constitution, binds them to support the Constitution, right?

Oh, that's right...you didn't know that.

It is not 'pure rhetoric', it is fact.

I would argue

That their oath is their signature.

When you take an oath in court you are required to uphold it or be charged with perjury even though you didn't sign a document. Why would that oath be any different?

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

Their oath is their signature

This is patently a false statement.

Go take out a loan with your oath and see how far it gets you.

Go buy a house where you would be indebted to someone and give them your oath see how far that gets you.

Your statement is textbook government deception.

You have not studied

The Constitution have you?

See article 6 section 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.

Every officer of every state and of the federal government are bound by an oath of office. To violate a sworn oath is perjury and punishable by impeachment and removal of office. Now who has standing to bring such charges?

There are 2 reasons for taking an OATH

1 a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior : they took an oath of allegiance to the king.

• a sworn declaration that one will tell the truth, esp. in a court of law.

So one reason would be a solemn promise invoking a divine witness and the other is a sworn declaration to tell the truth in a court of law.

To perjure is willfully tell an untruth when giving evidence to a court; commit perjury.

These Article VI named officials are not in a court of law therefore cannot be held to perjury.

Their oath or solemn promise is made to what is a label namely, "The Constitution of the United States" which is not a document because there is no evidence the this label is a documnet. There would only be evidence that this label is a document if the document was signed by the one which takes the oath.

Clearly

the type of sworn oath here is the same as the 'oath of allegiance to the king' you used. I would argue that there is only one use for an oath and that is to make a sworn declaration, whether to tell the truth, support a constitution, or give allegiance to a king. There is only one punishment for the violation of a sworn declaration as well, that is perjury.

What was the punishment those who violated their sworn oath of allegiance to the king? What would that be called if not perjury? Did these persons who swore an oath of allegiance to the king have to sign for it? No, simply sworn in front of God and at least 2 other witnesses. Thus that is the reason why marriage ceremonies require 2 witnesses. This is why affidavits of fact require 2 witnesses before they are admissible in a court of law as evidence.

I have not taken an oath of office but I am willing to bet there must be 2 witnesses present at the oath ceremony. I am willing to bet there is affidavits created at every oath ceremony where the holder of office has had to sign. Otherwise, how will they prove in a court of law their vested authority to establish jurisdiction?

The Constitution is not binding to those who have not signed it, but it is binding to those who have sworn a declaration to be bound by it. To violate that sworn declaration is still perjury. Who has standing to punish this violation?

My guess would be a Grand Jury who's indictment then represents the People of the United States. It is too bad there is no more Grand Juries in the United States for no one knows how they are created anymore. I doubt there are 24 more enlightened people here or anywhere for that matter.

Oaths mean nothing but employment

Marriage ceremonies mean nothing to the State without your signature and a license...right?

Oaths to a king in this country do,'t apply we have no monarchy.

Oaths to a label aka "The Constitution of the United States" is an oath to a label not a document...why doesn't this makes sense?

No oath follows word for word "to Support this Constitution" as required in Article VI.

All government oaths are patterned after the oath for the President of the United States which is different that Article VI requirement. Article II cl.8 is to the "Constitution of the United States" a label and Article VI is "to support this Constitution" the document totally different.