4 votes

Constitutional Quandary

These are times when loyalty and adherence to the Constitution, upholding it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, affect the future of every American. I think things are heading out of the purview of Congress and Administration, and onto a monumental Supreme court decision. Looking at what's been going on, with “... Snowden engaged in unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information. ...” I offer these observations: Just like Bradly Manning, Edward Snowden broke his oath of secrecy, and then illegally disseminated classified information. As any American would, he has been accused and will be prosecuted in front of judge and jury. The same thing happened to Daniel Ellsberg. After breaking his oath and releasing classified information, he was tried through the American Judicial System. What happened? The Supreme Court exonerated him, based not on the obvious illegality of his actions, rather on proven illegal government access to his private papers! The court did not judge release of classified information. Back then Ellsberg did not leave American soil like Snowden now did. On the other hand, like Manning, would Snowden be open to spending a year in solitary, sometimes naked? That could be a decisive consideration in hightailing it. As it turned out, Ellsberg exposed secrets that were considered by many US citizens to be wrongly kept from public view in the first place, because their exposure enabled people to judge the necessity for war with Vietnam. At that time the Supreme Court avoided doing so. Now here we are again with exposed secrets, this time with the further challenge of defining an enemy. Under the Espionage Act, in 1918, it was clear which nation states were protagonists, in war against the USA, spying on military objectives. In 2013, looks like nation states are no longer easily defined enemies, while spying on military objectives has burgeoned into spying on every living creature in the world. This now defines the war on terror. The UCMJ will deal with Manning. With openly proclaimed wellsprings of support now surrounding Snowden, appeals up to the Supreme Court in his case, when it comes, seem inevitable. What the Supreme Court will do with the civilian US citizen Snowden, under the current circumstances then becomes The Question. Hopefully the government, in their zeal to prosecute, does not once again step over the line of legality, and nullify a decision in the case. Only so can the validity of digitally tracking everywhere on everyone, all the time, be decided. Such a Supreme Court decision would essentially condone or reject what is happening. Just like the hard decision they made choosing a president between Gore and Bush, the Supremes will have their work cut out for them. This time however, the decision they take will be, perhaps, their most vital work ever, in service to the Constitution of the United States.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Fine print

The most obvious example of inculpatory evidence is the actual words spoken by the Usurpers before the Usurpation.

Before diving in to the most obvious examples of inculpatory evidence it may be a good idea for me to acknowledge that The Bill of Rights exemplify the fine print attached to the Usurpation in such a way as to offer a way out instead of absolute dictatorship being the rule without exception.


That is a report made by people who were at the closed door secret meetings that became known as The Constitutional Convention. There was a Gag order placed on the attendees so the report came out too late.


That record includes additional quotes from one of the main characters Usurping Liberty which worked as Liberty in the form of 13 Republics Voluntarily joining (or un-joining), and Voluntarily paying for (or not paying for) a Democratic Federated Republic.

The concept of democracy was not Mob Rule as exemplified by how The Articles of Confederation worked as the 13 States formed a MOB or not a MOB voluntarily and the only reason for forming a MOB was to Defend against attack by criminals with armies, such as the army of criminals then known as The British or The Red Coats or Taxation without representation Gang, or the Central Banker Frauds.

I saved (bookmarked) these from Reclaiming America:

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "n countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

If you read the first book offered by Robert Yates on The Secret Proceedings, then the second book offered in this offering of order of reading by me, where the second book is offered by a modern day writer who also wrote this in that book in those Resolutions offered by Madison and Jefferson in the failed attempt to save the VOLUNTARY Union.

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

In other words the Central Banker Monopolist Monarch Frauds can't have their Monopoly Money Power if there is competition, so they remove the Voluntary, or Free Market, aspect of Government and usher in, Usurpation, or Crime made Legal, also known as Obey without question any order, and there is no "or else," you will pay one way or the other.

A very good comparison, to prove the point, was proven by that comparison between the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion; whereby Shays's Rebellion occurred under Voluntary, Free Market, Government Design (not perfect but working as designed) and the later version of similar events occur under The Usurpation known as The Constitution Fraud.

One professional Extortion racket not 13 wanabe Extortion rackets where the slaves are protected in their power (or rights) to move from state to state under The Articles of Confederation and then under The Constitution no such power exists, and that deal was called The Dirty Compromise.

Slaves were not of one color, slave masters are all of one color, whatever criminal color is in fashion.

Red or Blue these days?

More sources:






The Constitutional Convention was falsely called into being on the false claim of needing to adjust the Voluntary Union, when the real, hidden, idea was to Consolidate (no longer Voluntary) the States (Republics) into ONE Dictatorial Power - proven fact.


Reclaiming the America Revolution

is one of the best books I ever read. There was so much in it and I had to stop often to look up all the footnote. Absolute masterpiece filled with history I was never taught let alone heard of. In my top 10.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Thank you Josf

for the multitude of sources. I will study them. It shows your sincerity to be so forthcoming with these references. I believe freedom, peace and liberty are mutual goals, perhaps you will have have aided me in broadening my perspectives or understandings of them.

Thank you too.

Asking vital questions and demanding accurate answers work to move toward Liberty, or away from it, depending upon the goal in mind.

The first link I linked in the last post was wrong.

Here is Secret Proceedings:

Here is an on-line copy:

If I can be of further help, in my opinion, it is along the lines of remedy.

Here are 3 competitive examples:

I call this Networks Rising

Carl Miller (needs no introduction)

Liberty from a spiritual angle (I am not qualified to judge which spiritual angle is the official one):


You're assuming that SCOTUS

You're assuming that SCOTUS hasn't been compromised. I'm not so sure.

Both Congress and SCOTUS have ceded so much authority to the executive that something more may be going on. Just about everyone has something to hide. Is it possible that key legislators and at least a few supremes might have been twisted via a little executive influence?

I agree that this will likely end up in front of SCOTUS. I have little faith that they will find in favor of the bill of rights.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Someone downvoted you for

Someone downvoted you for some unknown reason so I upvoted you to balance it out. Anyway, I doubt very much the Supreme court would make the correct decision, its much more likely that a lower court would adhere to the constitution than the SC. After all, this is the same supreme court that said Obamacare was costitutional even though the constitution clearly states congress's powers and healthcare is NOT among them, they shunted it off as a tax....but if it was a tax then it was unconstitutional because as a finance bill it did not originate in the house of representatives. Either way unconstitutional...but the SC upheld it, and that is just ONE of many examples of the supreme court wiping their ass with the constitution. Why would it be different now? The Supreme Court used to abide by the constitution....but not in the last 70+ years

Somewhere in our government

Somewhere in our government has to be an authority that decides this digital vacuuming is against the law, and prohibited. Only place I can see is the Court, since the leadership in Congress and Administration act as if it's OK to do this as long as it's 'secret.' Appreciate your perspective on the Supreme Court, I expect after they are faced with the undeniable fact that everyone's privacy is violated all the time, secretly, and it's OK with law makers and executors; that they exert a constitutional a break on it. I am an optimist in this way, have to think they'll rightly interpret this total privacy invasion, their dismal recent actions like Obamacare notwithstanding. Many thanks for up voting, equalizing reception.

There is no ~quandary~.

Rather, there is an attempt by the gov't/media to convince people there is one.

The gov't is violating our rights and covering up crimes. It is abusing cloak of secrecy to perform and hide its dirty deeds, and to keep anyone from being able to have the necessary info to do anything about it, as with having standing in court.

Gov't/media is deflecting the finger away from that and pointing it at those EXPOSING the dirty deeds.

Were it not for this psyop of confusion being perpetrated on the American people, I doubt most normal thinking persons would see any perplexity, or quandary, whatsoever.

ecorob's picture

Surely to God...

you are not a lawyer!

You could be david gregory's twin.

Its not as "cut and dried" as you make it out to be, sal.

You take a lot for granted.

I trust none of these lowly supremes (who care not one iota for that "Constitution").

I trust the American people. Just who works for who, sal?

Thats what I thought.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

You are right about lawyer,

You are right about lawyer, wrong about twin! These observations are mine alone, and I am as much entitled to them as you are to your opinions as well. Thanks for your comments. I stand by what I wrote, and believe, subject to changing events, but nothing less than a Supreme Court decision will compel our congress/administration to follow the Constitution again, in my opinion.