6 votes

The government IS obeying the constitution...that's the problem

The Constitution allows the federal government itself (through its courts and judges)to decide what the constitution means.

It is the essence of the fox guarding the hen house.

That's why we see the gutting of the fourth amendment, fifth amendment, and the commerce clause being used to give congress legislative jurisdiction within the states.

They get to make up the rules as they go along!

It gets worse, the courts are compelled to find a legal justification to make acts of government constitutional. Obamacare anyone???

And it gets EVEN worse, if the SCOTUS stands their ground against an overzealous congress/president, the president can pack the court with justices who are sympathetic to his cause!

FDR pulled this totalitarian tantrum and the Brandeis court capitulated.

And we suffer the same exact problem at the state level. The state government gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Also, state constitutions are utterly totalitarian, granting the state lawmakers total power while only reserving a few individual rights.

Suggested Legal Reform to achieve individual liberty:

For all levels of government,
-The government should be granted limited authority on a limited number of topics.
-The government should be restricted in how they are allowed to use that authority.
-We should be in charge of the courts and therefor in charge of deciding what is a valid use of that power.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Giving a governmental agency the right to interpret

the constitution doesn't give them the right say black is white or turn the meanings of certain words on their heads. Even allowing for the obvious conflict of interest inherent in this relationship, the blame for all this judicial sophistry lies with us citizens for allowing it, and in some cases demanding it.

Leges sine moribus vanae

Thomas Jefferson had a lot to

Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say about the Supreme Court. I believe the quote below states a portion of the problem, and some of his other quotes state the rest.

"Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121

To believe that corruption in men, the justices who were to be the highest guardians of our rights, would never occur was wishful thinking.

You can read more quotes here

"Liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope." -Henry Ward Beecher

This is not actually correct but it doesn't matter

because Americans are psychotic morons.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Who cares...

Articles of Confederation....CONFEDERATION....CONFEDERATION GUYS!!!

Confederation: What is CONFEDERACY?

In criminal law. The association or banding together of two or more persons for the purpose of committing an act or furthering an enterprise which is forbidden by law, or which, though lawful in itself, becomes unlawful when made the object of the confederacy. State v. Crowley, 41 Wis. 284, 22 Am. Rep. 719; Watson v. Navigation Co., 52 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 353. CONSPIRACY is a more technical term for this offense. The act of two or more who combine together to do any damage or injury to another, or to do any unlawful act. Jacob. See Watson v. Navigation Co., 52 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 353; State v. Crowley, 41 Wis. 284, 22 Am. Rep. 719. In equity pleading. An improper combination alleged to have been entered into between the defendants to a bill in equity.

Black's Law Dictionary

CON gress = WITH transgression...who's in a bankrupt "state of being" CONGRESS MAYBE??? If you are tired of allowing these attorneys using you as a negotiable instrument...a fungible commodity formed to be a "patented product" through the action of propaganda to create a "politically correct product" for the purpose of generating revenue for the ATTORNEYS who are running this extremely profitable BUSINESS SCHEMATIC...modern banking with negotiable instruments is HUMAN TRAFFICKING!!! Nothing else...banks are courts, courts are banks..all run by attorneys...the REAL BANKERS are JUDGES!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Divest yourself of all the titles...Divest yourself of the LAW MERCHANT!! Live without the adhesion contract that identifies you as the DEAD THING...one can only SUMMON the DEAD so don't PROVE your death by answering their satanic SUMMONING...or do what you want..lol I have always obeyed the Public Law....no wonder I never felt like a criminal even when their stupid system said otherwise...bloody bastards!

Learn more here:

Free speech

zones are Constitutional??

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

Though I'm not a lawyer my

Though I'm not a lawyer my guess would be that free speech zones are not a constitutional issue. I'm assuming the argument would be that they violate the 1st amendment, but a glance at the text of the amendment reveals that it only prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge free speech. It's not a grant of the rights listed within, it's only a prohibition against Congress. As far as I know Congress has made no laws regarding free speech zones, therefore the zones don't fall under the Constitution's jurisdiction. The proper jurisdiction would be at the state or local level. The Federal courts would only listen to a case in which it was a alleged that the proper jurisdictional courts had ruled in contradiction of their own state laws. Again, this is only my guess. I'm of the opinion that most of what we're taught about the bill of rights being a "guarantee" of rights is just talk. Most, if not all, of the amendments are ambiguous enough to grant the courts a fallback position when government violates the so-called rights contained within.

In my opinion...no

Does anyone know what SCOTUS has ruled? I hope they agree with me.
And here in lies the problem, again, in matters of controversy about the constitutionality of a particular act, the government gets to be the deciding voice. ARG!

I believe that they are

I believe that they are extrra-constitutional for they are applied to US citizens who, unlike Washington and Jefferson who possessed the nationality of their state, Virgina, American citizens' national homeland is the territory in which their government has jurisdiction. For The United States that is the District of Columbia. DC is not a state and thus is not guaranteed a republican form of government the same way the states of the union are under Article 4, Section 4 of the Organic Constitution. Nor is it a participant in, or party to, the Constitution. Thus US citizens are aforded no protection by it. They are, quite literally, the property of the United States. The President is their King, and Congress is their Parliament.

The 13th Amendment abolished private slavery in the form of involuntary servitude, while the 14th Amendment instituted public slavery in the form of voluntary servitude.

It's all about show. They want you to believe that the Constitution applies to you so they pretend that it does when it really does not.

You are in the Matrix, Neo.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

post something about this and start a thread

Your not getting much traction here...maybe because its tangential to my post.

I am open to all manners of ways that can achieve individual liberty and wish the pacalliance well.
I wonder what becraft thinks of the philosophy. I think the government would say they have concurrent jurisdiction, in fact I think that has been their position in the past. But I am just jawing.

Let me think about the mechanics here:
1) man claims state citizenship
2) feds claim federal citizenship through the 14th amendment's citizenship clause.
3) Controversy.

Dave Champion and I had a long conversation at his place about the same concept and he was convinced the theory was right.

Tying back to my OP, a major problem is that the federal government gets to decide the controversy.

You're bass ackwards.

The Constitution obeys the politicians, not the other way around. THEY get to decide what it "means." Like every other political system, the Constitution is a con job designed to legitimize the exercise of political power over the people, slavery by another name.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


That's it. The constitution obeys the rulers. They get to make up the rules as they go along. Well said.

Um....no, thats not how that works

The Constitution does not limit people in any way, shape, or form. We the people are in charge of its interpretation, and holding government accountable when it tries to change the meaning.

We the people always hold the right to abolish it and/or the government. The problem is, the majority, while ready, still think they have something to lose, as if their slice of reality is so important they would rather be subjugated than fight for whats right.

You want to fix it? Then lets fix it, are you prepared to die for it? Are you prepared to protect life and liberty? to protect freedom?

Josh Tolley said something once that has always stuck with me:

"People today have no passion in life. They wake up everyday, go out, come home, goto bed and think 'is this all my life is?'. They need something worth defending, because when you have nothing to die for, you have nothing worth living for, and your just dead in the water anyway."

You say some interesting things but I would like to know what

legal mechanism there is for "we the people" to decide what the constitution means. Because the constitution says, in matters of controversy, it is the federal government gets to say whether or not an act of government is constitutional. (art 3).

And the framers went along with the Marshall court's invoking that power in Marbury v Madison.

"You want to fix it?"
Hell yes.

"are you prepared to die for it?"
I'm prepared to live for it.

"Are you prepared to protect life and liberty? to protect freedom?"
I'm prepared to establish it on this continent for the first time.

Are you prepared to learn the truth about what american government is and what it is not? Are you prepared to learn what individual liberty is and what it is not? If so, then we might have a chance of not getting hoodwinked this time around.

In your dreams, Anthony

That's EXACTLY how it works, in the real world. The Constitution is, and always has been, a tool to deceive the people into accepting "government" as a legitimate authority over their lives. It speaks of limits to government power, but those in power can move or ignore the limits at will.

There is no practical way of "working within the system," because "the system" itself is the problem. Freedom will not be found in "returning to the Constitution," because the Constitution was ACTUALLY written to limit freedom by granting to the gang named "government" the authority to rule our lives. The supposed protections of individual rights were NOT left in the hands of the people -- they were left at the mercy of the government to protect, adjudicate and enforce. Or not.

Your sentiments about life and liberty do you credit, but they have nothing to do with what the Constitution is, and how government functions.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

You could be my new hero

that was on point and dead on correct. Thanks.

Cancer analogy

The cancer analogy works well in this case.

It can be proven, well enough, that those who destroyed Liberty (life, happiness, earning good life, etc.) in this country were able to plant the cancer during the first Con Con Con Job in 1787.

It is not true that our common defense does not exist.

All we need to do is unite and follow the age old methods offered to us by our ancestors.

The cancer, on the other hand either consumes all it touches, or the cancer incorporates that which it does not consume into itself.



I agree with this up to a point

While it's true the supreme court and the federal courts are vested with the power to rule on constitutional issues, this is analogous to the power vested in publishers of dictionaries to define words. It's not an unlimited vestment. The same power that vested the constitution in the first place and its courts doesn't lose it's legitimacy with the coming into existence of the constitution. If the courts, formed by the Constitution, depart completely from the letter of the law in their rulings and interpreting, they are subject to the final bar of the people. Just as Funk and Wagnalls are not free to define words contrary to their accepted meaning, and if they do, face a higher tribunal. The only question is when and under what conditions that tribunal decides to impose its own ruling.


but not under the current legal system. It would take an upheaval of the current system.

Our Legal Adversary gets to make the rules as it goes along. And if the SCOTUS doesn't play ball, the president can pack the court with sympathizers until he gets the results he wants. FDR made this threat and the Brandeis court capitulated. ICK!

Assassinating Americans

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the right to Habeas Corpus, i.e. the right to a trial by civil authority shall not be suspended unless the country is in open rebellion.

Nevertheless, the Executive Branch has assassinated at least six Americans without evidence or trial, thus no, the federal government is not operating under the U.S. Constitution.

I'm a fan of your writings, but that assertion is not exactly

Article 1 section 9 states:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The writ of habeas corpus is an order by a court to require a person holding a prisoner to demonstrate the legal and jurisdictional basis for continuing to hold the prisoner. If there is no legal basis for detention or incarceration, the court orders the release of the prisoner.
More to your point and my point-If there is ever a legal controversy regarding this act, it will be the government that gets to decide whether or not it is comports with the constitution. ARGH!

This is true for those to

This is true for those to whome the Constitution applies, but here's the rub: the Constitution was written by Virginians, and Massachusettsens, and Connecticuters (not US citizens) "for" the United States, that is, for the government of the union. It applies only within the Union. It does not apply outside the Union. DC is not a state and is there for not part of, or party to, the Union. It is a jurisdiction where the Constitution does not apply, but a jurisdiction to which every US citizen is bound by virtue of their Federal citizenship. Their voting confirms this, as does their Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States instead of the national flag of their State of birth.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/


There is ZERO legal significance to oral recitation of the pledge of allegiance.

Perhaps not, but it is

Perhaps not, but it is evidence.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

ZERO legal significance.

ZERO significance in a legal proceeding.

Does not place you under the legislative jurisdiction of any government.

I'm sure you are right again,

I'm sure you are right again, the same way it's not evidence of trying to cause I riot to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or evidince of probable cause to joke to a TSA agent that you are carrying a bomb, or even that by responding to a policeman's questions (or a Congressional Committee's questions) is evidence thet you have waved your right not to incriminate yourself under the 5th Amendment.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Unless some costume black

Unless some costumed black robed gov clown says it says otherwise.

Wake up people and stop worshiping a piece of paper. The Constitution isn't armor, it's chains and by supporting it you're playing right into the hands of the slavemasters.

The Constitution is obviously an utter failure. It created a massive centralized gov that any liberty loving person should know is the exact opposite of what you want to do if you care about freedom. If you can't see the evidence all around you today of this fact, you're just as emotional and illogical as any liberal.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” Lysander Spooner

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

No. Its the law. You just

No. Its the law. You just don't know where you fit into it because you don't know the law. It's that simple. BTW, voting is your act of consent to being governed by that piece of paper. How weird is that?

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

...unless the country is in open rebellion.

The country is in open rebellion and we are all watching it on prime time. The rebels are in control of the state. We are all witness to the war on the people.

U.S. Constitution
Article III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The cheese stands alone. The proof is in the pudding.

I agree with one

I agree, with one clarification: as 14th Amendment citizens we are the ones in rebellion against the de jure nations of the American Union. When you figure out how that one works, you'll then know how deep the sh*t is that we're now in.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/