30 votes

"The Historic Fact Is The Constitution Was Intended To Gut The Rights Of The People"

The Fix Was In From The Beginning
By Eric Peters
Eric Peters Autos
June 16, 2014

; it was only as an afterthought that the Bill of Rights was tacked on, to placate those who were – rightly, as it turns out – suspicious of what Hamilton & Co. were up to.

The Constitution is all about “Congress shall have power…” and so on. Well, over whom shall it have power? By what authority?

Continue reading:

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/06/13/fix/

Note: Comments are thought provoking :-)



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Of course.

Read the anti-federalists papers. They predicted everything from the civil war to the national debt and the massive government we have now.

No train to Stockholm.

Eric Peters bump. He writes some great stuff and he

nails it here.

Bring Back The Articles!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

ecorob's picture

It is a challenge for each individual State...

to rise UP and say NO to the unenforceable statutes placed upon them.

In the end the States will see that they are united against the tyrannical over reach of the Federal Government. Its happened before and came to a head in 1861. The difference this time being, if it comes to that, there will be no hiding or deflecting as to the cause.

I believe we, the people will begin to see more and more States asking questions about more and more issues. Questions leading, even, to nullify the Federal Statutes they find too binding.

We have seen it in the medical field and individual's rights. We have seen it in the gun issues. We will begin to see it in education now and, perhaps, internet regulation. When enough of the people RISE UP we will see it in the refusal to accept perpetual WAR and what it begets. We see how that worked out, right?

The States must wrestle back control of themselves.

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

the most glaring flaw in the document is the fed governments

ability to decide for itself what the document means. Article 3.

How can there be any long term protections if your adversary can decide the meaning of the rules as it goes along.

Yes, as mentioned previously,

Samuel Adams, Madison, Henry, and others all had concerns about the Federal system.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

That's rediculous.

Blame the Constitution, never mind the American people fell asleep while the government dismantled the document. What did Benjamin Franklin say, "a republic, maam, if you can keep it." Our form of republican government demands that citizens be diligent. When the government steps over the line, the people tell the government to step back over the line.

Unfortunately, while the American people slept and gleefully accepted the bribes from the federal government, the government took more and more of our liberties, until we have what we have today, the election of a post constitutional president to oversee a post constitutional America.

Wake up.

wake up indeed

but it is you that are asleep.......you don't know what you don't know.

In your case,

you don't know what you don't know listening to the MSM media for information.

Do the names, Manning, Snowdon and Drake mean anything, or the names Alger Hiss, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, Jonathan Pollock and Ana Belon Montes mean anything to you?

Finding out what's going on is the easy part. Stopping the illegal acts of the government is the hard part.

Government is the illegal act

Only made legal by decree of those that which to make legal what would otherwise be illegal…..not by the consent of the governed…..like I said you don’t know what you don’t know.

"...the people tell the government to step back over the line."

By what mechanism?

The people are legally obligated to obey legislature. The legislature are not legally obligated to obey the people.

So, by what legal mechanism can the people tell the government to "step back over the line"???

There again,

you are confusing "the law" with state constitutions and the United States constitution.

I was having a discussion with a 31 year police veteran from New Mexico. When I pointed out to him that New Mexico is a Constitutional open carry state, he responded by saying he would have to check the statutes. Excuse me?

Any legislature that passes laws that violate the State constitution or the United States Constitution are null and void. If he wished to change the State constitution, he and others would have to amend the State constitution.

I am not confusing anything with anything

I asked you a question that I would like to know the answer to. By what legal mechanism can "the people" do what you say?

Then I made an observation about american civics.

And now i will refine your statement about statutes:
A statute is only null and void once it has been determined to be in conflict with a constitution by an appellate court of the JUDICIARY. (aka the very same government that passed the statute)

And now i will elaborate on the injustice of the above:
The judiciary has a duty to read the statutes so that they comport with the constitution. That is how obamacare's individual mandate was found to be constitutional. They are bound to figure out a way to make statutes constitutional; to think of some logical scheme to make the statutes work within the confines of the constitution. The judiciary work for the legislature.

Let's look at the gun laws in New York

and Connecticut. This is the perfect example of the people resisting state law, gun registration. People in Connecticut did not comply with the law, and people in New York burnt their gun registration forms. The government calls it civil disobedience, the people in New York and Connecticut called it a violation of their second amendment right. These people aren't waiting for some judge to rule on the constitutionality of the law. They merely said, "We will not comply."

Estimates are 30 million people have yet to comply with the law. There aren't enough jails to hold 30 million people. The state police, police officers and sheriff deputies, or the judiciary in these states, has yet to do anything to force people to comply.

"If you can keep it"...

"If you can keep it"... almost sounds like a challenge don't it.

The American people did not sleep. The 14th Amendment, which made all people of the several nations into federal citizens, was forced upon the people by military coup. The several nations initially rejected the federal take over of the people, but through the military occupations (Reconstruction Acts I, II and III) of enough of the nations to pass the amendment, the federal government took over the jurisdiction over the people thereby nullifying the 9th and 10th Amendments.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

It is a challenge

to keep a republic. It depends on citizens being aware of what their government is doing.

Thomas Jefferson made the case:

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The 14th amendment doesn't state that if you are illegally in the country, if you have a child, that child is automatically a US citizen. If one breaks the law to enter the country, they are criminals and not permitted to benefit from their crime.

I never said the 14th

I never said the 14th amendment said any such thing, and it does not. NO ONE born here is automatically a citizen. It clearly states that one must have been born here, or naturalized, AND be under the jurisdiction of. Jurisdiction is something granted. The US Expatriation Act of 1868, which could equally be called the Patriate Act (where people are expatriating from their state and patriating into the Federal State), made very clear that giving jurisdiction to this citizenship is/was voluntary. All rights and privileges of this federal citizenship supersede any states laws, but only where US citizens are concerned. Its original intent was to supersede state's laws concerning racial matters. But today 150 years later it has gone far, far, far beyond just superseding state's laws concerning racial matters, and into every matter of the person's life. This is why a state can not pass a law that would, for instance, nullify Obama Care; anymore than in 1870 a southern state could not pass a law that would oppress a negro's "rights and privileges" as a US citizen. This was the end of the state's rights over the people, and beginning of the Federal rights over people.

The people did retain their right to bear arms. And after 4 years of very bloody war, they were worn down. It was not that they were not vigilant, it is that they were beat down, and they lost the battle with arms. They were beat in a military fight. And that is how their freedom was lost. Since that time they have been beat by indoctrination, by the idea that you can change all this by vote. In history, freedom has never won over tyranny by a vote.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You are correct, you didn't state any such thing.

The comment was mine.

"Do the children of illegal immigrants automatically become U.S. citizens when born on American soil? Under current
interpretations of American law, the answer is yes. Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, all
persons who are born in the United States become citizens if they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” However,
the exact meaning of that phrase has become controversial with
the rising tide of illegal immigration during the past 20 years.
Some constitutional scholars argue that the intent of the authors
of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was not
to include children born to illegal immigrants; others say that its
legislative history is mixed. The U. S. Supreme Court has never
ruled explicitly on whether the Citizenship Clause applies to
unauthorized immigrants."

http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/Monograph_BirthRig...

good

stuff

It took me years

... to come to this conclusion

Hero worship isn't confined to people we do it to documents as well.

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Not an afterthought...

The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by the Anti-Federalists and that was at the center of the debate on the constitution. A fascinating read is The Debate on The Constitution, a two volume set which I think may be out of print. I forked out about $60 for the set around 20 years ago and it provides invaluable insight on the debate, with ABSOLUTELY no spin. The set strictly contains the actual words on the debate. And, BTW, all the fears the Anti Federalists had have come to fruition.

I recently purchased them and they're great

I've yet to get through Vol 1, and am thoroughly enjoying it. So many new names to add to my list to research. I'm especially enjoying the rebuttals to the Federalists, kinda like trying to get through to a dohbamacRAT.

They're available at Amazon:

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification. 2 Volumes Hardcover by Bernard Bailyn (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Debate-Constitution-Federalist-Antifed...

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

Thank you

so much for that information and link! I was lucky enough to find a used set in new condition at a ridiculously low price! I know I am going to enjoy reading these books.

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

Yup...

Didn't have time to check the comments, but the article
states things pretty well.

Ferdinand Lundberg took a similar view in his 1982 book "Cracks in the Constitution"

From a longish but excellent review:

"Lundberg destroys the romanticism and enthusiasm felt today about the Constitution and the revolt against Great Britain preceding it. He began by reviewing the establishment of state constitutions at the time and the enactment of the Articles of Confederation adopted by the Second Continental Congress November 15, 1777 with final ratification March 1, 1781. None of these events had electoral sanction. "They were strictly coup d'etat affairs, run by small groups of self-styled patriots many of whom bettered their personal economic positions significantly" from the revolution and events before and after it took place. Despite what's commonly taught in schools, most people opposed the Constitution when it was ratified. So by getting it done anyway, the framers (with the conservative Federalists spearheading the effort) went against the will of the people they ignored and disdained."

http://sjlendman.blogspot.jp/2007/08/reviewing-ferdinand-lun...

We often refer to "the framers" and conflate those who supported/initiated the Declaration of Independence with those promoting the Constitution, but they were substantially different people with different agendas and Lundberg goes into this in some depth.

He also deals with the seeming dissonance of the Bill of Rights and the body of the Constitution which occurred because the people proposing the Bill of Rights did not want the Constitution at all - (and hence were not that concerned about how well it was going to work in practice) and those pushing quick ratification accepted the BoR as a necessary concession - but one they figured the centralizing features built into the Constitution would eventually override anyway.

Which seems to be pretty much how it has turned out. Unfortunately for us.

http://www.amazon.com/Cracks-Constitution-Ferdinand-Lundberg...