0 votes

Individual liberty and the constitution cannot coexist.

The Federal constitution grant enormous power to the federal government, including the authority to decide the outcome of any conflict it is involved with.

The State constitutions grant total power to the state legislature and reserve just a few "rights" to the individual.

Achieving individual liberty is as simple as 1,2,3:

1)Constitutionally restrict the power of EVERY government that occupies OUR continent. (no we don't have that now)
-Divest them of the power to initiate nonconsensual harm.
-Divest them of the power to regulate our contracts.
-Divest them of the power to license our work.
-Divest them of the power to grant blanket limited liability status.
-Divest them of the power to tax.
-Divest them of the power to conscript.
-Essentially, limit them to managing certain infrastructure.

2) Have an truly INDEPENDENT judiciary.(no we don't have that now)

-Where all parties have EQUAL standing.
-A true grand jury
-A true independent magistrate handle proceedings
-A true disinterested jury our peers

3) Make certain the individual has an absolute right to have with them armaments equal to any prevailing military force and to use them against any initiator of nonconsensual harm...regardless of who they are.(no we don't have that now)

To achieve meaningful legal reform...individual liberty, we must start by altering the source documents. Otherwise we will always be at the mercy of the latest tyrant, always hoping we will have merciful and benevolent rulers.

Lets stop the cycle.

Comment viewing options

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

Your post will be downvoted

Your post will be downvoted by Constitution worshipers too blind to see the forest through all the trees.

Almost any libertarian can tell you the more concentrated power is, the less freedom the people will have. When you then point out to them our constitution created the greatest power concentration in our nations history and therefor is diametrically opposed to furthering individual liberty, their heads almost explode at their inability to reconcile their contradictory beliefs.

Lysander Spooner said it best:

"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."

Even Ron Paul knows this deep down, just read my signature line below.

"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

Ah yes, a downvote for me

Ah yes, a downvote for me already from a blind constitution worshiper unable to reconcile even the most basic tenets of liberty to reality, but it's easy to just push a button with no comment. Typical.

I believe in the concept of liberty, but because of garbage like this I don't have much hope in reality because even most self-proclaimed "libertarians" truly don't understand the mechanisms and concepts and how they relate to each other.

Sad, but not surprising. That's why humans will always be stuck in the neverending liberty/tyranny cycle forever.

"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

ahh well

basic civics escapes most.
The people in their sovereign capacity created many governments by way of constitutions.
those governments are harming us.
the people in their sovereign capacity can divest those governments of power by way of constitutions.

I was not the downvote, but I will say this...

You would be enslaved right now with or without the constitutions existence. We are enslaved only by our ignorance of law. All of our founding fathers were all lawyers, you think that is just happenstance? Harvard was over 100 years old when the Revolutionary War began, and more law books were sold to Americans than the Brits. The colonists could use law to talk themselves out of any court case and this was all before America was founded.

We can sit here and blame a piece of paper that has lost it's power, by our ignorance, or we can learn what our founders knew and stop the government from violating our rights.

Whichever you choose to do, you will have only yourself to blame from this point on. The power to be free has been lost to this nation for almost 150 years. This power still exists and just goes unused. This whole thing about government doing ANYTHING corrupt again will cease almost immediately, when we get our courts back to being honorable again.

Join us at Nationallibertyalliance.org and lets being back the nation that leaves the people alone.

Lawyers only derive their

Lawyers only derive their power from the monopoly on force from the governments they create. It's all just one big criminal gang as are all governments. Government isn't the answer, it's the problem and the only viable answer is to rid ourselves of government completely. Everything else is tyranny. Saying you're going to fix the monster from within is a childishly naive. You don't tame monsters, you kill them.

"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

Its not a viable solution

says the founder of the theory himself.

There is no single founder of the theory.

Unless your going back 600 years.

It also helps to know the order of power

It also helps to know the order of power

The People
|
The States w/ State Constitutions
|
The Federal Constitution
|
United States of America
|
14th Amendment Citizens

Citizens have no rights, as stated in the 14th Amendment, they only have privileges, and the bill of rights does not apply to you.

This is why it is so critical that people stop saying "You can't do this, I am a citizen of the United States of America!!" Because if they couldn't before, they sure can now, you just admitted to being UNDER their jurisdiction.

Maybe so

go win some cases and tell us how it goes.

define win...

Do I win? Yes
Do I get them to pay damages? No

The legal system recognizes your orders

as legitimate.

Individual liberty and the constitution DO work side by side

It is proven over and over again, that in Legal English(court room English), a people and a citizen are two different things. The fault is not with the documents, the fault lies with us.

I'm sure you were taught about the 3 branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial a means to be checks and balances in power. This statement is half correct, as they are only the balances, the checks are "We The People", and we have lost our knowledge on how to keep our servants in line.

There is no use altering documents they will not follow, and we will not enforce

What your missing is the individual today DOES have absolute rights, but your not an individual, your a citizen. Citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of government, people are not.

I don't think so, but

I think you can test the efficacy of your theory anytime you wish by violating a statute and then litigating using your theory. Try not paying a federal tax and argue you are not a 14th amendment citizen-I've read a dozen decisions where that tactic has been tried and the state citizen was excoriated for his lack of understanding basic civics.

There are a lot of PAYtriot legal theories out there. The RED AMENDMENT is a book that goes into the detail of this particular theory.

Now, this is tricky because the Red amendment does talk about the concept of jurisdiction- however the author believes the 14th amendment is the nexus that grants legislative jurisdiction to congress over the people of the states.

I agree with the author's sentiment in that I believe that Congress's legislative jurisdiction is limited
BUT I believe the history of congress' ever expansive legislative jurisdiction over the people of the states is not through the 14th amendment but through different judicial decisions where its art1 sec 8 powers have been interpreted broadly. Most notably through the commerce clause.
-------------------

What is the legal process to keep "our servants" "in line"?

All I can tell you is go study.

You should be through the majority of the material in about a month

Statutes, Code, Rules do not apply to the People. They apply to citizens. If a judge tries to issue an order, file a writ of error, vacating his decision, and go in again. If he tries to do it again, fine him in contempt of court.

When he becomes unreasonable, sue him in federal court. Learn the rules of court, be polite, and don't speak in court. All actions taken on paper.

Nationallibertyalliance.org

The constitution has no power over the people, no matter how they define it. Period.

you keep saying the constitution has no power over the people

the constitution created a government. that government exercises power over the people through legislation.

And I am familiar with your legal theories. I'm sad to say that no one I have talked to that uses them wins, and no court has validated the theories.

however, you may be the first; so, if you would be so kind as to post the identifying information for the cases you have won, then I will look them up on pacer and and study them.

Once I verify the info, i will help you spread the truth far and wide.

I have already said where to go to study...

There is over a years worth of information available.(study time)

The reason I gave the power chart above is the proof. Who has the power to create law? Who has the authority? Government does not, they can only make statues and codes...

Only the people have the authority to create law. It is far too much information to tell you everything myself, but ill give you a shortened run down.

The Constitution did not create the government.

From the preamble to the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution did not create the USA, the people created USA and the Constitution to place limits on the USA.

What does ordain mean?

ORDAIN. To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ordain

The people create law. The government does not have power over ANY people through legislation, not in a court of law.

ALL MEN DECIDE whether they want to participate in the institutions of men or not. The United States Supreme Court confirmed this when they said: “...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” (Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May term, 1796)

The reason people do not win, is because they do not fully study how to create a court. All I have said here is theory but this is why people lose, they do not know law, they simply hear theory and don't understand how to use it properly. The easiest way to explain it is: THEY'RE IN THE WRONG COURT!

They lose because they fight in the governments court, which are ALL courts of equity, and when you are in their court, they have jurisdiction over you. You MUST pull them into YOUR court, a Court of Record, which is what our courts are SUPPOSED to be. Check your state law, it just may surprise you:

http://www.obstacledelusions.com/courts_of_record.htm

As an example, here is Californias law:

California Constitution Article 6, Section 1
SEC. 1. The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.

So what IS a court of record?

To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth, they are:

A) A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

This right here is the BIGGEST clue your in the wrong court, a Magistrate or "judge" cannot make decisions in a court of record!!!

B) Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

If you are not in a common law court, your in the wrong court!!

C) Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D) Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E) (Optional)Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

How many courts in California, have judges making decisions? If you have ever been to one, then you can see right their they have violated the law. You should ALWAYS open a 2nd court on TOP of their court, as they are acting under equity an "inferior court" compared to a common law court a "superior court".(see below)

Under the constitutional revision of 1863, the district, county and probate courts were also courts of record. [Caulfield v. Stevens, 28 Cal. 118].

COURT OF RECORD - Conclusion, from the definitions below, that a court of record is a court which must meet the following criteria:
1) Generally has a seal
2) Power to fine or imprison for contempt
3) Keeps a record of the proceedings
4) Proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
5) The tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

A COURT OF RECORD IS A "SUPERIOR COURT." A COURT NOT OF RECORD IS AN "INFERIOR COURT."
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law. Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.

Remember, in order to be a Court of Record, you must be under common law jurisdiction!

COURTS OF RECORD(under common law) and COURTS NOT OF RECORD(under equity, admiralty, statutory) - The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231].

Look what it also says here, they have "no power to fine or imprison" If they do so, it is kidnapping(among other things), and you can sue them in a federal court.

The main thing to remember is, they lose because they do not challenge jurisdiction. They fight it in equity court, and the judge overrules them. They need to bring in a higher court, a common law court, right there on TOP of the equity court. Then guess who outranks them....

There is FAR more information, but this is a very basic summary...

There are plenty of cases that have been won, using this method, if you define winning as, winning the case, and not as being compensated for your trouble and grief.

Go here and listen to ALL of these, especially Bill Thortons work(all the "track" files), and you will begin to understand.
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/common-law

I studied Bill Thornton for years.

1215.org Bill thornton pioneered this legal theory over a decade ago. I have his dvd courses right here on my book shelf. He acts as the sovereign and enters his own decisions...and guess what-
Last I heard from Bill, he was distraught because the legal system was not going along with his ideas-He and his study group were getting steam rolled by the "magistrate" over and over again, and none of his appeals were getting traction.
Call him and ask. He was honest about when I talked to him. "No one even at the top recognizes this work..." Speaking about the judicial council of california.

***But If you're the one guy that's kicking tail, go ahead and send me the identifying case information and I'll look them up and study your cases.
Once verified that you've got it figured out, I will invest serious time and attention to spreading the word!

****Bill shared his actual cases, knowing that he had gotten steam rolled.

Also, can you link me the complete Cruden v. Neale
2 NC 338, 2 SE 70 - 1796 case you have because I cannot verify the dicta you are quoting and different PAYtriot websites are quoting it differently.
It makes me think its a bogus quote.

I have given you the link twice

You just haven't done the research. Bills research isn't close to all that is on the site I linked. Have you even gone to the site I have now linked twice? What exactly do you think it is we are doing?

Bill himself said until the courts are restored, he will only win some and lose some, and it would be easier if the courts worked the way they were supposed to, instead of having to uphill battle every case.

Take a look again at what we are doing.

Every single federal judge in America was indicted last week, including a few appellate courts, and a few supreme courts. If you think we are playing around, or learning this for our own selfish kicks your mistaken.

We are doing as thousands, what Bill couldn't do as one. We are returning justice to the courts. You want to be free? Learn to fight for it, otherwise, stop complaining about being screwed over by the system. Get the system that was setup for us, one that had been working a LONG time before the colonists even arrived, to work for you.

You no longer have the ability to claim ignorance. This is what Spooner never even realized. He, like us, was raised in ignorance to how law works outside our own country. In fact, most state constitutions still say they use the "law of England", which since the magna carta had been common law.

We take this country back through grace and mercy, or we let civil war claim this land, and possibly watch the nations descend on us when were already down.

You think your a slave now to a system you find unfair and unjust, just wait...

I wish you well in your pursuit

And I hope you prevail. the shortest distance to individual liberty the better.
You said "...was indicted..."
-By who? this could be big news.
----------------------------
Yes, I've been to the website and there is nothing legally compelling on the site or a chain of legality that substantiates its claims.
Just passion filled writing.

"The People’s US Constitution Article VI, Clause 2, known as the “Supremacy Clause” denies the ability of the servant to act as master"
-Never heard of that before. How does the supremacy clause get twisted into that?

"The People’s US Constitution Article IV, section 4 guarantees a “Republican” form of government not a democracy,"
-True, who asserts that anyways and what does it have to do with common law?

"the un-codified common law is the superior law of the people and the codified civil law is the special or inferior law of the government and its agency"
-nothing cited to substantiate this claim

"Therefore the law and the will of the people outranks the law of the government and access to the common law is guaranteed and protected in law by the U.S. Constitution."
-Nothing to substantiate that claim either.

----------------------------
can you post a link to the case you cited: Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May term, 1796

I cannot verify that line from the case. Have you studied the entire case yourself? I think it could be a bogus citation.

I really appreciate everyone's input and have enjoyed your

feedback. Let's keep it going and drill down on this.

Your supposition is

Your supposition is debatable, however the absence of widely accepted laws and a way to enforce said laws guarantees a lack of individual rights. The Constitution is a collection of laws that restrain government, but also guarantee the protection of individual rights. Minus this protection, it is "prison rules", winner take all, Mad Max scenarios everywhere.

Almost

"Your supposition is debatable..."
-Alright, I'm here. Its basic civics. Let's debate it.

"...however the absence of widely accepted laws and a way to enforce said laws guarantees a lack of individual rights."
-Yes. Agreed.

"The Constitution is a collection of laws that restrain government"
-The constitution established the federal government and granted it powers. Specifically, art 1 sec 8 grants the government certain powers while art 1 sec 9 and the ten amendments restrict how those powers may be used. In addition, the federal government by art 4 is granted the authority to decide any conflict involving itself.
-The state constitutions are grants of power to establish state governments. And while their formats vary, the state legislature is granted TOTAL law making power, and very few "rights" are reserved for the individual.

Let's restrict the power of the lawmaker so they cannot harm the individual. The framers did it to a degree with article 1 section 9 and the ten amendments...

If the government actually stayed within it's bounds...

...or even 95% of it, things would not be nearly this bad.

Is the Constitution a perfect document? No. Are there things that could be changed for the better? Absolutely. But the constitution is more of a check against the government itself than a dictatorial or restrictive document against the people.

All that "constitutionally restrict every government" and "OUR continent" talk just sounds way too similar to the globalists plan for a world governing body, starting with continental governing bodies like the E.U., and the planned N. American Union.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

If ifs and buts were candies

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. If people just followed the law, there would be no crime! LOL

The Constitution does nothing more than grant a ruling criminal class massive power. If you don't get that, you just don't understand the basic inverse relationship that the more you centralize power, the less individual liberty you will have. That's a fact as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

Stop blinding worshiping a piece of paper because you have been tricked into thinking it protects you when it fact it enslaves you.

"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

lets hash it out:

"If it stayed within its bounds..."
-According to the federal government,it has! and why does the federal government get to decide? Because the Constitution says so.

"But the constitution is more of a check against the government"
-The constitution established the federal government and granted it powers. Art 1 sec 8 grants the government 17 (or so) specific powers while art 1 sec 9 and the ten amendments restrict how those powers may be used...however article 4 grants the beast to decide any controversy involving itself and another party...all it had to do was interpret its powers broadly and its restrictions narrowly and viola, our current situation.

"...just sounds way too similar to the globalists plan for a world governing body"
-WHAT? how does wanting to divest the state and federal governments of the power to affect individual liberty equal global government to you? You've got to explain yourself on that one.

I am 100% certain now, that they can and do coexist.

Constitutions do not apply to us, PERIOD. They exist to keep check against government. They MUST exist if we keep it going, and we must keep it going. I see that now.

They are being abused because of our ignorance.

Individual liberty cannot exist without justice. Justice cannot exist without law, and without the republic there is no enforcement of law.

Common law IS anarchy, and it requires justice to perform the necessary functions needed in an anarchical society.

I am far more educated than I was back when I used to fight anarchy vs minarchy arguments on this site.

All federal county judges are being indicted today, among others. This is a HUGE step in restoring justice, and having people leave us alone. I would invite everyone to join us.

great...prove it up

"...that they can and do coexist."
-Only if the legislature allows it.

"They exist to keep check against government."
-The federal and state constitutions were written to establish and grant powers to the federal and state governments.
-They granted incredible amounts of power to those governments and those governments have used that power to strip away individual liberty.
-I can't think of another way to protect individual liberty from the fascists & socialists that seek the enormous power the government has been granted.

"They are being abused because of our ignorance."
-Yes. In that we, being ignorant, have kept advocating for benevolent lawmakers hoping they will make wise policies that benefit society-Instead of divesting them of the power to harm us. We granted them power via constitution, we can divest them of power via constitution.
-What other legal mechanism is there to protect individual liberty from fascist/socialist lawmakers?

"All federal county judges are being indicted today, among others."
-???What are federal county judges? And who is indicting them today?

It's more basic than that.

There's no fundamental incompatibility between constitutions and liberty.

There ARE fundamental incompatibilities with the concepts of "legislative power" and "executive power" and liberty.

The only power consistent with liberty, heck, the only one that really exists, is the judicial power and even that might be argued by some.

Our Declaration of Independence makes it clear that there is ONLY ONE legitimate purpose of government—to secure the inalienable rights of the People.

This document also makes it clear that ALL power of government is delegated by the People.

The question is begged then, where does the legislative power come from?

If individuals do not have the authority under Natural or Common Law to proscribe rules for others, where does the delegation of power come from that is given to a legislature?

Mind you, no legislature is needed for the Common Law to operate. Many would argue the two are incompatible, at least in practice, if not fundamentally.

Abolish the Executive and Legislative powers and their respective offices, and instead focus on the Judicial power of "securing the inalienable rights of the People" and you'll see Liberty flourish.

This does not mean you can't have a Congress, or a Commander in Chief of a Navy or the Army when it is raised, or a Head of State to facilitate treaty negotiation. It means they won't have any power to pass laws. They would become what they were originally intended to become - a body of representatives deliberating and managing the COMMON affairs of the several States. You don't need legislative power to manage common affairs.

Wow I agree. Someone of a like mind! These responses are to

keep the conversation going and clarify my piece.

"incompatibility between constitutions and liberty."
I didn't mean constitutions generally, I meant the current federal and state constitutions specifically. A constitution drafted with implementing the ideas you suggest would absolutely be compatible with liberty.

"...where does the legislative power come from?"
-Military Dominance Over Society. The power to initiate non-consensual harm with legal immunity comes from achieving rule making/military dominance over society. Obey or we will put you in a cage, resist and we will put you in the ground. It is not a delegated authority and it doesn't come from consent. Raw brute force.

"Our Declaration of Independence..."
-A beautiful piece of writing and rhetoric that is very sound in its principles. Its too bad those ideas were not written into the constitutions by the people when they established their shiny new governments.

"...Common law..."
-Nicely put and absolutely agree.

"Judicial power of "securing the inalienable rights of the People"
-Yes!

"military dominance over society" - which means we live under

martial law.

It's painful for people to accept, but they were BORN into it.

The U.S. is probably the only 'successful' military state in history because it is very good at fooling the people into thinking they are free. Rome was successful for a time for the same reasons. History will decide if we out last their tenure.