0 votes

The US CONSTITUTION-BLUEPRINT FOR ONE WORLD NATION

The United States was ONLY a Pact between 13 NATIONS. It set out the terms of how the INDIVIDUAL Nations would interact, it defined the INTERNATIONAL LAW between the States, which were INDIVIDUAL NATIONS.

Then along came the UNLAWFUL US Constitution that in a short period of 80 years OVERTHREW the Sevaral Nations and Created ONE NATION. There is SO MUCH material to Indoctrinate men, women and children to cherish their Constitution, and all opposition to it has been virtually wipe out. Most are not even aware of the Truth of what this document did. And most are not aware that it had near as much OPPOSITION as it had backing.

Most LOVE their ALLEGIANCE to the Constitution, and HATE the UNITED NATIONS.

But the United Nations is doing EXACTLY what the US Constitution did. Bringing all the Nations under a Pact, then later a War will convince all to sign onto a Citizenship under the United Nations, and ALL the Nations will then become One Nation.

World Government is not something new, its not even a idea that started a 100 years ago. It is ageless, and the idea was present 200 years ago too.

Constitutions create Constitutors.

Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt.
Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

Under the ORIGINAL Constitution, NO ONE had a Constitutional Privilege to Vote. The Privilege to Vote has granted by the States, to whomever the Individual State chose to give this Privilege. WELL THIS JUST WASN"T FAIR!!! After all, it is EVERYONES Government right? Shouldn't ALL have a say in the Federal Government? As the Constitution was originally constructed, only the States had a say in the Federal Government. So the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments gave EVERYONE over 18 the Privilege to Vote, or as the Constitution now calls it, the RIGHT to Vote. And upon this participation of all was the Creation of our Democracy, rule by Majority, with ALL having a vote. No longer were the States the only ones partaking in Government. Now we ALL have our influences heard.

This IS JUST as the World Federalist want for the Whole World. To create a World Wide Democracy.

From the World Federalist Website:

"Increasing numbers of people all across the world have some level of influence in how their lives are governed through the means of democracy. Over 50% of the world’s population now have some kind of franchise. Almost 500 million European citizens are eligible to vote for the European Parliament as well as their own national Parliaments.

But no-one has a vote for who represents them at the UN or the WTO.

World federalists believe that citizens should have a right to democratic influence on decisions that affect their lives . International decision-making on such matters as security, trade, environment and migration increasingly affect all of our lives, and we work therefore to promote a variety of proposals for the democratisation of international institutions, leading eventually to a World Parliament."

http://www.worldfed.org/cam_global.htm

Isn't this just AWESOME!!! Now all of you whom love so much to write your Rep's and Senator's to voice your opinion, cast your vote for your favorite Candidate, and by all means possible give your Consent to be governed under Democracy, now you'll be able to do it on a World Wide Scale instead of JUST NATIONALLY!!!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I love these words ...

Prima Materia Imperium - what power! If only every one of us who is a member of We the People could understand that. "I am mad as hell because I AM PRIMA MATERIA IMPERIUM, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

How Republicae has explained the delegation of Sovereign Power and usurpation of that Power makes me feel stronger and I want everybody to get the message. (His reply is a few comments beneath mine.)

We brought the state and federal government into this world and like our moms tell us, we can take them out since they are our creations and can never be greater than us. The time has come and we need to understand the nature of our Sovereign Power and knock the usurpers off their fake mountain top!

Which is what the Middle East is all about

"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy

"The body is but a vessel for the soul,
A puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny.
And lo, the body is not eternal,
For it must feed on the flesh of others,
Lest it return to the dust whence it came.
Therefore the soul deceives and despises."

Before you can take control over a country

you have to make it civilized. Democracy is being pushed for a finalized control. You cannot control barbarians. We are getting close.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

To further the original post

The United States is NOT a Nation, even today, despite that it is recognized as A Nation. The Constitution was a Pact btween 13 Nations, the NAME of that PACT was "United States of America". So the "United States of America" is the NAME of a PACT, not a Nation. The United States of America did not sign the Constitution, the INDIVIDUAL NATIONS 13 singed it. The United States of America COULD NOT sign it as it is not a Nation, nor is it a Nation but instead a group of individual Nations. The United States is a 10 Square mile area that CANNOT become a State (Nation) but was istead conceded by and of the States in accordance with the Constitution to be the Seat of the Government of the Pact.

Originally the United States created a Pact of 13 Nations, EACH FOREIGN to each other, with a Government Seat that was Located on land that was FOREIGN LAND to the Individual States. The Expatriation Act of 1868, passed days before the 14th Amendment was announced ratified:

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in ""FOREIGN STATES"", shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and prop-erty that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circum-stances."

This is to say that if you are outside of the UNITED STATES, the 10 sq mile area called Washington DC of which is the COUNTRY of a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, then you are in a Foreign State. If you are a United States Citizen within the State of Texas, you are in a State that is Foreign to the United States.

The UNITED NATIONS is located in New York City, on International Teriritory ceded by New York. The United Nations is not a signer of the United Nations, obviously it can't be, as the "UNITED NATIONS" is only a Pact between the Nations Several.

The Father of the United Nations? Franklin Roosevelt

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

Indeed, the Constitution was

Indeed, the Constitution was a Compact between the People of the Several State Republics and themselves, not a federal government. I do not consider that 10 square mile district the United States (which is the description of the Plural entities which make up the Compact); the District of Columbia only contains the federal government which was created as an agent of the States united in a reflective union for their benefit through very limited delegated powers specific to certain functionalities. The federal government has no power but that which was delegated to it by the Compact of union between the Several States. The source of all powers is first, without exception, the People as reflected by their respective State Republics therefore, all powers reside within the People and the People alone except that they delegate certain powers to both the States in which they hold their Citizenship and from the agency of the States they delegate certain limited powers to the federal or general government to act on their behalf and for their benefit.

"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine

As Thomas Paine said, time does not alter either the nature or the quality of the principles behind power. Either that power is delegated from a superior source of Sovereignty or it is assumed and therefore usurped. Now, the question of Sovereignty is perhaps one of the most important questions concerning the degree and quality of Liberty within this country. Only a Sovereign Source can delegate power and authority; likewise, only a Subordinate Source can receive those delegated powers and authority to act upon them.

It then becomes quite obvious in the following words within the Declaration of Independence where all Sovereignty emanates: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" Those peculiar words were to declare the independence of the colonies from Britain. Additionally, once the War for American Independence was won, Great Britain recognized each State, by name, as being Sovereign and Independent States. This same phraseology was then used in the Articles of Confederation in the description of the States.

When these same States, by the consent of their Citizens, through Convention ratified the Constitution they did so in the same Sovereign Status as they did when they Declared their Independence to form a Revolutionary government and then formulated a Confederation through Consent and Compact; as the need arose they then entered into a Compact between themselves to form the Sovereign States in Union. They, through Consent, retained the same style throughout every stage of political formation. Each government, both the government of the Several States and the general government of the States or the federal government, were delegated powers and authority derived from the Consent of the People Sovereign.

The facts are well-established and the provision within the Constitution is too explicit to deduct any other opinion except that the States retained their Sovereign Status through the delegated authority and powers of the People through their Consent. So, even after the Ratification of the Constitution, the independent, distinct and sovereign character by which they both formed and ratified that Compact was never divested from the States, or the People. The People are the Prima Materia Imperium from which all Powers and Authority stems within this country and within both the State and the federal governments, it can not originate in either government since they are both ordained and established by the People. Remember, a thing created can never be greater then the one who created it, the act of creation is the superior act.

Each government is the natural extension of the governed since each government, whether State or general, partakes in the character of the source which formed it to act as an Agent on the behalf of those who gave Consent; thereby delegating authority and power to act in their best interests. Since Sovereignty is the source of all delegated powers and authority, the primary benefactor of such power and authority will be the States in which the Sovereign People reside, from there the States, acting as Agents of the People will properly delegate and grant a degree of authority and powers to the general or federal government to act in a limited capacity on behalf of the States united as a political community for the Sole Benefit of their Citizens.

The federal government has no powers or authority that emanates inherently from itself, despite its claim to the contrary, but must rely solely upon the delegation of those powers and that authority from the Sovereignty of the People of the Several States. The federal government is a reflection of the States united through the Voluntary Compact of Union, otherwise known as the Constitution.

The allegiance of the People therefore, will naturally be toward their respective States since it is the Several States that make up the Voluntary Union of States which reflects those States through the usage of Three Distinct and Separate Branches. Each of those Branches is also totally dependent on the Concurrent Consent of the States and the People in their Sovereign Character as each Branch depends on the Delegation of Their Power and Authority to act.

So, the States were Ordained to act through the powers and authority delegated to them by the Sovereign People of each State, in turn the federal government was Ordained by the States to act both on the behalf of the States and in turn the People Sovereign. The government of the United States is not now, nor has it ever been singular, but reflects the Several States by their Concurrent Consent as Ordained and Granted by the People.

The Preamble of the Constitution defines the reasons for the Ordination of the government and those reasons are clearly enumerated as very specific objects: "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." So, it was the Several States, or the People that make up the Several States, that Ordained the government through the Ratification of the Constitution between them; this Act of Concurrent Consent and Ratification did not place the federal government over the States or the People, the Several States, and thus the People only delegated a degree of authority and power to it in order for it to fulfill the specific enumerated objects previously stated.

It is obvious therefore, or at least it should be, that the one to whom authority and power is delegated is not, nor can it be higher then the one delegating that power and authority. The Authority that ordains and establishes must therefore be higher than that which is ordained and established. This should be common sense; unfortunately the assumption of powers not only usurps common sense, but power as well.

The 10th Amendment states clearly that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, by the Compact between the Several States vested a degree of power and authority to the general or federal government. It split this power and authority between Three Branches, distinct in purpose and operations. The 10th Amendment then continues to say that those powers that are not delegated to the federal government and that are not prohibited by it [the Constitution] are reserved to the States or to the People. This is not a limitation upon either the States or the People, but solely upon the federal government of these United States. It is also apparent that there are powers and authority that the People did not delegate to either the States or the federal government, but that are completely retained by them alone.

This is the bar, the measurement of all government action and legislation. There can be no action or legislation that infringes upon the Retained Rights, the Retained Authority and Power of the People. Although Congress and even the State Legislatures tend to present and pass legislation that does not conform to the principle that the People retain these Sovereign Characteristics, the proper and legal measure of all legislation is if that legislation contradicts those Rights Reserved and Retained by the People and the People alone. There are, in additional to those Rights enumerated within the Constitution, Rights, Power and Authority Retained by the People which are not mentioned, not enumerated within the Constitutional Compact.

Additionally, even the Supreme Court of these United States should, by the act of the Sovereign Source of its own delegated powers, always consider the measure of all opinions based not on an allowable degree of Rights due the People, but solely limiting the assumption of powers by the government itself. The Supreme Court only holds the degree of supremacy as it is delegated to it and no more.

Through the Compact between the Several States, the People ordained and established a government of the People, by the People and solely for benefit of the People. This government was formed and intended to operate as a federal, in contradistinction of a national government. In a national government all other Constitutions and governments, such as those of the States would be superceded and absorbed, but that was never the case, nor is it the case even though for decades that has been the primary focus of certain elements within the federal government and both of the ruling political parties. The Several States are the expression of the People's Sovereignty, as is the federal government the expression of the People's Will through the Several States in Union. Each of the Several States, by Concurrent Consent of the People, ratified this Voluntary and Reflective Union but retained all Sovereignty and Power to alter, abolish or, if necessary, to leave that Voluntary Union.

Likewise, the Executive and the Legislative Branches are only allowed a degree of authority and power as it is delegated to them to perform a very specific and narrow set of obligations to the People. Any actions or Legislation beyond those specific and narrow set of obligations and all Three Branches only assume power, or usurp it from the People.

Of course, through the decades the 10th Amendment, like the 9th has been ignored to the point of being effectively neutralized. There are no divided powers, no divided authority, no divided sovereignty; it all rest within the People and is only delegated to the Several States and to the federal government. The Several States and the federal government hold Authority and Power only in Delegated Trust; with that Trust comes all the Responsibility and Duty enumerated within the Compact between the Several States agreed by Concurrent Consent of the People of those Several States.

Since all Power and Authority is either Delegated through legal Consent or Assumed and thereby Usurped illegally, where does that leave us in our opinion of this current government? What respect or loyalty do We legally have to a government who has illegally Assumed and Usurped its Authority and Power from the People of these Several States united?

I declare that there is no respect or loyalty due to a government which has illegally usurped authority and power beyond that which was delegated to it in Trust. It is a rogue government operating beyond the Consent of the People Sovereign.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

And the SAME plan is being

And the SAME plan is being implemented world wide via the Compact between the Nations called the United Nations, a Communist endeavor of FDR's, that while eventually ELIMINATE WORLDWIDE STATE NATIONALITY just as the United States eliminated the Nationality of the Several States.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Added to original

Added to original post.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

I saw that movie.

Bruce Willis wins in the end.

*****

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it. John Adams

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Republicae's picture

haha http://www.1776solution.

haha

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Hey

Get your facts straight...

The U.S. Constitution is a loose federation of independent states or "countries".

It wasn't until much later that the whole thing got turned upside down.

The U.S. Constitution IS the New World Order that is correct.
Why can't it continue to spread and other States such as the states of Mexico join and it go around the world. ?

And everyone live under the original concept of liberty?

WAS a loose Federation of

WAS a loose Federation of independent states or "countries".

A country that has no Citizens is no country. The 14th amendment stole all of the States Citizens and turned them into Federal Citizens. The Expatriation Act was passed only days before the 14th Amendment was announced Ratified, it allow anyone to Expatriate from their State into the newly formed United States Nation. And if you are born from parents whom are Citizens, then you are a Citizen from Birth.

"The U.S. Constitution IS the New World Order that is correct.
Why can't it continue to spread and other States such as the states of Mexico join and it go around the world. ?"

That IS the Plan.

"And everyone live under the original concept of liberty?

The ORIGINAL concept of Liberty was laid down by Moses, and it consisted of having NO King before God, and strict adherance to 10 Laws. The Persons were at FULL Liberty to enjoy anything that did not violate those 10 Laws, or violate any other's Life or Liberty (falls under Love Thy Neighbor).

Our current system is nothing like Moses' system, but instead much closer to Egypt or Rome.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

Obviously, those who

Obviously, those who assisted in writing the Constitution and those who followed would totally disagree with your concept about the Constitution. SO DO I. After nearly 60 years of research and study of the Constitution, I declare that you are absolutely incorrect, so incorrect that your assumptions border the ridiculous. In fact, your mistake can be easily proved by the vast documentation that is available to the contrary, written by men who were completely opposed to the consolidation of the Free and Independent, Sovereign State Republics that make up this Republic. Among those are Jefferson, Madison [Father of the Constitution], Rawle, John Taylor of Caroline, Calhoun. In fact, I could name numerous people who fought the Hamiltonians, those Monarch Nationalist who totally contradict the assumptions you are attempting to make.

In the words of John Taylor of Caroline:

“THAT many eminent and respectable men have ever preferred, and ever will prefer, a consolidated national government to our federal system; that the constitution, under the influence of this predilection, has been erroneously construed; that these constructions are rapidly advancing towards their end, whether it shall be consolidation or disunion; that they will become a source of excessive geographical discord; and that the happiness and prosperity of the United States will be greater under a federal than under a national government, in any form, are the opinions which have suggested the following treatise. If the survey taken of these subjects is not proportioned to their importance, it yet may not be devoid of novelty, nor wholly ineffectual towards attracting more public attention towards a question involving a mass of consequences either very good or very bad.

I shall attempt to ascertain the nature of our form of government, and the existence of a project to alter it. Principles and words are the disciplinarians of construction, but the latter require definitions to come at truth.

The word union is inexplicit. It may imply either a perfect consolidation; or an association for special purposes, reaching only stated objects, and limited by positive restrictions. In order to determine whether the United States meant by the term union, to establish a supreme power or a limited association, we must commence our inquiry at their political birth, and accommodate our arguments with the principles they avowed in proclaiming their political existence…

These are stated in the declaration of independence: "We the representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things, which independent states may of right do." Such is the origin of our liberty, and the foundation of our form of government.

The consolidating project ingeniously leaves unexamined the arguments suggested by this declaration, and commences its lectures at the end of the subject to be considered. If the declaration of independence is not obligatory, our entire political fabric has lost its magna charta, and is without any solid foundation. But if it is the basis of our form of government, it is the true expositor of the principles and terms we have adopted. The word "united" is used in conjunction with the phrase "free and independent states," and this association recognizes compatibility between the sovereignty and the union of the several states.

The regulation of commerce is enumerated among the rights of sovereignty, and this right having been exercised by each state under their first confederation, because it was not surrendered, is an evidence of what was meant by the sovereignty of the states, and a proof that the separate sovereignty of each, and not a consolidated sovereignty of all, was established by the declaration of independence. The same observation applies to the sovereign rights of the states, not surrendered by the existing federal constitution. Take from the states the political character they assumed by the declaration of independence, and they could not have united. To contract, to stipulate, to unite, are among the "acts and things which independent states may of right do." The first confederation or union recognizes the compatibility between the union and the sovereignty of the states.

The existing union adheres to the same idea, professes to establish a more perfect union of states created by the Declaration of Independence, and contains many provisions incapable of being executed except by state sovereignty. It uses the words "United States," taken by the first confederation from the declaration of independence, and transplanted from both these instruments, in which they are associated with positive assertions of the independence and sovereignty of each state; and therefore the last instrument, like the others, recognizes the compatibility between the union and the sovereignty of the several states.

The notion that the "freedom and independence of the states" refers to a consolidation of states admits of a perfect refutation. It would render the language of the declaration of independence ungrammatical, because had this been intended, it ought to have recognized the rights of sovereignty as residing in one consolidated state, and not in several states. It would have rendered the confederation unnecessary; because, had the declaration of independence invested a consolidation of states with a power to do "all acts and things which a free and independent state may of right do," there would not have existed the least reason for delegating powers to a federal Congress.

It would have divested each province or state of the right to make and alter its own constitution and its own laws; and it would have converted the exercise of any sovereign power by a state, subsequently to the declaration of independence, into usurpation. The contemporary construction of the declaration of independence was completely adverse to the idea that it had conferred any sovereign power, whatever, upon a consolidation of states.

Hence a confederation became necessary; and hence the several states exercised, among others, the sovereign powers of raising armies, imposing taxes, and regulating commerce. The language used in the declaration of independence was adopted and explained by the confederation framed in 1777. It is entitled a "perpetual union," its style was "The United States of America," and it declares "each state retains its sovereignty." So far state sovereignty is explicitly recognized, and no idea existed that it had been lost by a union of states. Upon trial, it being discovered that the powers bestowed upon Congress by the first confederation, were insufficient "for their common defense and general welfare," the ends it expresses; another union was framed by the constitution of 1787, rendered more perfect by enlarging federal powers, and repeating the same words of "common defense and general welfare" as its chief ends.

If this phrase was understood, as neither creating a supreme national government, nor extending the powers delegated by the confederation of 1777, it must have been also understood in the same sense when used in the constitution of 1787. It’s meaning is ascertained by the tenth section of the latter instrument. The prohibition is therefore a construction of this phrase, corresponding with the construction it received when used in the confederation of 1777, and uniting both instruments with the public opinion, that neither the word union, nor this specification of its objects, extended delegated powers, created a general government or supremacy, or deprived the states of any attributes of sovereignty except those prohibited.”

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Country: 1a. A nation or

Country: 1a. A nation or state. b. The territory of a nation or state; land. c. The people of a nation or state; populace: The whole country will profit from the new economic reforms. 2. The land of a person's birth or citizenship: Foreign travel is restricted in his country.
American Heritage Dictionary (you'll find nothing to conflict this in the 1828 Webster's)

A Nation must have people to be a Nation, citizens. A Nation with no citizens is no Nation but wilderness. The States were once Nations, with Citizens of their Nations. We are now US Citizens, not citizens of our State. We are RESIDENTS of our States.

resident: 1. One who resides or dwells in a place for some time. A B is now a resident in London. 1828 Webster's

WE are RESIDENTS of our STATES, therefore the States have NO citizens. A citizen of the US is a FORIEGNER in any State and is RESIDING in said State. A US Citizens Nationality is United States of America, a 10 sq mile area CREATED out of the Constitution.

I don't give a damn what a bunch of men said 200 years ago, they are not here now. If they were I'm sure with a little common sense they could see that the Constitution has led us to become ONE Nation. I could care less if Thomas Jefferson wants to CALL it a Republic, when 3/4 can CHANGE the WHOLE damn thing and DICTATE to the other 1/4, its a Democracy. I don't need to have the writings of a bunch that is no longer around to see WHAT IS. You're entire response is WHAT WAS. "What was" is GONE.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

The States are Republics,

The States are Republics, the People of these Republics, prior to the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment, were Citizens, not of the United States, but of their individual State Republics. There was no such thing as a Citizen of the United States prior to the 14th Amendment, therefore, as I said, your assumption that the Constitution originally formed one Nation is incorrect and ignores the vast amount of documentation contrary to such a position. The problem came with the Radical Republican Party of Lincoln and especially the direction of Thaddeus Stevens. It was not the original Constitution, but the distortion of that Constitution that allowed for the Nationalization of the United States [in the capacity of Independent and Sovereign Republics recognized as such by the other nations of the world] were driven into a consolidation. Indeed, if the Constitution had implemented a Consolidated Nation then the Individual State Republics would have had to relinquish their State Constitutions.

Yes, TX…I have read the RED Amendment and just about everything else that you can throw at me. Your premise is that the original Constitution formed a Consolidated Nation when in fact it did not. As stated, it was only until the Secession of the Confederacy that Lincoln helped press this country into such an Un-Constitutional construct.

The District of Columbia was formed in 1790 and is suppose to be a limited federal district separated and, according to everything I have read, isolated in its limited and delegated scope of operations. Of course, the creation is now more powerful than those which created it. The federal government was to be nothing more than a reflective agent of the Sovereign State Republics, they created the federal government.

In my mind, based upon my readings, the Constitution is not a blueprint for a World Government, but a damn good blueprint for a government that could be implemented in this country based on its original purposes. It is certainly better than anything floating around the world, anything before it or after it. Yes, there are some sections of it that definitely need to be amended and even more restrictions placed upon the government it forms, but I know of nothing as well constructed as the original Constitution.

You said you don't give a damn what men wrote over 200 years ago, I would think that would be vital to any argument you construct. Have you read what they wrote? If not then your assumptions are based upon something other than actual information from those who helped form the very document that you now condemn.

Now, the question is what ya gonna do about it? I mean we all bring these trespasses up, these illegal actions of this government, the usurpations of those who are suppose to serve us, the Sovereign People and the Sovereign State Republics which they, the People are Sovereign Constituents.

I mean what do you propose?

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

You two agree and don't even

You two agree and don't even know it yet.

I think we already know it

I think we already know it but just enjoy an arguement ;).

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

I love the argument...there

I love the argument...there are so few who have a background in history that when someone comes around you have to bat the ball against each other for a little joy.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

LOL!!!

"your assumption that the Constitution originally formed one Nation"

If you bothered to read my original Post, it clearly states IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, "The United States was ONLY a Pact between 13 NATIONS." I NEVER asserted that the Constitution ORIGINALLY formed one Nation. In fact, that the Constitution DID NOT originally form one IS THE BASE OF MY ARGUEMENT. Just as the United Nations, CURRENTLY, is not a Nation but instead a Pact between Nations. Just as the Constitution was, ORIGINALLY.

Lincoln "persuaded" the Southern States into Secession.
"it was only until the Secession of the Confederacy that Lincoln helped press this country into such an Un-Constitutional construct."

And the SAME thing can happen to the current Pact called the United Nations.

The 14th Amendment was passed BY FORCE, only because it would not pass De Jure. LOOK AROUND THE WORLD. The Nations that are chosing NOT to abide by the United Nations are having Military Governments installed in their place, just as the Reconstruction Act did under the Constitution. And it won't be long till the Citizens of the Nations become the Citizens of the Nation under some Crisis, just as the 14th did. "The elimination of Patriotism and Nationalities." Who's idea was that?

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

If that is the case then we

If that is the case then we are closer to agreement than my first impression gave me. Thanks for the clarification.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

And would you not ALSO agree

And would you not ALSO agree that the Constitution was unlawfully passed, putting aside you likes or dislikes of the Constitution, but in terms of the Law in Effect at the passing of the Constitution. That one cannnot write into the NEW LAW that 9 of 13 shall be sufficient to pass, when the Law in Effect required 13 of 13 to pass? And that the "Framers" had not Authority to write a new Constitution, but only the Authority to Amend the Articles? And that as result, in terms of the Law, the Constitution was Unlawful, just as the 14th is Unlawful?

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

No, I would say that the

No, I would say that the original mandate of the States for their representatives to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation were vastly expanded upon. However, if you look at those deficiencies and compare them to the subsequent Constitution then they were addressed in the later document. There was nothing binding about the ratification process because both North Carolina and Rhode Island remained outside the new Constitution for nearly two years and many of the other States clearly stated in their Articles of Ratification that they retained all their former Rights prior to acceding to the Constitutional agreement. This also was later made clear in both the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Had we remained under the Articles of Confederation, with its deficiencies, then there would probably not be a country called the United States today. The French would have continued to own the Territory of Louisiana, the British would have probably won the War of 1812, the Spanish would have pressed their claims and there would have been little the Congress could have done to prevent it under the Articles. As it was, there was already talk of Secession from the Articles of Confederation, particularly by the New England States.

Would I have like to have seen more restrictions on the federal government in the Constitution, absolutely, but overall, it is a superb work of brilliance and if we could restore it to its proper role then we would have a chance to survive as a country. I however am a firm Secessionist and believe that we will see the break up of this country, perhaps much sooner than any of us think.

Indeed, it was an accepted Constitutional doctrine that each State had the Right to Secede as it had the Right to Accede because it was a voluntary compact between the States and themselves. There was no agreement between the States and a federal government because up to that point there was no real federal government. It was an act of joining a FEDERATION. A Federation is of course, a group of Independent and Sovereign States joined in a reflective union, but nothing more. Madison also referred to this union as a Confederation.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

"No, I would say that the

"No, I would say that the original mandate of the States for their representatives to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation were vastly expanded upon."

And this is EXACTLY what we suffer from today. The Lack of Rupublicanism, RESPECT for the Law. The Patriot Act is a "Vast Expansion" of the General Welfare Clause, as is Social Security, and, as you well know, a plethora of other "Services" and programs we have today.

Congress under the Articles gave Authority to AMEND the Articles, a VAST EXPANSION upon that Authority is nothing short of DISRESPECT OF THE LAW, and it FAILS MISERABLY to uphold the Principle of a Republic.

Your ENTIRE response reflects your BIAS of favor of the Constitution, when my question is on the BASIS OF THE LAW THAT WAS IN EFFECT. Your response is full of "what might have happened", which is well documented in History. And further had the PATRIOT ACT not been PASSED we MAY have already have been wiped out by the Rag Tag Arabs. Had Lincoln NOT attacked the Southern States the Little Green Men from Atlantis may have EATEN us all up by now. Had the signers of the Constitution been told to WALK THE PLANK for their failure to Adhere to the Principles of a Republic we may not have the National Government we currently have in place of the Several Republics. It is the FEAR of WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED that justifies you willingness to turn a blind eye to the Founders FAILURE to follow the Rule of the Law.

And yet, we kicked the MOST POWERFUL NATION in the World out of this land under the Articles of Confederation, under the Natural Law, under the Rule of God.

The Articles of Confederation were not a failure for the Common Man, they were a failure for the Men that owned debts to the King who suddenly became themselves Common Men under the Articles that afforded them no Special Privilege such as they were accustom to under England. The Articles made it near impossible to acquire any privilege, but a Stronger Central Government could provide such. And so they created one, for "We" "the people".

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

If you read anything that

If you read anything that was going on during that period you would find that those deficiencies were extremely serious. Most of the State Legislatures and many people thought the Articles were a complete failure.

“If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the treaty of peace and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people being disgusted with the circumstances will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate & prevent disastrous contingencies would be the part of wisdom & patriotism.

What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing! I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable & tremendous! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal & fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend.” George Washington 1786

There were some major problems with the Articles, so much so that some feared not only the break up of the new country, but even a break out of hostilities between some of the States. The Articles were almost impossible to amend. There were disagreements over State boundary lines, smaller States were rightly concerned over equal representation in Congress, which was never addressed in the Articles. There was huge disagreements over who controlled the Western Territories and many wanted the government to sale those lands so that all the States could benefit, but alas under the Articles there was no way to do that, so the disagreements deepened. The States that bordered these territories wanted to control as much of the land as they possibly could because they wanted to profit from the resources and the sell of those lands. Under the Articles no State could be deprived of any territory for the benefit of the country and all States, as you said, had to agree to any amendment of the Articles, which was a completely unworkable system since there was so much disagreement between various States, nothing would have ever been solved. It was, in essence, a monkey-puzzle tree with no hope of success.

Under the Articles, Congress, the sum of the government, was made up of delegates chosen by the State legislatures however, every measure taken by Congress could only be approved if agreed upon by 9 of the 13 States. The Articles also had some very peculiar sections within it, such as not providing for paupers and vagabonds any privileges or immunities as free citizens of the several States. They were basically considered the same as fugitives, nothing more or less. That is hardly reflective of Republicanism, do you think?

Congress was also very limited, it had absolutely no control over any foreign commerce, it could pass laws but there was no enforcement mechanism. When Congress did seek to make changes it was completely at the mercy of the several States and dependent on their willingness to comply with those acts passed by the very delegates the States sent to Congress, it was an exercise in futility. The Articles were basically worthless in execution and did little to protect anyone, including individuals. In other words it was an utter mess, a fubar of this highest order and everyone knew it. Washington stated that the Articles were “little more than the shadow without the substance”, he was absolutely correct. Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were completely feckless in application and execution.

As time passed, it became apparent to most people that it was unworkable. Congress had no respect as to its powers as delegated to it by the Articles, there was absolutely no support given to Congress by the States. Congress, was in effect, a non-entity that could not even enforce the very Articles it was created to enforce. It could not raise any funds, even though the States had agreed to pay the debt from the Revolution, it could not regulate any trade, conduct any foreign policy. Most times the delegates to Congress wouldn’t even appear for sessions.

In November, 1783, for instance, the final version of the Treaty of Paris was sent to Congress, yet for months they could not raise a quorum to ratify the treaty. Many compared Congress under the Articles as a sick man waiting to die. After years of such frustrating delays, a committee was appointed to address the massive and potentially dangerous problems that had been revealed under the Articles of Confederation. Congress pled with the States to fulfill their agreement to contribute to paying the debt of the Revolution, by the middle part of 1786, the Board of Treasury sent a desperate report of the state of finances and stated that nothing would be able to save the country from impending bankruptcy and from that point there would be nothing to preserve the union from dissolution.

I could go on and on and on about what happened, the numerous problems, not just minor problems but problems that could have easily broken up the newly formed Confederation. At this point however, I am ready for bed…and will continue tomorrow night.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

You do understand I'm not

You do understand I'm not arguing whether the Constituion was an IMPROVEMENT, but that it was Unlawfully passed?

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Republicae's picture

I understand that

I understand that completely. I also believe that at this point, since it was an improvement that your argument is a moot point. The question is what to do now?

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

It is moot is some ways, it

It is moot is some ways, it is relevent in other ways, depending on what is being considered. That aside, I'll make a post at the top to continue the arguement of THE Original Post, this one's getting to skinny...
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

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

Am I right in saying that, in essense, the original Constitution

has been held in abeyance because of the illegal acts of Lincoln and should now be restored to its original construct? I hope so, because the original intent of the Constitution sounds like an all around better deal for the "little guy"!

Republicae's picture

Did you know that Lincoln

Did you know that Lincoln appointed numerous Marxists into high Military positions in the Union Army, some later became members of other Administrations.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

"If I want to be free from any other man's dictation, I must understand that I can have no other man under my control." ~William G. Sumner

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

I did not know that, but I

I did not know that, but I am not surprised at all.

Speech of James Wilson was

Speech of James Wilson was printed in the Pennsylvania Packet on October 10, 1787, and it was soon reprinted throughout the states, receiving more coverage than the more detailed arguments made in The Federalist.

*last paragraph*

After all, my fellow-citizens, it is neither extraordinary or unexpected that the constitution offered to your consideration should meet with opposition. It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good, and I do not mean to make any personal reflection when I add that it is the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late convention. All the officers of government and all the appointments for the administration of justice and the collection of the public revenue which are transferred from the individual to the aggregate sovereignty of the States, will necessarily turn the stream of influence and emolument into a new channel. Every person, therefore, who enjoys or expects to enjoy a place of profit under the present establishment, will object to the proposed innovation; not, in truth, because it is injurious to the liberties of his country, but because it affects his schemes of wealth and consequence. I will confess, indeed, that I am not a blind admirer of this plan of government, and that there are some parts of it which, if my wish had prevailed, would certainly have been altered. But when I reflect how widely men differ in their opinions, and that every man (and the observation applies likewise to every State) has an equal pretension to assert his own, I am satisfied that anything nearer to perfection could not have been accomplished. If there are errors, it should be remembered that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may at any time introduce alterations and amendments. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.

--------
"Today government goes roaming at will upon a boundless sea without chart or compass, seeking power wherever it can find it, with little reference to the limitations of the Constitution." - Franklin Pierce

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16