0 votes

"We are NOT a Democracy, dammit, we are a constitutional Republic!"

"We are NOT a Democracy, we are a constitutional Republic!"

Is that so? How can you have a constitutional system with two federal agencies, the BATFE and the Office of Homeland Security, that are set up to systematically violate the Second and Fourth Amendments, respectively? 'Faith-based initiatives' that are set up to violate the constitutional command 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion'? Presidents who abuse executive orders, use 'presidential signing statements' to ignore limitations on their authority, and routinely start wars with no Congressional oversight?

Now let's look at the 'republic' part. The primary dictionary definition of 'republic follows:

re⋅pub⋅lic   /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ [ri-puhb-lik]
–noun

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Does that sound like what we have now?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Hmm, that's odd.

I've been looking around and all I see is a fascist semi-dictatorship. Silly me.

/sarcasm

Its amazing

how many people do not know this.

My Blog

My Blog

REPUBLIC

IF you can keep it..
you-no

One Person / One Vote

That is the only law.

Who is dammit?

Wasn't that Bill Cosby's brother?

Sorry, just a bit giddy. Get it right people...the form of government established for this country by the constitution is a representative republic. Why? because we are not a democracy. Your rights cannot be had by ANYONE, even if you are a minority of one. Now, go fight for it.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

2bfree wrote: If you have to

2bfree wrote:

If you have to constantly fight those you supposedly elect maintain any liberties at all, it IS worthless. Why bother? As long as they have the absolute powers of taxation and the powers to make all the laws, It won't function and it

You keep missing the point. The constitution did not give absolute power to tax or make all the laws. It was a law restricting the general government from messing with the peoples liberty. They took those powers without authority gradually over time and the people did not rise up and depose them as Thomas Jefferson recommended we do. Freeman have had to fight those who assume undelegated power since the beginning of time constitution or no constitution.

If we do away with the constitution we will not be free, we will still have to fight the same scum who aspire to rule others for our freedom. The document was simply an illustration and warning not to mess with our rights and a compact for mutual defense. It is not inherently bad. It did not cause our current problems. It has some flaws that can be fixed But to blame the document for our current problems is misplaced blame.

Our lack of vigilance is what has caused are current problems.

-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

No, It's you who keeps missing the point.

And you cut off the "never will" part of my post. Article 1 Section 2, begins to to tell how the taxation is laid out. Representatives and DIRECT TAXES shall be apportioned among the several States. Which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Numbers of free Persons, including those bound to service for a Term of Years, excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons) blah, blah, blah. Now here is the centralized group powers... Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have the Power to Lay and collect Taxes ( notice it mentions TAXES first )Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; WELL, THERE YOU HAVE IT. They mentioned taxation right under the preamble! WOW, TAXATION in a FREE COUNTRY? A FORCED THING IN A FREE COUNTRY? It might as well have been the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. Now in section 8, I don't recall it saying that everyone in the USA could lay taxation. It said CONgress. Only they have the POWER to TAX. How much ABSOLUTE POWER CAN YOU GIVE ONE GROUP? AND YOU THINK THEY WILL OBEY THE RULES? So, you say they don't have the power to make all the Laws? That's not what the CONstitution says.... The last paragraph of Section 8 says... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS. NOW PLEASE TELL ME, HOW IT RESTRICTS THEM? It doesn't. It never has. Right there, they have the absolute power of taxation and law making. Keep denying what is in front of your face.

Re: No, it's you..........

1) 2bfree are you aware that there are sections of the constitution that are deemed null & void?

That is the sections written in italics, i.e. "which shall be determined by adding to the whole Numbers of free Persons, including those bound to service for a Term of Years, excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

2) It is illegal for the house to just make and pass any laws they want to. All laws made must be considered constitutional otherwise those laws are also -supposed to be- deemed null & void.

The problem here is who declares "what is and what is not" constitutional. I know things don't always work this way, because they constantly redefine the language to work it the way they want it, but at least that's how things are supposed to work.

The whole constitution is null

and void, not just parts of it! They only use it to keep the illusion going. They have a plan B. It's called the CONstitution. We have UCC court systems in this country! UCC is the law of COMMERCE. The UCC doesn't recognize the CONstitution or constitutional liberties! It's a commercial court! and so is the SUPREME COURT. It's maritime law, commercial law. Military rule. We have been under this rule since 1913. They make you commerce from birth by the capitalization of all the letters of your name. The start this on the BC, DL, SScard. All capital letters signify the corporation.Wahlaa you are now COMMERCE to be extorted from in this system. Italics? GOOD GREIF, It allowed for taxation! ARE YOU DISPUTING THAT? It doesn't matter which part you deem null and void, because that's not the point. The point IS it gave ceneralized powers of TAXATION to the few over the many and people are whining and wondering why they don't obey!!! Obey what? A document that was structured on taxation? a system of FORCE from the very begining? What part do you not understand here? TAXATION IS A FORCED SYSTEM and once placed inside the constitution you ceased to be free! It's a system that gave them the power to create all the laws, and you expect them to obey a piece of paper? They knew they had us from day one. That's why it was never given to the colonists to vote. Even if they would have been able to vote, slaves, women and non-property owning men ( common man ) would have been excluded! The rest of the colonists would have probably shot the founders, once they figured out the deception! Do you realize the fallacy of your statement # 2? "It is illegal for the house to just make any laws they want to." THEY"RE THE LAWMAKERS DOUG, who's gonna to go after them when they don't do what there supposed to? HMMM? WHO? They made standing armies, they have air force, weapons, everything via TAXATION. They own everything Doug. They create the laws! not us. Why would anyone want to enforce a system that FORCES taxation apon them and absolute rule over them? Why would you? Was it because they told you in the schools they own and run, that you were free and the constitution and the bill of rights restrains them and ensures your freedoms? When it's right the opposite?

You are misinterpreting the

You are misinterpreting the constitution.

it says:

"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts"

The restriction is those taxes were limited to the debts incurred for the common defense and general welfare of the United states. You are interpreting in today's cultural bias.

The Maxim of law was understood in their day that the constitution was a law restricting the federal government and did not apply to the people or the states. The power to tax was limited to pay for the common defense apportioned among the states based on their population. It never included absolute power to tax as we see today. Those powers have been unlawfully assumed.

The maxim of law is that the federal government can only do what strictly allowed in the constitution. The constitution is the law it was to abide by. The onoy tax it could collect was from the states for common defense and general welfare (meaning to run the federal government) not individuals

The general welfare was understood to protect the states. It had nothing to do with absolute power to tax or none of the founders would have signed on.

Study some history instead of just applying your culturally biased interpretation to the document.

-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

That's not what it says,

That's not what it says, your taking it out of context on PURPOSE. Article 1 Section 8. PLAINLY STATES. The CONgress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. IT PLAINLY STATES... THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES!!!!! Do you see a "for" or an "only for this"?? in there ANYWHERE? Your so gullible no wonder we are destined to be slaves,, or are you? The federal Blubberment is strictly doing what is allowed in the constitution! It's called FORCE. Once force was installed every other rule got throwed out the window. Get used to it.

one flaw

the desecration of the demacratic vote is the single weakness of a REPUBLIC...you-no

The founders did not want a

The founders did not want a democracy. That would be like mob rule. A single individual would not be represented.

"The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights."
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=887

The American Form of Government;



http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=MW6AKVyi6As


We need to educate and enforce it.

Education is the key, because even with a revolution, if the people don't understand the different forms of government and what a Republic is, then we may end up with a Democracy by design.


Ron Paul's Convention Speech

Great

Another Bircher Film. Research the Birchers folks. The ones who started the Birchers were banksters. It is also CIA infiltrated. What better way to keep you believing in the lie. A constitutional republic. Those two words shouldn't be in the same sentence. The constitution was formed so these elitists scum could tax us and regulate us and CONTROL us. We were meant to be a REPUBLIC! That's it. We didn't want to be taxed again! Why didn't we get a say or a vote on it then?

2bfree, That is False Information


The only way to have a Republic is with a Constitution or Law. Obviously, you didn't even watch the video.

Stop being ignorant.


Ron Paul's Convention Speech

That's funny Semp.

I've seen the video a couple a times BEFORE I woke up, and it's a lie. A free country doesn't need to use force on it's people, Semp. A forced system is not free, and it was a forced system from the begining. TAXATION IS FORCE. I also looked up "Republic", in The New Websters Dictionary. Re-pub-lic, A nation in which power is vested in all the people. HMMM. It doesn't say a FEW centralized people who control the rest of us. Stop being an agent and join the team.

Kevin,

we were a constitutional republic. Now, we are a kleptocracy propped up by the illusion of democracy...at least for the next few months at any rate.

--------------------------------
"the only thing that keeps the banking system from failing is general ignorance about how the banking system works."
----------------------------

This is true.

The Constitution provides the ILLUSION of democracy. Instead of every person having one vote, we have the electoral college, 100 senators, 12 justices, etc. We're told this is the way it should be.

Democracy = One Person / One Vote.

Very simple.

"Supreme power" is supposed to rest in the LAW, not the citizens

That would be the proper definition of a "constitutional" republic. A constitutional republic is a "government of laws, not of men."

Supreme power resting in the hands of citizens would be a democracy. We don't want the majority to able to rule. We want the Constitution to rule.

-------

9/11 was "blowback," not an inside job. -Dr. Paul's position. The Federal Reserve is "a fourth branch of government," not private enterprise. - Dr. Paul's position. How about we start listening to him?

-------
The Fed is not a private bank. PRIVATIZE THE FED!!!
"The Federal Reserve Banks should simply be regarded as governmental agencies." -Murray Rothbard
"I now call the Federal Reserve the fourth branch of government." -Ron Paul

Is "Government of laws, not of men" a myth?

I think so. Brainpolice has an excellent analysis of the issue in his article The Myth of "The Rule of Law".

Wrong! Supreme power rests

Wrong! Supreme power rests in the people! The law is merely an illustration of the peoples will or at least it used to be.

The people are the creators of the law therefore they are greater then the law and can alter or abolish it. The Bill of rights is not law it is a declaration of "some" inherent rights untouchable by laws of any kind. Still it is up to the people to preserve those rights against those who would violate them in any manner even under color of law.

We have not done that so here we are.

-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Nope.

The law has NEVER, I repeat NEVER rested with the people. The people are forced under the law, by this system. Hawk, please tell me how it is possible for a few representives elected in every state to voice the opinions of millions? To ensure those millions have a voice in ALL the laws that are written? IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Therefor, they have always had the power NOT US. We were "here" from the begining. Now it's just in your face. However, I agree with you, that the only thing that has ever given us freedom is the will to fight for it, it has always been up to the people fight for they're liberties. So whats the purpose of giving these few the centralized powers to create armies, airforce, weapons ect via by forced taxation and THEN having to fight them when they get too powerful? It's STUPID. Think about it for a minute, what is the purpose to constantly fight those we supposedly elect to keep and maintain any of our liberties? This is the document you fight for and always will be. It's a system of force and will always be, it gets it lifeblood from taxation and taxation IS FORCE. You can't expect a system of force to produce people who will not benefit from it and stick to the rules. It's all a lie Hawkiye.

supreme power rests with juries and sheriffs

the law is merely a reflection of the people, albeit a more stable version.

while people will change positions from one day to the next, it takes a lot longer for laws to change.

so in reality the supreme power rests with the people, as expressed through laws, which can be trumped by a jury. (which is people)

How Often does that happen?

Very rarely does someone get off by jury. Under the UCC system, there is only one way to plead. Guilty. Anything else and you will be forced to trail and if you go to trial, you stand a GREAT chance of losing. Most people don't even risk it. Why? Because if you plead not guilty, a prosecuter is placed on the case to PROVE you guilty. He knows every loophole, he also plays golf with the judge and your attorney. Very few people escape that. Most people plead guilty to the crime, so they can stay out of jail and keep from going to prison, even if they are innocent. Most people are told up front, if they go to trial, if found guilty, they will have to pay for the costs of the trial. Even if a jury finds you innnocent, it has to be unanimous. The UCC court does not recognize the constitution or constitutional liberties. It's a commercial court. UCC is the law of COMMERCE. So is the Supreme Court. Still think you stand a chance?

I have a great chance. But

I have a great chance. But yours aren't looking to good.

Reading comprehension might not be your strength,but seriously...get a clue.

We're describing hierarchy of power, whether it's exercised or not.

and yes, if the jury decides against you, they still have some of the greatest power in this country.

what ever made you think that a jury had to side with you or me, to hold that label?

those two things are not tied together. pure logic. "Y" is not a function of "X".

a favorable decision to you is not related to how much power a jury has.

Trollonics?

anyone?

the law is made by the citizens

so it's a fine point. but you're essentially right, the law is supposed to be stable, even when the citizens are not.

but the law will always be tool that supports the wealthy and powerful.

and over time they always abuse that position.

which then comes to a head.

restructuring takes place.

and the cycle starts again.

The law IS a Tool

For the wealthy. Especially in the UCC system. It's also an illusion. Most of society functions lawless now and yet we march on, every single day and always have. For every law breaker they catch, thousands are doing the same thing and remaining at large. This goes for all laws written. Does the law catch every person leaving the bar intoxicated? Why have alcohol then? What about all the unsolved murders, unsolved rapes, pedhophiles? where do all the children dissapear to? How about seatbelts? How about drug users? and so on and so on. There is simply not enough of them to get everybody. The laws are written as methods of extortion and that's it. It's especially obvious, when there is profit to be made in merely making a law within this system. That gives to motive and incentive to pass more draconian laws. The second proof that it is a revenue generating system of extortion, is they reduce sentences. They bend their own laws. They have to do this to keep the line moving. They can't lock us all up. This shows that the law is without merit and all about extortion. Another thing that proves what their motives are, is they classify people as felons and take away thier voting and gun rights after they have served they're debt to society. They really don't care if you vote or not, and as soon as the gun rights are gone so will the pretend vote.