So essentially, since 1776 when our forefathers who were British spies themselves formed our constitution, they never said it was binded in blood so therefore, the regime could tweak it as time went on to their agenda which clearly violates everything it stands for to a point where it is nothing more than a piece of paper with scribblings of a failed system stenciled on it. Try telling all of this to the apathetic American who has been lax to this reality of we the people have been violated since we let our forefathers form a regime to their British agendas.
Oh my God. Do you understand nothing of the framers work nor the architecture of our constitutional republic. Trying different subject, you will appear much more intelligent.
On the topic of "Federal" - "17th Sept 1787 twelve state delegates approved of the (US) Constitution and the states (what are called US States) became Constitutors that is the individual states became responsible for another's debt Civil Law Black's Law 5th/6th edition. The individual states were now responsible for the debt to King George via France. US citizens were not responsible for this debt because they were never asked to vote on the Constitution. The United States of America did not pay it's 21 loans back and the United States was a bankrupt nation from 1st Jan 1788.
On 4th August 1790 an act was passed making provision for the payment of United States debt. This act abolished the states and created Federal districts each assigned a portion of the debt.
1 US Statutes at Large, pages 138 to 178."
Above quote worth researching for all Americans from Cloak and Dagger episode name "Debt Slaves, American Plantation, The Truth beyond the Illusion (2007)" With all acknowledgment
"So how did we get to this place where the intended relationship between federal and state powers has been completely inverted — with a federal government wielding powers that are now “numerous and indefinite” rather than being “few and defined”? "
Easy. It started with Lincoln launching a war of conquest, annexation, and subjugation - in direct violation of our founding principles stated in our Declaration of Independence. There is no power in our Constitution named to retain States within the union, nor to conquer and subjugate free countries.
The next big move came in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson unconstitutionally declared the 16th and 17th Amendments "ratified" despite absence of the Constitutionally required proof. Those literally inverted the Constitution from limited taxing and spending with tight State control over what gets spent to unlimited taxing and spending and almost zero State power.
So how did we get to this place where the intended relationship between federal and state powers has been completely inverted — with a federal government wielding powers that are now “numerous and indefinite” rather than being “few and defined”? LAWYERS !
Easy. It started with Lincoln launching a war of conquest, annexation, and subjugation - in direct violation of our founding principles stated in our Declaration of Independence. There is no power in our Constitution named to retain States within the union, nor to conquer and subjugate free countries.
The next big move came in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson unconstitutionally declared the 16th and 17th Amendments "ratified" despite absence of the Constitutionally required proof. Those literally inverted the Constitution from limited taxing and spending with tight State control over what gets spent to unlimited taxing and spending and almost zero State power.
I happened upon this article this evening, and I am glad I did. I am sure you think that arguing for an Article 5 Convention of States is the right move to make at this hour in our Republic's History, but I implore you to rethink it.
Imagine that the convention of States gets off the ground and congress meets with all the actors that are currently in there. Green new deal, anti gun, anti free speech and such ideals that are flowing through those halls on a daily basis.. What exactly, do you suppose will be the outcome of such a convention. Will the things that are currently being mentioned get looked at? Certainly. Will they get passed? Perhaps, but not likely. What other things will be brought into those halls? 2nd Amendment? Constitutional Grand Jury? Constitutional Militia? Freedom of speech, expression, and religion? Just how much destruction can a Convention of States do? Immeasurable. When you go into that type of meeting, EVERYTHING in the Constitution is on the table. I personally do not want Mitt Romney or AOC putting their hands on the Constitution with the power to modify or remove ANYTHING.
There is another move afoot though. There is a group of people who are looking to Enforce the Highest Law of the Land peacefully and legally without the need for bloodshed and lives lost that can never be recovered. Interested? Is America worth making the attempt to save her Constitution, bill of rights, and all the things that the world over come here looking for that we call the American Dream. We can make it the America Reality. It will take work on behalf of the American people but then America was never intended to be a free ride so why should we expect it to be easy. the point is it is possible. and with that let me tell you how to Save our Republic.
Visit this site. Watch the 11 minute video to get a feel for what this group is about. If you want to help Save America without hostilities and help heal the hurts brought by the government this is the best choice I have seen thus far.
What if I told you that there is ONE category of political status "personhood" in America that is NOT imposed upon by the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)?
In Title 26 CFR 1.1-1a, the first sentence tells you quite clearly upon whom the Income Tax is imposed and upon whom it is NOT imposed (except for two virtually irrelevant sections: 871(b) and 877(b)).
The not-imposed-upon category is the "national", conveniently and intentionally mis-labeled "non-citizen alien individual", to stymie your awareness AND your attaining freedom from the Administrative State as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident"; both legal terms with multiple definitions for your entrapment.
Do you remember when Sherrie Jackson and Joe Bannister demanded "show me the law"? They were right and "wrong" at the same time!
There is no law, but there is the Code, referred to above. There is no Constitutional Law, but there are Administrative State regulations called "law" which ARE outside of the Constitution. This is what YOU are subject to as a "U.S. citizen/resident".
And exactly who, pray tell, selects the delegates to a proposed constitutional convention? The same corrupted officials in the same corrupted system, that's who. And they'll be motivated to select delegates committed to repealing their own power? Or reinforce it?
Talk about wolves in sheep clothing trying to get the consent of the people to eliminate any remaining protections the bastardized current Constitution provides. Those pushing for it must have their true intentions questioned.
The states determine who serves as delegates. (Texas law, for example, empowers the legislature to make the choice.) If we actually had a scenario where a majority of state legislatures called for a convention to rein in federal power, there's little reason to think those same legislatures would turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining their own goal.
Also note that it takes 34 states to call for a convention, but then 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment that emerges from it.
That said, I respect that people would be wary of unintended outcomes. My discussion of a convention wasn't mean to be a ringing endorsement as much as a brief exploration of the avenue. I'd be curious to hear how you think limited federal government can and should otherwise be restored.
Umm...the same legislatures that aren't accountable to the people who elect them - many of them being selected - wouldn't turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining the goals of those who want to rein in federal power? Federal power that the state legislators across the nation have adopted a supine, obedient posture towards? Mind you, I know that many rank and file legislators may be better about the issue than I'm giving them credit for. But I can assure you that the leadership in those legislatures are 95% corrupted, ambitious, suffer delusions of grandeur or are intimidated by those with great federal power, above board and below board, and will NEVER allow true freedom supporters to make the reforms that they (we?) believe need to be made. All one need do is open their eyes and engage memory, especially the recent memory since 2020. Same people in the highest positions of power.
I appreciate your stated intentions are to be a brief exploration of the avenue. And if we had 34/38 states with leadership that defied the broadbrush description I paint it could be a viable avenue. But there is nothing besides hope and faith that those in leadership would both share the stated goals and grow a spine to ensure the goals were met.
The fact is that the Constitution exists, as perfectly as a governing document could ever be. It needs no alterations or changes. It simply needs to be adhered to. Any attempts to alter it by constitutional convention would only weaken it, destabilize the perfect compromise it is. It provided a means of amending it to evolve as our nation evolved. A perfect means. Which was ignored by those in power, who decided that the threshold required to amend it was too high, and they knew better in their infinite wisdom than the obstinate supermajority who didn't want to amend it, evolve it. So they legislated and ruled extra-constitutionally. What new found fealty to a constitution that limits their power and requires the consent of a supermajority do you imagine could be written at a constitutional convention? How would future leaders be restrained by the mere words on the page of a new constitution that they weren't restrained by in the words of the current one? It's just words at the end of the day.
How could limited federal government be restored? If that was an easy answer it would already be being offered by others with similar concerns. I profess no unique wisdom or solution. I just know that we have the best constitution in the world, the best possible words in limiting government that could ever be put on parchment. The solution won't be found in new word structures in new governing documents. The solution is found in ourselves, We The People. In our minds, our mindsets.
Our obedience to unconstitutional laws is our acquiescence to them. Our disobedience is our limitation on government. And until we persuade enough of our fellow citizens to disobey unconstitutional laws we will have unconstitutional, expansive federal, state and local power that dictates to us how we must live and follow their laws, their self-serving, corrupt laws.
America and Americans were intended to be ungovernable. Unfortunately too many are, even supposed freedom leaders. Who comply with unconstitutional laws - because they are the law as politicians acting as high priests in black robes say they are. Not because they are constitutional.
And if one single thing could be done to change, turn around the unconstitutional application of law it would be to appoint justices who adhere to the theory of Natural Law rather than Positive Law. Positive law has allowed for the sabotage of the words of the US Constitution in a stealthy, most insidious way since the legal theory took hold in the middle of the 20th century. The Constitution is meant and designed to be interpreted under Natural law theory, the theory of jurisprudence it was written under and for. It is wholly incompatible with Positive law. Which is why the authoritarians decided to adopt Positive law as dominant legal theory when they did.
The confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas was intended to send a message to all jurists who may have been sympathetic to the Natural Law theory of jurisprudence. A resurgence of Natural aw jurists would do more to restore limited federal and state and local government than any other solution. My suggestion, FWIW. For the curious, some living history about the power struggle for the two competing theories, as Positive law secured its dominance in 1989:
If anyone wonders why talking heads on TV keep saying "most important election of our lifetimes" and why the stakes are higher and higher each time out, it's simply this: that the federal government recognizes zero limits on its power. It may have had a few remaining before, say, 2012, but since 2016 and especially since 2020 it just does what it likes. With that much money sloshing around, that kind of threat to constitutional liberties at stake, with that much election interference, and with this much ruin as a constant threat, the stakes really are that high.
2012? Haha. What are you, a Millennial? Try the Spanish American War, a discretionary conflict of conquest rather than defense. Then Wilson, perhaps the worst US president in history who lied us into WWI and oversaw the establishment of the Fed, then FDR and his endless administrations and socialist transformation, then Truman post WWII and his expansion of the national security state, followed by every administration during and after Reagan.
Try sharpening your reading comprehension skills. Nobody, least of which me, suggested that DC hadn't broken loose of most of its restraints years and years ago. But what we face today is a thing that not only broke free of the remainder of them but wants us all to know it.
This is brilliant. I practiced law for 30 years. I could not have done this as well as you did. Brand new subscriber, link from CFP. Free sub to start but I’m sure I’ll become paid soon. It’s funny. I have maintained for at least 40 years that the FBI is unconstitutional and that 99% of Title 18 is as well. Most of my former law colleagues just don’t want to hear it (even though they know I’m correct). I have no doubt I’ll be referring to some of your examples in the future. No worries, attribution will be done.
Thank you for explaining this idea in such clear, scholarly, terms. Roosevelt and Lincoln were two presidents that caused great harm to our freedom and the Constitution. The Constitution is a beautiful document and the 10th amendment is the most important. We've long ago abandoned the Constitution; after the Federal Reserve Act, we are no longer Capitalist.
A point to add: the Free and Independent States signed a contract called the Constitution. It can't be changed just because people - judges, legislators - think times have changed. That would be like getting a notice from the bank that you will pay an extra 6 months of car payments because the situation has changed.
First Amendment to submit---Only those citizens who can vote for a candidate can donate them money.
2nd one----Other than military, naval, and emergency personnell, no one can be employed by the Federal Gov longer than 10 years. Their compensation shall consist of a salary at at the level of 60% of that received by the citizens, with the same level for retirement, and health insurance, which will be paid to the employee, who will then provide his own retirement and insurance programs.
So essentially, since 1776 when our forefathers who were British spies themselves formed our constitution, they never said it was binded in blood so therefore, the regime could tweak it as time went on to their agenda which clearly violates everything it stands for to a point where it is nothing more than a piece of paper with scribblings of a failed system stenciled on it. Try telling all of this to the apathetic American who has been lax to this reality of we the people have been violated since we let our forefathers form a regime to their British agendas.
Oh my God. Do you understand nothing of the framers work nor the architecture of our constitutional republic. Trying different subject, you will appear much more intelligent.
On the topic of "Federal" - "17th Sept 1787 twelve state delegates approved of the (US) Constitution and the states (what are called US States) became Constitutors that is the individual states became responsible for another's debt Civil Law Black's Law 5th/6th edition. The individual states were now responsible for the debt to King George via France. US citizens were not responsible for this debt because they were never asked to vote on the Constitution. The United States of America did not pay it's 21 loans back and the United States was a bankrupt nation from 1st Jan 1788.
On 4th August 1790 an act was passed making provision for the payment of United States debt. This act abolished the states and created Federal districts each assigned a portion of the debt.
1 US Statutes at Large, pages 138 to 178."
Above quote worth researching for all Americans from Cloak and Dagger episode name "Debt Slaves, American Plantation, The Truth beyond the Illusion (2007)" With all acknowledgment
jonathan, we got here through giving control of a monetary printing press to the ones bribing the officials instructed to get to this place
"So how did we get to this place where the intended relationship between federal and state powers has been completely inverted — with a federal government wielding powers that are now “numerous and indefinite” rather than being “few and defined”? "
Easy. It started with Lincoln launching a war of conquest, annexation, and subjugation - in direct violation of our founding principles stated in our Declaration of Independence. There is no power in our Constitution named to retain States within the union, nor to conquer and subjugate free countries.
The next big move came in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson unconstitutionally declared the 16th and 17th Amendments "ratified" despite absence of the Constitutionally required proof. Those literally inverted the Constitution from limited taxing and spending with tight State control over what gets spent to unlimited taxing and spending and almost zero State power.
So how did we get to this place where the intended relationship between federal and state powers has been completely inverted — with a federal government wielding powers that are now “numerous and indefinite” rather than being “few and defined”? LAWYERS !
Easy. It started with Lincoln launching a war of conquest, annexation, and subjugation - in direct violation of our founding principles stated in our Declaration of Independence. There is no power in our Constitution named to retain States within the union, nor to conquer and subjugate free countries.
The next big move came in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson unconstitutionally declared the 16th and 17th Amendments "ratified" despite absence of the Constitutionally required proof. Those literally inverted the Constitution from limited taxing and spending with tight State control over what gets spent to unlimited taxing and spending and almost zero State power.
I happened upon this article this evening, and I am glad I did. I am sure you think that arguing for an Article 5 Convention of States is the right move to make at this hour in our Republic's History, but I implore you to rethink it.
Imagine that the convention of States gets off the ground and congress meets with all the actors that are currently in there. Green new deal, anti gun, anti free speech and such ideals that are flowing through those halls on a daily basis.. What exactly, do you suppose will be the outcome of such a convention. Will the things that are currently being mentioned get looked at? Certainly. Will they get passed? Perhaps, but not likely. What other things will be brought into those halls? 2nd Amendment? Constitutional Grand Jury? Constitutional Militia? Freedom of speech, expression, and religion? Just how much destruction can a Convention of States do? Immeasurable. When you go into that type of meeting, EVERYTHING in the Constitution is on the table. I personally do not want Mitt Romney or AOC putting their hands on the Constitution with the power to modify or remove ANYTHING.
There is another move afoot though. There is a group of people who are looking to Enforce the Highest Law of the Land peacefully and legally without the need for bloodshed and lives lost that can never be recovered. Interested? Is America worth making the attempt to save her Constitution, bill of rights, and all the things that the world over come here looking for that we call the American Dream. We can make it the America Reality. It will take work on behalf of the American people but then America was never intended to be a free ride so why should we expect it to be easy. the point is it is possible. and with that let me tell you how to Save our Republic.
Visit this site. Watch the 11 minute video to get a feel for what this group is about. If you want to help Save America without hostilities and help heal the hurts brought by the government this is the best choice I have seen thus far.
https://tacticalcivics.com/
Article 6 -Nullification for states to claw back rights from the feral guberment and end their tyranny.
I think you really meant "extra-Constitutional".
What if I told you that there is ONE category of political status "personhood" in America that is NOT imposed upon by the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)?
In Title 26 CFR 1.1-1a, the first sentence tells you quite clearly upon whom the Income Tax is imposed and upon whom it is NOT imposed (except for two virtually irrelevant sections: 871(b) and 877(b)).
The not-imposed-upon category is the "national", conveniently and intentionally mis-labeled "non-citizen alien individual", to stymie your awareness AND your attaining freedom from the Administrative State as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident"; both legal terms with multiple definitions for your entrapment.
Do you remember when Sherrie Jackson and Joe Bannister demanded "show me the law"? They were right and "wrong" at the same time!
There is no law, but there is the Code, referred to above. There is no Constitutional Law, but there are Administrative State regulations called "law" which ARE outside of the Constitution. This is what YOU are subject to as a "U.S. citizen/resident".
exposethematrix.com
And exactly who, pray tell, selects the delegates to a proposed constitutional convention? The same corrupted officials in the same corrupted system, that's who. And they'll be motivated to select delegates committed to repealing their own power? Or reinforce it?
Talk about wolves in sheep clothing trying to get the consent of the people to eliminate any remaining protections the bastardized current Constitution provides. Those pushing for it must have their true intentions questioned.
The states determine who serves as delegates. (Texas law, for example, empowers the legislature to make the choice.) If we actually had a scenario where a majority of state legislatures called for a convention to rein in federal power, there's little reason to think those same legislatures would turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining their own goal.
Also note that it takes 34 states to call for a convention, but then 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment that emerges from it.
That said, I respect that people would be wary of unintended outcomes. My discussion of a convention wasn't mean to be a ringing endorsement as much as a brief exploration of the avenue. I'd be curious to hear how you think limited federal government can and should otherwise be restored.
Umm...the same legislatures that aren't accountable to the people who elect them - many of them being selected - wouldn't turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining the goals of those who want to rein in federal power? Federal power that the state legislators across the nation have adopted a supine, obedient posture towards? Mind you, I know that many rank and file legislators may be better about the issue than I'm giving them credit for. But I can assure you that the leadership in those legislatures are 95% corrupted, ambitious, suffer delusions of grandeur or are intimidated by those with great federal power, above board and below board, and will NEVER allow true freedom supporters to make the reforms that they (we?) believe need to be made. All one need do is open their eyes and engage memory, especially the recent memory since 2020. Same people in the highest positions of power.
I appreciate your stated intentions are to be a brief exploration of the avenue. And if we had 34/38 states with leadership that defied the broadbrush description I paint it could be a viable avenue. But there is nothing besides hope and faith that those in leadership would both share the stated goals and grow a spine to ensure the goals were met.
The fact is that the Constitution exists, as perfectly as a governing document could ever be. It needs no alterations or changes. It simply needs to be adhered to. Any attempts to alter it by constitutional convention would only weaken it, destabilize the perfect compromise it is. It provided a means of amending it to evolve as our nation evolved. A perfect means. Which was ignored by those in power, who decided that the threshold required to amend it was too high, and they knew better in their infinite wisdom than the obstinate supermajority who didn't want to amend it, evolve it. So they legislated and ruled extra-constitutionally. What new found fealty to a constitution that limits their power and requires the consent of a supermajority do you imagine could be written at a constitutional convention? How would future leaders be restrained by the mere words on the page of a new constitution that they weren't restrained by in the words of the current one? It's just words at the end of the day.
How could limited federal government be restored? If that was an easy answer it would already be being offered by others with similar concerns. I profess no unique wisdom or solution. I just know that we have the best constitution in the world, the best possible words in limiting government that could ever be put on parchment. The solution won't be found in new word structures in new governing documents. The solution is found in ourselves, We The People. In our minds, our mindsets.
Our obedience to unconstitutional laws is our acquiescence to them. Our disobedience is our limitation on government. And until we persuade enough of our fellow citizens to disobey unconstitutional laws we will have unconstitutional, expansive federal, state and local power that dictates to us how we must live and follow their laws, their self-serving, corrupt laws.
America and Americans were intended to be ungovernable. Unfortunately too many are, even supposed freedom leaders. Who comply with unconstitutional laws - because they are the law as politicians acting as high priests in black robes say they are. Not because they are constitutional.
And if one single thing could be done to change, turn around the unconstitutional application of law it would be to appoint justices who adhere to the theory of Natural Law rather than Positive Law. Positive law has allowed for the sabotage of the words of the US Constitution in a stealthy, most insidious way since the legal theory took hold in the middle of the 20th century. The Constitution is meant and designed to be interpreted under Natural law theory, the theory of jurisprudence it was written under and for. It is wholly incompatible with Positive law. Which is why the authoritarians decided to adopt Positive law as dominant legal theory when they did.
The confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas was intended to send a message to all jurists who may have been sympathetic to the Natural Law theory of jurisprudence. A resurgence of Natural aw jurists would do more to restore limited federal and state and local government than any other solution. My suggestion, FWIW. For the curious, some living history about the power struggle for the two competing theories, as Positive law secured its dominance in 1989:
Short version (00:04:46):
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4887077/user-clip-biden-natural-law
Long version (03:22:58) :
https://www.c-span.org/video/?21107-1/thomas-confirmation-hearing-day-1-part-2
Not so much a description of Natural law vs Positive law, as a power play between the two.
If anyone wonders why talking heads on TV keep saying "most important election of our lifetimes" and why the stakes are higher and higher each time out, it's simply this: that the federal government recognizes zero limits on its power. It may have had a few remaining before, say, 2012, but since 2016 and especially since 2020 it just does what it likes. With that much money sloshing around, that kind of threat to constitutional liberties at stake, with that much election interference, and with this much ruin as a constant threat, the stakes really are that high.
2012? Haha. What are you, a Millennial? Try the Spanish American War, a discretionary conflict of conquest rather than defense. Then Wilson, perhaps the worst US president in history who lied us into WWI and oversaw the establishment of the Fed, then FDR and his endless administrations and socialist transformation, then Truman post WWII and his expansion of the national security state, followed by every administration during and after Reagan.
Try sharpening your reading comprehension skills. Nobody, least of which me, suggested that DC hadn't broken loose of most of its restraints years and years ago. But what we face today is a thing that not only broke free of the remainder of them but wants us all to know it.
The last convention granted to us the situation that we are in today, and yet so many want to give them another go at it. Ridiculous.
Although this is a good read and educational, to not balance it with the realities of the last Article 5 convention is the blind leading the blind.
This is brilliant. I practiced law for 30 years. I could not have done this as well as you did. Brand new subscriber, link from CFP. Free sub to start but I’m sure I’ll become paid soon. It’s funny. I have maintained for at least 40 years that the FBI is unconstitutional and that 99% of Title 18 is as well. Most of my former law colleagues just don’t want to hear it (even though they know I’m correct). I have no doubt I’ll be referring to some of your examples in the future. No worries, attribution will be done.
A powerful compliment. Thank you very much!
Indeed. First article that I read of your work. Already a paid sub. Looking forward to the next one.
I got my education (in part) from:
Hamilton's Curse (Thomans DeLornzo);
New Deal or Raw Deal (Burton Folsom);
The Creature from Jeckyl Island;
The 5,000 Year Leap.
I highly recommend them to learn more about the ideas in this superb article
Thank you for explaining this idea in such clear, scholarly, terms. Roosevelt and Lincoln were two presidents that caused great harm to our freedom and the Constitution. The Constitution is a beautiful document and the 10th amendment is the most important. We've long ago abandoned the Constitution; after the Federal Reserve Act, we are no longer Capitalist.
A point to add: the Free and Independent States signed a contract called the Constitution. It can't be changed just because people - judges, legislators - think times have changed. That would be like getting a notice from the bank that you will pay an extra 6 months of car payments because the situation has changed.
First Amendment to submit---Only those citizens who can vote for a candidate can donate them money.
2nd one----Other than military, naval, and emergency personnell, no one can be employed by the Federal Gov longer than 10 years. Their compensation shall consist of a salary at at the level of 60% of that received by the citizens, with the same level for retirement, and health insurance, which will be paid to the employee, who will then provide his own retirement and insurance programs.
Then just keep going.
TY
If you think the conservatives will control the supposed Art. V Convention, you do not have an inkling of the situation that we are in.
The change of the Constitution needs to be done one amendment at a time. Harder, Slower, but Safer.