[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: NUTSHELL NUTSHELL Now that we have got the supporting documentation out of the way, please permit me the opportunity to place a nutshell explanation in the record. There is a problem in America. Everybody knows this, but no one can agree as to what, exactly, is the problem. Everybody wants to discuss the sleight of hand of some Supreme Court Justices in 1933, or the bankruptcy of the United States government in 1929, or the Trading With the Enemy Act in 1917, or the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, or, the more radical of the Patriot groups will only discuss the Civil War and the actions of the United States government going forward from that time. If you will notice something about each of these arguments, they go backward in time, getting older and older as the discussions drag on and on and on. But no one can agree as to what, exactly, is THE problem. Are the things enumerated above, problems? Of course they are, but it is silly to fragment ourselves arguing about which is the first problem, which is the most important problem, and what is necessary to fix each and every problem…. Unless we FIRST identify what permitted each and every one of these problems to occur. It is also silly to run around in circles screaming about they are ignoring the Constitution when federal judges keep telling us that this or that is not a Constitutional issue, and they are correct, it is not. It is generally a contractual problem/issue. So, here is THE problem, in a NUTSHELL: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution is called the Exclusive Jurisdiction clause in the Constitution. United States v. Cornell 25 Fed. Cas. 646, no. 14,867 C.C.D.R.I. 1819 … It is under the like terms in the same clause of the constitution that exclusive jurisdiction is now exercised by congress in the District of Columbia … In Downes v. Bidwell, 1901, the Supreme Court ruled that "exclusive" meant exactly that; EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, with no control from the Constitution. (In Downes v. Bidwell, the Court ruled that "exclusive" meant "without consideration of the Constitutional restraints...") "without consideration of the Constitutional restraints...") means exactly what it says; under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, the limitations on governmental power enumerated within the Constitution, DO NOT APPLY. This means that there are no Constitutional limitations of power exercised within the United States Federal Zone. The Constitution was NEVER meant to apply to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress. How do we know this? Because in politics there are no accidents. If this had been an accident, it would have been corrected long ago, and it has not been. I would assume that this means that unless the people correct it, it will never be corrected. Now, we have a Supreme Court Justice who addressed these issues in 1901. Justice Harlan said; The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. Justice Harlan was right on the mark. He knew what he was talking about, but only a very few attorneys and the like would have been interested, because there simply were no people under the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of Congress in 1901. Basically, the only United States citizens who existed were the former slaves of the South, and they had no knowledge or understanding of what was being done to them. So most of what Justice Harlan had to say just went into the history books and it was pretty much the end of the story (until now). But, Justice Harlan then went on to add; I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. ... It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution. Now if this strikes a bell with you; We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. ... Then perhaps you should take a close look at what is causing the problems we are experiencing today; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17; EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. And if you study the Fourteenth Amendment, it was intended to put United States citizens under the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of Congress. What does my proposed Amendment do? Simple. It applies the Constitution to the Federal Zone. Now, the question was asked, do I have a plan? Why, yes, thank you for asking, I do indeed have a plan.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#3. To: Neil McIver, BTP Holdings, wbales, Tausero, christine, jessejane, RickyJ, mehtable, Zoroaster, robin, Eoghan, tom007, lodwick, angel, AngelSpawn, max, phant2000, range, critter, rowdee, destro, mehitable, all (#0)
Just as a follow-up, this also eliminates the WTO, GATT, NAFTA and all ties to the World Bank. I would think that you would understand how this would attract a LOT of attention, such as with labor unions (at least the working stiffs part of the unions), farmers, small business owners and etc. This will also authorize the original 13th Amendment to be brought back into America (oops! Just brought another part of the Patriot community on board!) And, with the repeal of the 13th Amendment, there is going to be a scream from the colored part of America; not a problem. Because there is going to be a new political party to which they will all run to join; The American Constitutionalist Party Statement of Purpose; to do all in our power to see to it that the Constitution applies equally to everyone, everywhere within the United States, and that the Rights of all inhabitants of the United States are equal Rights, regardless of race, according to that foundation document of freedom, the Declaration of Independence (needs some work on wording; I know). Party Platform; See Statement of Purpose. If this is done correctly, the Democractic Party would become a foot-note in history as well. Now, is this easy to do? I do not think so.... but it is doable. IF people are willing to work to make it happen, and stop complaining about what is going on.
#4. To: richard9151 (#3)
I don't recall asking to be put on your ping list. I specifically recall saying I wanted no part of your project until you straightened out how you plan to amend the constitution. And I'd probably be more amenable if your attitude was a good bit different. Have luck with whatever it is you are attemting to do--you're surely going to need it. Signed........a pissed off so-called patriot.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||