[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: There is no Constitution... I am looking for feedback on this, and esp. as to what is missing, if noted, to make it ironclad. Or, is it ironclad to the point where this part ends? That is what I need to know. Thank you. There is no Constitution, Part I It is difficult to begin a subject such as this, simple because it flies in the FACE of what we have all been raised to ‘believe.’ But then, perhaps understanding ‘belief’ is a place to start. In Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, we are told that ‘belief’ is opposed to knowledge and science. Perhaps it is with that thought that we should continue. After all, we ‘believe’ that which we have been told, BUT, how many of us have bothered to check the public record in order to confirm those beliefs? And that, my friends, is exactly what we are about to do. What we believe, because we have been told/taught this, is that we live in a Constitutional Republic, where certain ‘natural rights’ are acknowledged to exist. This is an important distinction that exists no where else on earth, this acknowledgment of ‘natural rights.’ In all other nations of the earth, all so-called rights are granted by all-powerful governments as privileges. That which governments grant can and often are taken away. This can not be done with natural rights, and this put America instantly at odds with all of the other powers of this earth, and especially with kings, such as the King of England, who supposedly rule by divine right. I would think that would be better stated as ‘divine privilege.’ And the people of that time, around 1780-1795, understood these principles much better than the average American of today. This is why, when the Constitution was written, it focused on RESTRICTIONS on the powers granted (i.e., privileges granted) to the government to be formed according to the Constitution. However, the Constitution was written in secret. There was no open debate about it, and, if you understand that the majority of the writers/framers of the Constitution were Masons, then some things become clearer as we go along. Especially if you understand that one of these Masons, Benjamin Franklin, also printed a book on Masonic Constitutions; http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html “… in 1734 … he (Franklin) ushered into print the first Freemasonic book to be published in America, and edition of Anderson's Constitutions...the Bible for English Freemasonry. …” A copy of this book, Anderson’s Constitutions, is available in the Library of Congress. In addition to this foundation of Masonic connections to the Constitution and to the men who wrote the Constitution, you can take the Masonic influences as far as you wish, always, in totally different manners than what we have been taught to ‘believe.’ For instance, at the same site as above; http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html • “The 13 arrows in the left claw of the Eagle represent the 13 tribes of Israel fomenting wars and revolutions throughout the world. • In its right claw, the Eagle carries an Olive Branch which has 13 leaves. The Olive Tree represents the House of Israel and House of Judah (Is. 17:6, 23:14, Jer.11:16, Rom. 11). The 13 leaves represent the 13 tribes of Israel and Judah. There are other locations where you can find information similar to this, but it is only now, after the fruit of the Constitution and of the United States has become clearer, that we begin to look for answers. http://watch.pair.com/GW.html “…Washington's close ties to Freemasonry, but his position as Grand Master of the Alexandria Lodge No. 22 of Virginia. …” http://bessel.org/bkrevs.htm Masonic Book Reviews (This is a Masonic site, with an internet copy of Anderson’s Constitutions.) Of course, anyone can find the Masonic layout of Washington, DC. Just type that into any search engine and you will find all of the information that you could wish to pursue. Such as the following. http://freemasonrywatch.org/washington.html Freemasonry and Washington D.C.'s Street Layout http://www.geocities.com/jussaymoe/dc_symbolism/index.htm Masonic and Kabbalistic Symbols In the Washington D.C. Map (This one is quite interesting.) http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1040.html MASONIC SYMBOLS OF POWER IN THEIR SEAT OF POWER -- WASHINGTON, D.C. What, exactly, does all of this mean? Simply put, that WE were not there when the Constitution was written and the United States formed, nor have we the opportunity to personally visit with men who were there. That leaves us only the option of examining the papers relevant to the Constitution and the United States that we may learn the Truth of what occurred. Actually, if we wish to understand what has happened to our country, we have no choice but to undertake this endeavor. Where do we begin with this search? With the Constitution, of course. Here is an Internet copy of the Original Constitution; http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html I will be using this when I/we quote from the Constitution. I do this for a very good reason. If you will check this copy of the Constitution from the government archives, you will probably find that the copies of what you were told is the Constitution, both in school books and in reference books, are not verifiable copies; they probably are different. In what I am going to tell you, we are going to find that there was a Trojan horse put into the Constitution. That Trojan horse is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17; “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-“ In the above, the operative phrase is; exclusive Legislation, which means exclusive jurisdiction. And, which, as it turns out, means that the Constitution DOES NOT apply to Washington, DC, EXCEPT as Congress decides that it does. Of course, that means that the RESTRICTIONS of the Constitution do not apply to Washington, DC, because those restrictions on the power of the government built into the Constitution and that we spoke of before do not apply to the Congress when the Congress legislates for the District of Columbia. AND, when the Congress legislates for the territories of the United States as well. THIS is the Trojan horse that was introduced into the governing law of the United States. Deliberately, as we shall learn. Now, I have had enough discussions with different men to know that this is going to cause a difference of opinion with many. Especially with those who state that the Constitution irrevocably attached to the District of Columbia once the Constitution was adopted because the district was a part of a state at that time. And, without the specific consent of the state(s) which gifted the land to create the district, to all intents and purposes, this clause in the Constitution does not affect the restrictions. All of that is well and good, until we examine what happened with the gifting of the land, and, this illustrates why it is so necessary to examine all paperwork that comprises the foundation of the United States if we truly wish to find the Truth. As it turns out, the only state which actually finalized the gift of the land for the District of Columbia was Maryland. The gift of the land from Virginia was never consummated, and the land was returned to Virginia in the 1840s. I had trouble finding the information for Maryland, but it finally turned up in a Supreme Court case; U.S. Supreme Court BEATTY'S ADM'RS v. BURNES' ADM'RS, 12 U.S. 98 (1814) Md Laws Nov. 1791, ch. 45, Sec. 2 'Be it enacted,' &c. 'that all that part of the said territory, called Columbia, which lies within the limits of this state, shall be, and the same is hereby acknowledged to be, forever ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the United States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil, as of persons residing, or to reside, thereon, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eight section of the first article of the constitution of government of the United States; provided that nothing herein contained shall be so construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, as to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States; and provided also that the jurisdiction of the laws of this state, over the persons and property of individuals residing within the limits of the cession aforesaid, shall not cease or determine until congress shall by law provide for the government thereof, under their jurisdiction, in manner provided by the article of the constitution before recited.' Note this; “…forever ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the United States, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction …” By this clause, Maryland confirmed that Congress held the District of Columbia in Exclusive Jurisdiction. We find, with further research, that this is confirmed by the federal judiciary, which, I am sure, has never had any doubt about the exclusive nature of the jurisdiction of Congress over the District of Columbia; United States v. More 3 Cranch 159 1805 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/do...s/a3_2_2s8.html “Mason.--When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution. If they are, they have violated it, by not giving us a republican form of government. The same observation will also apply to Louisiana.” NOTE; When legislating over the district of Columbia, congress are bound by no constitution.... Now, let us take a close look at another case from 1819; http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s16.html 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 … Story, Circuit Justice, in summing up to the jury, said: “The constitution of the United States declares that congress shall have power to exercise "exclusive legislation" in all "cases whatsoever" over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress, and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted. This is the necessary result, for exclusive jurisdiction is the attendant upon exclusive legislation; and the consent of the state legislature is by the very terms of the constitution, by which all the states are bound, and to which all are parties, a virtual surrender and cession of its sovereignty over the place. Nor is there anything novel in this construction. 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; for if exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive legislation do not import the same thing, the states could not cede or the United States accept for the purposes enumerated in this clause, any exclusive jurisdiction …” The above makes it pretty clear, but we do have other evidence, because this is confirmed in other cases as well. The most important (in my opinion) being DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). In this case, we find; “…In one of those opinions it is said that 'the Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states;' also, that 'we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of Congress in dealing with them.' …” We will find later that this reference to the territorial clause of the Constitution is very important. In addition, in Downes v. Bidwell, in the Dissent of Justice Harlan; “…that as the states could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory, and therefore none to delegate in that connection, the logical inference is that 'if Congress had power to acquire new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional provisions;' that if 'we assume that the territorial clause of the Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions;' and that 'the execuive and legislative departments of the government have for more than a century interpreted this silence as precluding the idea that the Constitution attached to these territories as soon as acquired.' These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. 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. Although from the foundation of the government this court has held steadily to the view that the government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 326, 331, 4 L. ed. 102, 104) we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new er- [182 U.S. 244, 380] ritory, acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. … The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments 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. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U.S. 244, 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. …” Overall, Mr. Justice Harlan is a very competent Justice, but he was speaking of something that had become engrained within the laws of the United States; the Exclusive Jurisdiction of Congress over the territories of the United States and over Washington, DC. If you wish, look up Downes v. Bidwell and enjoy, but, I warn you, it is a very dry read filled with self-justifications for what they were doing. And this brings us to the question as to exactly what the men who wrote the Constitution understood about what it was that they had created. For this, I think it best to first turn to a very famous quote; "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?" "Madam, we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it!" – Benjamin Franklin (1787) Think about this quote and what was not said; Franklin DID NOT say, ‘WE have created a Republic if WE can keep it.’ He said; ‘WE have given YOU a Republic, if YOU can keep it!’ Given the observable results of the Constitution, as we see them in operation today, I do not think that there is any doubt about what he meant when he used the royal We. However, is there any other information from the same time period that we can use to ascertain if the people responsible for the Constitution really understood that the restrictions within the Constitution did not apply to Washington, DC? Why, yes, there is. On the internet, at 'http://civil-liberties.com', is a very interesting on-line book previously mentioned titled The United States is Still a Subject of Great Britain. Recently new to this on-line book is a summary section in which I found the following information: "In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I, 1789-1897, I discovered the following: Gentlemen of the Senate: Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely: The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina, to consist of the State of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of Georgia." March 4, 1791 (page 99). In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791, he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further: "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States..." This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of... . This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of..., but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of... was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory. Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, Sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution. A simple reading of the Constitution will reveal that there is no authority/privilege granted either to Congress or to the President of the United States to create anything overlaying the union states of the Republic. From this, it is not difficult to determine that the then President of the Untied States understood very well that the restrictions on powers within the Constitution did not apply to Washington, DC. A study of this time period also reveals that Washington created this overlay of the several states in order to permit the First Bank of the United States (basically, the Rothechilds) to operate within the several states under the flag of the federal district and prey upon the people of the nation. To complete this study, is there yet another indication that we can find in the history of the beginning of the United States that would reinforce what we are finding? Yes, there is. And it offers what is unquestionably the strongest evidence of all that everything we have been taught about the Constitution is nothing but a smoke screen. A smoke screen to hide the real nature of the United States government. And this strong evidence is the so-called Supreme Court. See; http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/45.html SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES ..Part VIII. Disposition of Cases Rule 45. Process; Mandates • 1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States. http://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/resources/lp_today_choosingjustices.htm The Judiciary Act of 1789 September 24, 1789. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist… Now, we need to look at the Constitution; Article 3, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, …” Since Congress was ordered to establish and clearly did establish the supreme court of the United States, as an inferior court, BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS NOT COMMANDED TO ESTABLISH ANY OTHER COURT, the Supreme Court is an inferior court to the one supreme Court established by the Constitution. That court, the one supreme Court, has never sat. It is also important, and interesting, to note the close similarity of the names of the two courts – supreme court & one supreme Court. It is difficult for me to separate such deceptive practices out of my considerations about who is behind such things when I also know the names of the privately owned Bank of England and the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Clearly, the Senate and the Congress established the so-called Supreme Court of the United States, and what they create, they control. It should also be noted that the process of this court issues in the name of the President of the United States, rather than under it’s own authority, and this is because this court has no authority on it’s own; it is not the court detailed in Article 3 of the Constitution. It is an administrative court created by Congress. Do we have further proof of this? Yes, we do. For various reasons, what are called the SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES are considered to be important cases. Part of this is because they were some of the first, if not the very first cases, called before the Supreme Court, which addressed the issue of citizenship after the so-called passage of the 13th & 14th Amendments (more on this later). These cases, Slaughter-House Cases, (1873), are important, but what is more important are the U.S. Supreme Court -- IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 77 U.S. 273 (1869), where it was determined if the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to hear the cases. Here, we find; “7. What power, then, has the Supreme Court of the United States in the premises?“ “2. The power given to this court by the Act of 1789 …” “…Controversies determined in a State court which are subject to re- examination in this court, are such, and such only as involve some one or more of the questions enumerated and described in the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act …” “…and the twenty-third section of the Judiciary Act provides to the effect that …” “…complied in each case with all the conditions prescribed in the act of Congress …” And why did the Supreme Court decide to hear the case? “…. But it is equally competent for this court, in the furtherance of justice, to do the same …” The entirety of this case is an admission that the Supreme Court only has the jurisdiction and power given to it from the Congress, and that it’s power does not flow from the Constitution. And, with this case, we can take things even further forward. For instance, if you want a further shock, try these; “Independent of statutory regulations, the term supersedeas has little or no application in equity suits, as the rule is well settled in the English courts that an appeal in chancery does not stop the proceedings …” “3d. That the judgment of the court remits the practice on this subject substantially back to the practice of the English courts of equity, …” “Footnote 9 See General Order in House of Lords in 1807, …” The above is added in here just in case you are in doubt as to who was behind the Constitution and the establishment of the courts of the United States. If you understand what was being said, this decision of the Supreme Court is using decisions made in English courts in order to affirm what the United States court has decided to do. Before we move on, I want to bring out a couple of cases that are important. For instance; “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. ... And in general the guaranties [sic] of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable. [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]” The above case is particularly important because it falls after 1938. A little later on you will understand that reference. The following is also important, and comes from an unpublished memorandum for this case. “Knox v. U.S., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas, Case #SA-89-CA-1308 This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory with citizens of the United States belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 300 (EXHIBIT #4) where that Court affirmed that the Constitution does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union at page 305 quoting Downes, supra and De Lima, supra. That under Article IV, section 3 the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and their citizens of the "United States" residing therein. …” When you read papers such as this, you must always keep in mind the extension of the federal districts by George Washington over the several states, thus extending federal jurisdiction well beyond any intent written into the delegated powers/privilges described within the Constitution. Before we go on to something else, we need to look at what had happened, and what the only possible result could be. In the book, The Cure for All Diseases, by Hulga Clark, we are told how parasites invade and attack the weakest of the organs in our bodies. Always, the weakest. In the plant kingdom, this is also how insects and disease choose which plants to attack; always the weakest. Either plants which were damaged by wind or hail, too much sun, not enough water, some poison, cold, or any reason that put the plant in distress. This is a general rule of nature, in that the weakest is always the first to be attacked, and, it is something that all of us basically understand. We just do not like to think about it very much because it violates our sense of fair play. Fair play or not, what was necessary for America is that the center of the power in America, the United States government, HAD to be where the strongest chains were placed on the powers exercised by that government…… or…… that is where the parasites would congregate and attack the principles that stood between them and the fortunes that were to be had by the control of that power. I do not believe that there is anyone who will read this who does not understand that this is exactly what has happened. Stay tuned. NEXT; There is no Constitution Part II The Civil War
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
And what you are going to read bears directly on what has happened in America to 25 million family farms.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Bookmarked for further study and re-reading.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||