# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Is there a fatal flaw in the Constitution?

## sedele

I was doing some research on the revolutionary war cities and came accross this info.

The guy who runs the website claimes that:



> What I now have to suggest may be very upsetting for some people who hang on to the Constitution as the last resort for claiming their Freedoms and God Given Rights. How come people like President George W. Bush can get away with cutting the Constitution to pieces, like he seems to be doing? Or...is he really? Could it actually be that he IS making decisions that are in line with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are we all wrong in our accusations against Bush in these matters? I would say, yes! Bush is just putting his right to being a dictator into place. He is backed up by the Constitution! This article and the references will show us why and how this is possible...


He also has a movie on his site that I can't view from work. The movie is called "America's Secret Destiny" by Ralph Epperson. He did quote some "important" parts of the movie below.




> “What we call history today is simply a fairy tale. I have found the evidence that there is a massive conspiracy at work in the world. And that their efforts have been directed into covering up their involvement in the major events of the past. And that is why there must be efforts to uncover the evidence they are trying to suppress. This conspiracy that I’ve discovered is worldwide and is extremely powerful. It has caused wars, revolutions, and depressions all over the world in the past 200 to 300 years.”
> 
> * * *
> *“The tenth amendment destroys human rights. It does not protect them.* We thought that protected us by restricting the power of the congress to only eighteen specific powers. We thought that if we didn’t specifically give any power to them, they didn’t have it. But in amongst these grants of power they placed the cancer cell, the one they knew would destroy the very republic they were creating. This is what they wrote in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17…now we’re going to show you the cancer cell, the fatal flaw of the Constitution of the United States of America. ‘Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.’ [my emphasis]. Notice they used the very same wording that they used in the Declaration of Independence when they were describing the tyrannical acts of King George. They gave Congress the ‘power to legislate in all cases whatsoever’. The Declaration of Independence said that King George had taken ‘the power to legislate in all cases whatsoever’. It is impossible not to conclude that the founding fathers gave congress tyrannical powers.”
> 
> * * *
> “I’ll start with the explanation of what the phrase Annuit Coeptis means 1st. That of course is the phrase at the top of the circle. Annuit means the announcing of, or the announcement of. Coeptis is based on the root of conception, so it means the birth of. So Annuis Coeptis mean announcing the birth of. The 2nd phrase I’d like to examine is Novus Ordo Seclorum underneath the pyramid on the reverse side of the great seal. The phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum means Novus or new, these are Latin words of course, Ordo or order and Seclorum or world. So our founding father’s were announcing the birth of the New World Order in 1782 when they created the great seal of the United States.”




Now I am pretty much new to the Constitution and the Patriot Movement so I really don't know what to make of it. I know that many of you here are well versed in these things, which is why I'm putting this out here.

What do you think?

----------


## Zarxrax

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/howcome.html

This seems to explain it alright.

----------


## fsk

How about this: Who needs a government at all?

Why is the Constitution a binding contract on me?  I never signed it.  I certainly wouldn't approve of things like the income tax and Federal Reserve.

All forms of taxation are theft.

Without government interference, the free market would be able to take care of everything.

----------


## Michigan11

> How about this: Who needs a government at all?
> 
> Why is the Constitution a binding contract on me?  I never signed it.  I certainly wouldn't approve of things like the income tax and Federal Reserve.
> 
> All forms of taxation are theft.
> 
> Without government interference, the free market would be able to take care of everything.


We think alike. Yet the federal reserve is illegal, was created in 1913. The Income tax on personal labor is illegal. 
I get so frustrated thinking about how f'd up this country is today.

----------


## Indy Vidual

_Is there a fatal flaw in the Constitution?_

Yes, just look at what we have today.
````

States rights need to be revived, and a balance of Federal power (among the three branches) would be nice too.

----------


## Man from La Mancha

> How about this: Who needs a government at all?
> 
> Why is the Constitution a binding contract on me?  I never signed it.  I certainly wouldn't approve of things like the income tax and Federal Reserve.
> 
> All forms of taxation are theft.
> 
> Without government interference, the free market would be able to take care of everything.


Did not Ron say one of the duty's of government were to support the use of contracts between individuals, so they will be honored?


.

----------


## hypnagogue

> 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.


 The suggestion that this rule clears the path for a dictatorship strikes me as plainly stupid.




> 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings


 Note I quoted it in it's entirety. Read it carefully. The Federal government has Legislative powers over the Capital and US Military installations, as State Legislatures have over their States. 

The Constitution isn't perfect, but it sure as hell didn't leave a loophole big enough for a dictatorship to slip through.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Did not Ron say one of the duty's of government were to support the use of contracts between individuals, so they will be honored?


I'm not sure what Ron has said, and I'm not sure it's a duty, but I personally think it's a very important function.  If a large majority of us don't agree to maintain property rights together, it takes quite a bit of individual resources to maintain ownership of anything.  Ownership is required for trade, and it's actually trade and specialization that make us better off.  When I talk about "trade," there's no government involved...  just people and groups of people trading.

----------


## ronpaulNH

i heard that our constitution ran out in 98 or something....could this be true and that is why they are slowly changing laws...?

----------


## Lexx78

that seems like crap

----------


## fortilite

The only problem with the Bill Of Rights was that it wasn't explicit enough.  For example:

*Original*



> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


*Should have been*



> A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  And we mean it!

----------


## qaxn

the ideas of the patriot movement are something akin to playing kabbalist temurah with the constitution.  while it's an improvement over ignoring it entirely, it's still $#@!ed up and wrong.

----------


## PeterWellington

The fatal flaw is the notion that government is necessary for peace and prosperity.

----------


## ronpaulblogsdotcom

The fatal flaw is that it is easy to not follow it, to not do your duty if you are a politician, and that there is so much incentive to cheat.

That has encouraged more cheating and more "special" interests.

----------


## therealjjj77

> How about this: Who needs a government at all?
> 
> Why is the Constitution a binding contract on me?  I never signed it.  I certainly wouldn't approve of things like the income tax and Federal Reserve.
> 
> All forms of taxation are theft.
> 
> Without government interference, the free market would be able to take care of everything.


The Constitution is not a chain on the people but a chain on the government.  

Now, for the person who started this article, that guy failed to include the rest of that sentence:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, *over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)*

With that context it becomes very clear that they got to be their own dictatorship over their 10x10 mile living area: Washington, D.C.,.  

The Federal Reserve is certainly outside of the boundaries of the Constitution, but the income tax is not, however, when applied on certain classes of person.  Those classes of person are as follows:
Non-resident aliens earning domestic income
Foreign corporations earning domestic income
U.S. citizens earning income abroad(the tax falls on the foreign party)

In all of these situations, in theory at least, the tax is applied on a person not afforded the protection of their rights by our government.  Tariffs fall under the same category.  

Those foreigners may have those rights, but the United States government was not instituted to secure their rights.  It was only instituted to secure the rights of "ourselves and our Posterity".

----------


## qaxn

> The Federal Reserve is certainly outside of the boundaries of the Constitution, but the income tax is not, however, when applied on certain classes of person.  Those classes of person are as follows:
> Non-resident aliens earning domestic income
> Foreign corporations earning domestic income
> U.S. citizens earning income abroad(the tax falls on the foreign party)
> 
> In all of these situations, in theory at least, the tax is applied on a person not afforded the protection of their rights by our government.  Tariffs fall under the same category.  
> 
> Those foreigners may have those rights, but the United States government was not instituted to secure their rights.  It was only instituted to secure the rights of "ourselves and our Posterity".


While I appreciate your correct analysis of the Washington DC executive magic thing, this part is more constitutional kabbalah.  The only places where the Constitution uses the language of citizenry is in the qualifications for holding office, the purpose of the Supreme Court, Congress' authority over the naturalization process, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause (which is generally held to be w/r/t state-based discrimination).

----------


## therealjjj77

> While I appreciate your correct analysis of the Washington DC executive magic thing, this part is more constitutional kabbalah.  The only places where the Constitution uses the language of citizenry is in the qualifications for holding office, the purpose of the Supreme Court, Congress' authority over the naturalization process, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause (which is generally held to be w/r/t state-based discrimination).


Those principles I stated are upheld by the Supreme Court and they use the Declaration of Independence to come to that conclusion:

*That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*

The Constitution isn't the end all document.  It must be understood in it's context.  Not as some separate new law book that threw out the old.  That's why it says, "in order to form a more perfect Union".

If you think what I said is "constitutional kabbalah" then take that up with the Secretary of the Treasury, because he has expressed very clearly that those classes of person are required to file a 1040 in "Treasury Decisions" dating all the way back to 1913.  But not once has he cited a United States citizen, a Citizen of a State of the Union, or a resident as being required to file a 1040 or as having taxable income.

The Internal Revenue Code only imposed a tax upon taxable income.  If it wasn't taxable before the Internal Revenue Code was written, it wasn't taxable after.  And you would need to examine supreme court cases dating all the way back to the 1850s that haven't been overturned yet.

----------


## Doktor_Jeep

is there a fatal flaw in the Constitution?


Well, did it work?

I could argue that America is a failure starting with the Whiskey Rebellion. The fate of these times sealed later in 1865.


The Constitution is in fact, a "goddamn piece of paper" as Der Fuhrer put it. 


Freedom comes from us. We don't need any damned paper, or "rule of law" to be free. Freedom comes from a combination of things, part community, part morality, a mixture of common law and natural law, and force to back them up.


The evil times we face is our fault, for sitting around thinking "we got a Constitution, we are free. This is America. What happened in other countries cannot happen here because we have a Constitution". 

Bull$#@!. And the enemy would say so too, through their actions.

Go ahead, fail to obey all those un-Constitutional laws, and then when they come for you stand there with a Constitution in hand and see how it "protects" you. It will have boot prints on it after you are slammed down and some fat cop puts his knee in the back of your neck.

Of course, you had a Constitution, so did America.

But THEY have the courts, the judges, the cops, all the machine guns, the army, and the prisons. They will do whatever the $#@! they want. To you or to someone you care about, no matter how much cling to it or wave it around. 

So much for that worthless rag. 

Foul deeds await.

----------


## therealjjj77

Doktor_Jeep,

I had a plumber in last week working on something in my business and was talking to him about how I transitioned everything into private affairs(no sales tax, common law workers, no employees, no business license, etc.) and I quite surprised at what he said.  He told me his next door neighbor when he was growing up didn't have a drivers license, a social security number, didn't pay any income taxes, etc. and that he did it in such a way so he never go in any trouble over it. 

Knowing the laws and the statutes and having the understanding to see how to avoid making one's self liable is all that is necessary.  Then you have the ability to defend your actions in a court room.  

The fruits of my labor aren't going to fund this over-burdensome government and that is doing far more for the cause of liberty then going on a chat room and complaining about them.

----------


## STRATIOTES

> Doktor_Jeep,
> 
> Knowing the laws and the statutes and having the understanding to see how to avoid making one's self liable is all that is necessary.  Then you have the ability to defend your actions in a court room.  
> 
> The fruits of my labor aren't going to fund this over-burdensome government and that is doing far more for the cause of liberty then going on a chat room and complaining about them.


There is no law but necessity !

If you go into their courts you will lose, after 50 years of fighting these demons I have seen horrors beyond imagination.

I have had the crying children hug my legs as we buried their father, (Milton William Cooper) seen the divorces and the loss of all property and sentences three times the maximum with no injured party and no history of violence.

I am not telling anyone not to fight just please for your sake and everyone you care about do not go into resisting evil thinking it is easy, it often has a very high cost, one I have always paid for knowing what I know I can do nothing else but fight for what is right regardless the cost.

But please, research the subject and know what you are up against before dozens of lives are lost through inexperience.

----------


## therealjjj77

> There is no law but necessity !
> 
> If you go into their courts you will lose, after 50 years of fighting these demons I have seen horrors beyond imagination.
> 
> I have had the crying children hug my legs as we buried their father, (Milton William Cooper) seen the divorces and the loss of all property and sentences three times the maximum with no injured party and no history of violence.
> 
> I am not telling anyone not to fight just please for your sake and everyone you care about do not go into resisting evil thinking it is easy, it often has a very high cost, one I have always paid for knowing what I know I can do nothing else but fight for what is right regardless the cost.
> 
> But please, research the subject and know what you are up against before dozens of lives are lost through inexperience.


I have spent over a year examining the statutes closely and seeing how they relate to me.  

Most people think along the lines of those above.  However, I've had a health department official threaten to close my place down and then I challenged her with the statutes that regulate her.  Now she was in a position where if she didn't follow it according to the letter she could be fired and get sued.  She backed down because of it.  I was certainly very polite though.  But stood my ground and had the law on my side.  

You got to know and read the law first to be able to do that.

----------


## STRATIOTES

> I have spent over a year examining the statutes closely and seeing how they relate to me.  
> 
> 
> You got to know and read the law first to be able to do that.


You have  piece of paper with no force, they have unlimited monopoly on force in every sector, media. schools, military, police, courts, juries,legislatures, and on and on.

With low level bureaucracies you will get a win but each time you do you become a bigger threat to organized crime, with each success you become a bigger threat, eventually they will assemble a full threat profile, if found to be dangerous you will be eliminated as a threat, period.


I have seen threat assessment sheets on the desks of agents.

Some of the most common is

1. Organization.
2.Size of org.
3.quality of org (skill of people involved)
4.legislative contacts 
5.judicial contacts
6.Legal council
7.Law enforcement contacts (intel source) 
8.Media contacts
9. Communications
10.Money (secure forms such as gold and silver not in the bank)
11. knowledge of natural and common law
12.Community support

new start up organization that patriots may find helpful, highly recommended lots of new people coming on board with great talents and experience

----------


## STRATIOTES

To answer the thread question, yes there is a fatal flaw, the law enforcement for the constitution was never developed.

The law enforcement for the constitution is the jury and militia to carry out the order of the jury.

Just 12 average Americans can bring the federal government to it's knees under the original contract of the constitution but it has always been up to the people to know how to form a jury and a militia capable of suppressing  federal troop insurrection.




> Art 1 Sec 8 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


It is up to the government which is We the People to enforce the law.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Yes, several.<IMHO>

*Index to the Antifederalist Papers
*http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Etc., etc., etc. ............................!

----------


## Pauls' Revere

How about we "build" a constitution of our own. What I mean is why not have a (wiki) type constitution which we as members can edit. Forgive my I.T. knowledge but isn't a wiki like a public way of editting a document? I mean why have we not built our own constitution and compare the two documents, which would be interesting to see how,what and why things should be changed or not. Why have we "strayed" from the ideals of what it was suppose be. Aside from yes we live in a different era and all but perhaps we can reveal more. Are thier ideals so far apart from ours? shouldn't ours match thiers? Just thoughts storming in my little head.

----------


## therealjjj77

In context, the Constitution was written about 13 years after the Declaration of Independence.  It was to be used in addition to the Articles of Confederation.  Though I tend to be more of an Anti-Federalist, the Constitution also served greatly in limiting the power of the state governments and the power of the already existing federal government.  

The state governments were producing their own currencies that they were inflating.  The federal government was printing it's own currency that was getting inflated.  The Constitution, however, served to provide an honest commodity backed currency by our government.  It did not, however, limit sovereign citizens from making their own currencies.  It also did not limit the states from making their own currencies(except that they had to pay their debts in gold and silver).  It just provided a federal currency that, if you wanted to pay the fee to have your raw gold, silver, nickel or copper converted into it, you could do so.  However, many of it's other functions I believe were counterproductive.  Like postal services and roads.

----------


## Ozwest

Don't blame the Constitution.

Blame yourselves.

You allow liars to dismantle your rights, whilst accepting outside authority.

----------


## Alex Libman

Of course, there are many flaws in our constitution.  It should have said "no torture or death penalty except for demagogues and government bureaucrats who try to raise the size and power of the government beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect property rights and keep the redcoats from invading!"

----------


## Ozwest

Liberty is telling people what they do not want to hear.

----------


## Grimnir Wotansvolk

"public welfare"

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Is there a fatal flaw in the Constitution?* 

*We're all here aren't we?  Why?*

*Fatally flawed Constitution!  Correct?*

----------


## Ozwest

> "public welfare"


"Public welfare"

According to who?

----------


## tribute_13

People naturally do stupid $#@! when not supervised so I'm not a total anarchist but of course I believe that we can fend for ourselves after we receive sensible teachings and upbringings.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> People naturally do stupid $#@! when not supervised so I'm not a total anarchist but of course I believe that we can fend for ourselves after we receive sensible teachings and upbringings.


Who is supervising?  Really! I see lots of people doing lots of stupid $#@! every day.  There is no supervision, that I can see.  What am I missing here?

Did a "no stupid $#@!" law get passed?  If so, it's not being enforced either.  Just like the rest of them.

----------


## Doktor_Jeep

Oh here we go again.

People are going to act on fear of "anarchy" - the GOVERNMENT definition of it - the one that is all about "without us there would be total anarchy".

We already live in a lawless police state. Sound like an oxymoron? Well we have a state that does not obey the laws, and it has a lot of cops and agents that don't obey the laws.

So let's see, in a "anarchy" we have a chance of doing what good people did in new Orleans and get together managing a common defense. This was done in some cases where the police did not disarm the people. 


Or we can have what is sold to us as "the way". Where cops can charge you with anything they want, agents can plant evidence and lie, judges can keep the jury blind to their power, and you can be railroaded just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Here is the real definition of "anarchy", as the real world puts it. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html

Under  the present definition, people think they have order when it's cops and judges feared more than "some outloaw biker or street gang" - that latter most people think will rule the streets like this was some Mad Max movie.

Of course you are free to work three jobs just to have a tiny house so of course the lot of morons we call our society still think they are free too.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Oh here we go again.
> 
> People are going to act on fear of "anarchy" - the GOVERNMENT definition of it - the one that is all about "without us there would be total anarchy".
> 
> We already live in a lawless police state. Sound like an oxymoron? Well we have a state that does not obey the laws, and it has a lot of cops and agents that don't obey the laws.
> 
> So let's see, in a "anarchy" we have a chance of doing what good people did in new Orleans and get together managing a common defense. This was done in some cases where the police did not disarm the people. 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks! 

I really really like and most often agree with Butler too.

----------


## tribute_13

> People naturally do stupid $#@! when not supervised so I'm not a total anarchist but of course I believe that we can fend for ourselves after we receive sensible teachings and upbringings.


I'm not endorsing in any way that people are being supervised because if that were so this forum would not exist.

----------


## Doktor_Jeep

> I'm not endorsing in any way that people are being supervised because if that were so this forum would not exist.


Paulians and true libertarians have a common enemy:

Socialist Letftists who think we are all too stupid to survive and thus need a nanny state to tell us how to live (lest there be anarchy).

Fascistic Right that thinks we are all too evil to survive and thus need a nanny state to tell us how to live (lest there be even more anarchy).


The sheep think this is two partys working for or against them, running for president and stuff like that.  Fools. 

It's two trains headed off the same cliff at differing vectors but seeing how both parties have been running the education system - while those who want all government out of it are ignored (gee, wonder why?) - most of the sheep are too dumb to do the math.

The Constitution is a Beta Version. But frankly seeing how Amerikan Demokracy failed because of the way people are and how centralized power attracts the worst - to the tune of every warning from every Founder, from every book of scripture, from every philosopher, every poet, every sci-fi dystopic view, and every political scientist, the ONLY way we can be free is through decentralization of all power. 

The colonialization of the US is a model for the human race: how tyranny will drive people to new lands, and in 200 years the place they escaped to becomes the same kind of $#@!hole their ancestors escaped from. 


Constitution 0.9 is trash. Time for 1.0.

----------


## Libertarian Ideals

Iceland is a historical example of an anarchist society.
But here, read for yourself & come to your own conclusions on Iceland's history & private law in general,


Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1121

Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

The Decline and Fall
http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html

Polycentric Law
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~ihs/w91issues.html

This essay notes that:
"Although state legal systems have amassed immense monopolistic powers, they have never entirely quashed competition among legal systems."

&

"Theories of Polycentric Law
*Economists since Adam Smith have argued that competition in production serves consumers' interests, while monopolies tend toward sloth and waste.* Gustave de Molinari, editor of the Journal des economistes, was probably the first legal theorist who dared to ask why this should not be as true of the law as it is of apples, cotton, and iron. *He argued that under the state's monopoly of law "Justice becomes slow and costly, the police vexatious, individual liberty is no longer respected, [and] the price of security is abusively inflated and inequitably apportioned. . . ." He therefore advocated a non- monopolistic legal system and projected that once "all artificial obstacles to the free action of the natural laws that govern the economic world have disappeared, the situation of the various members of society will become the best possible."* (Gustave de Molinari, The Production of Security, translated by J. H. McCulloch [New York: Center For Libertarian Studies, 1977], pp. 14-15. For a more detailed exposition, see Molinari's Society of Tomorrow [New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904].)"


Molinari Institute
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm

----------


## Doktor_Jeep

But .... but...... Icelanders are vikings!

I don't wanna be a viking!



Spam spam spam spam......
oh oh


spam spam spam spam

----------


## Truth Warrior

> But .... but...... Icelanders are vikings!
> 
> I don't wanna be a viking!
> 
> 
> 
> Spam spam spam spam......
> oh oh
> 
> ...


I don't want to be a viking either.  The vikings were BARBARIANS *TOO*.

The barbarians are just gonna end up killing us all.

----------


## IRO-bot

I brought this up once before but I think the biggest flaw left my the Constitution is that they did not put in there that they had to balance the budget.  Like state ones.  They have to have it balanced.  Was this never discussed by the founders?

----------


## 10thAmendment

> Now I am pretty much new to the Constitution and the Patriot Movement so I really don't know what to make of it. I know that many of you here are well versed in these things, which is why I'm putting this out here.
> 
> What do you think?


I'm glad that you're studying the Constitution.  Although the following links don't directly address your particular concerns about the Constitution, if you want to get up to speed on the overall purpose of the Constitution with respect to the federal government then try the following link.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=148967
And if you want the sad details as to why we're having problems with big federal government then try the following link.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=148854

----------


## Godfather89

The constitution is flawed because man made it, but its an effective document nonetheless. We must add our experiences of dealing with any tyrants to the constitution to make sure that tyrants cant use a certain way ever again. Perhaps a real American Amendment would be that we repeal the income tax and that we make it illegal to have politicians payed off, and to create seperation between political parties to not allow some bi-partisan thing. I am for one party, in the sense that George Washington mentioned in his farewell address.

----------


## Truth Warrior

I'd say the biggest fatal flaw is that 

*The Federal Constitution Is Dead*
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

----------


## foofighter20x

> The suggestion that this rule clears the path for a dictatorship strikes me as plainly stupid.
> 
>  Note I quoted it in it's entirety. Read it carefully. The Federal government has Legislative powers over the Capital and US Military installations, as State Legislatures have over their States. 
> 
> The Constitution isn't perfect, but it sure as hell didn't leave a loophole big enough for a dictatorship to slip through.


Correct.

----------


## The Moog Magician

> Correct.


Yeah, the horrible, illogical theory this thread-starter references assumes that the federal government achieved its current power against the wishes of the people without the citizenry even noticing, which is ludicrous. That's like the holocaust happening without the Jews even realizing they're being oppressed. The 10th Amendment means exactly what it says. America has become a big government state because American citizens have allowed it and even praised it and begged for it. We are all implicit in our current bloated national government. There is no conspiracy to blame--only weakness.

----------


## Lou337

Well, first of all there are two constitutions. 

There's the original one based on common law, and the corporate one based on admiralty, roman civil law, & commerce laws which was edited after the civil war through various acts.

There's also two different kinds of citizens, U.S. citizens and state nationals. U.S. citizens have civil rights; which are technically just privileges while state nationals have natural rights (you know, the ones that are unalienable?). Once you understand that everything else falls into place.

U.S. citizens where created through the 14th amendment. State nationals are sovereigns.
U.S. citizens are created through birth certificates and for those who are residents, acceptance of government benefits such as a social security number implies acceptance of federal juridistiction replacing whatever other country's citizenship status you are coming from.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*ALL individuals are sovereign. Most have NEVER heard, weren't taught, and just plain flat don't know it.*

----------


## Lou337

Indeed, but sort of. The only way to keep your sovereign status is as a parent demand the original title of birth certificate not the copy right after your child is born. Afterwards it's too late. As an adult you can regain your state nationality and sovereignty by a very long process which entails getting rid of all goverment benefits by revoking them i.e.; social security, driver's license, car registration, bank accounts, marriage license, voter registration card, credit cards...oh and you have to deny that you are a fictional person. Fictional persons in the legal sense are people whose names on legal documents are spelled in all caps, such as a birth certificate. A birth certificate in and of itself is not a legal document, but when signed under an all caps name and sent to the department of commerce then you effectively are just that. 

It's not easy but it's the only way to have the natural rights of the original constitution, not the civil rights of the district of columbia version.

----------


## Truth Warrior

The newborn is a sovereign individual too.<IMHO>

----------


## Alex Libman



----------

