How aware is Dr. Paul of this argument?

[HPS]

This from

http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/thequeen.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm


I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in

court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is

true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs.

Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

You have to understand that Great Britain,(Article six Section one)

the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you.

Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile

has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell

the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me

and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The

court then says case dismissed. Why ? Because you are not a party to the

contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract

(Constitution) that you are not a party to."

 

[Banana]

The first link was lot of blah-blah about Brits and the second link was broken.

So, I don't know the full context but have a hunch it's quoted out of context.

We all are a party to Constitution through implicit agreement in that we are a citizen and/or lives within the jurisdiction of U.S. Not all contracts require that you sign on a dotted line to be a party; an good example is ToS of this forum which is presented to you at sign up and you check the box to agree to the terms. Then there are cases where a simple act of making a payment to a company constitute entering into a contract.

I suspect that in this case, the guy was trying to sue government on someone else's behalf then got dismissed because he was not the one with standing, but that doesn't mean nobody is party to Constitution as well.

 

[FreeTraveler]

All I know is my signature's not on the document. It's convenient for me to accept the fallacy that the Constitution is the law of the land, at least until we get FedGov to obey it. That makes me a fellow traveler to the Ron Paul movement.

If anybody but a government argued that when you're born, you're bound to a contract that predated your existance, they would be laughed out of court, and the contract struck down as an example of birth into slavery.

However, that concept is the fiction that all governments operate on. That makes the whole system criminal, but people call that viewpoint extreme and preposterous. Why?

 

[revolutionman]

However, that concept is the fiction that all governments operate on. That makes the whole system criminal, but people call that viewpoint extreme and preposterous. Why?

because people refuse to take hold of their own lives/fates. they want big government to scapegoat whenever something goes awry.

Anyone tries to tell me the Constitution does not apply to me and mine will be laughed out of my court room.

 

[HPS]

Found more . . .

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920005_en_1

This is the British legislation causing the fuss I think: It's about the administration of US Social Security and states the US is a part of the UK just like Scotland and Ireland. Note the 1992 date. WTF!

Here's a revision to Social Security Administration that was passed by the Crown in '97:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2007/ssi_20070355_en_1

# Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 c.27

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997a


And here is an update from last year (2007):

Scottish Statutory Instruments
2007 No. 355

MAINTENANCE OF DEPENDANTS
The Recovery of Maintenance (United States of America) (Scotland) Order 2007

Made

25th July 2007

Laid before the Scottish Parliament

1st August 2007

Coming into force

1st October 2007

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 25th day of July 2007

Present,

The Queen 213 s Most Excellent Majesty in Council

This Order in Council is made in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 40 and 45(1) of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972(1).

Her Majesty is satisfied that arrangements have been made in the United States of America to ensure that applications by persons in the United Kingdom for the recovery of maintenance from persons in the United States of America can be entertained by courts in the United States of America.

Her Majesty is also satisfied that in the interest of reciprocity it is desirable to ensure that applications by persons in the United States of America for the recovery of maintenance from persons in the United Kingdom can be entertained by courts in the United Kingdom.

Accordingly, Her Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order as follows.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2007/ssi_20070355_en_1

 

[HPS]

What a labryinth!

(never mind - - all those first links were about child support, not social security! A refined search is in order)

Still - - the methodology is sound. Go to the Office of Public Sector Information http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ and do a search on "United States" and "Social Security."

But never mind trying to decipher legal mumbojumbo and ask yourselves this question: Why is US Social Security the Queen's business in the first place?

 

[Banana]

I didn't bother to click the links (and to be honest, it's a lot of information), but it sounds like UK court is simply asserting that US has no jurisdiction within UK.

Nothing revolutionary here...

 

[FreeStater]

also note that the constitution is not a contract like a warranty. For example, the bill of rights does not say "The people have the right to bear arms" it says "the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." (slightly paraphrased). The difference is that it isn't an agreement between the people and the government, but something that limits the government to specific roles. The individual rights are taken as a given. They're not given by the constitution, the constitution just protects them from the government.

Its not a contract between the people and the government. Its a rulebook for the government saying these are the rules we're going to use. So when the government does something against the constitution, you're not saying "we had a contract that you're breaking" but rather "this rule you set for me is in conflict with the rule you set for yourself."

 

[HPS]

OK Banana - - I can't fuss because you didn't read it, it's a lot of boring mumbojumbo, but you know what they say about the word "assume," yes? The lack of jurisdiction mentioned in that quote above has to do with child support and the inability of US courts to fiddle with UK child support orders and vice versa. Reciprocity is good. Never mind the child support stuff though, in fact I should go edit it because it's distracting. It was simply the most recent manifestation of any number of British laws concerning US welfare.

What's NOT good, or at least what's remarkable, is that the US appears - STILL - to be treated as a colony in British law. Is our so-called "independence" an illusion? THAT's what I was alluding to in my original message in this thread. What (not necessarily whom) is the US Constitution OF the UNITED STATES actually FOR? If it's an agreement, with whom is it between? Not We the People, apparently.

Meaning: Perhaps our Declaration of Independence is the document Libertarians should be waving around in anger, NOT the current manifestation of the US Constitution (as revised in 1787 after the country defaulted on its war debts. The Articles of Confederation had to be revised to account for the fact that America was bankrupt and the Crown was playing REPO MAN, which means whatever came out of that meeting We the People were probably screwed).

Just a thought, one I've been ruminating on for the past few weeks. Further study/analysis is called for, I think. Don't worry; I'll do it.

I still wonder how much Dr. Paul knows about this.

 

[nickcoons]

The US Constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government, so it is correct that individuals are not a party to the contract. In a free society, one must enter into a contract voluntarily. The more fundamental question isn't "Is the Constitution legitimate?", but rather, "Where did the states get the authority to enter into a contract that would bind the citizens of their states?"

If we as individuals are not able to bring suit against the government for violating this contract because we're not parties to it, such as when they infringe our right to free speech, then that reciprocates. That is, we don't need to recognize the authority granted to them in the Constitution, such as their authority to regulate interstate commerce, to create our money, or to declare war on our behalf. In other words, their laws don't apply to us, whether they're constitutional or not.

The moment a federal judge argues that we are not parties to the Constitution is the moment they lose all legitimate authority.

 

[Kludge]

Create a Problem
+
Solicit a Reaction
+
Offer a Solution

=

BIG GOVERNMENT (I made it bold to denote it's big-ness. Clever, huh? >.>)

Dr. Paul is libertarian BTW, which doesn't necessarily mean he's anarchist or even minarchist. Pure libertarianism is Anarchy. Pure Libertarianism is... difficult to accurately describe