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 fucked 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".

Bullshit. 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 fuck 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.