Constitution Club

Well, here it is folks. Another angle, another injured Party "travelling upon the land" and minding their own business, until someone in "government" pissed them off!

Watch the Video

Comments?

Views: 796

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Don't remind me. It makes me sick.

Treaties do not 'trump' the constitutions.  That would be like saying that the gov can make a law granting itself more powers than what a constitution allows.

The gov has done an end-run around the constitutions by pretending that everyone is a fed citizen.  This is why they will always default on a proper jurisdictional challenge.

Bill, Please see Article VI, Clause 2 below. You are correct, treaties do not trump the constitution however, treaties are the supreme law of the land if made under the Authority of the United States.  I have yet to see any pertinent documents or lawful actions taken by the purported Federal legislative branch of government to abolish the unconscionable Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783  a.k.a. Treaty of Paris 1783.  I highlighted the pertinent aspects in bold to make the case and point.

ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It was the purported government that created Federal citizenship for all US citizens and they also provide the remedy to expatriate.  Let's go directly to the Expatriation Act of 1868 and read the very first section of the first sentence to which is highlighted in bold. 

EXPATRIATION ACT OF 1868 (First Part of Sentence in Bold):

Whereas the right of Expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.......... 

The problem is the fact that most people do not know the proper, lawful process to rebut these foreign agents presumption that all are Federal US citizens.

"Under the authority of the United States" meaning under the authority of congress.  The authority of congress is defined and therefore set by the constitution.  Congress cannot lawfully enter into a treaty that would have the effect of increasing its powers beyond what the framers set it to be.

In regard to expatriation. You can expatriate once you have taken on the citizenship of another country. You cannot expatriate and claim the right to remain in America.

As for fed citizenship. Before the 14th, a person was a citizens of a state or territory. This was a right exclusive to whites. Others remained aliens in America.  While the gov has an official policy of claiming state-born whites are 14th subjects - this is only true because the gov is so powerful and corrupt that it now openly ignores the very instruments that created them [ 51 gov's ].

Since a state-born white is not a 'citizen of the United States', constitutionally they cannot expatriate from a status that does not apply to them.  Instead, their recourse would be to file suit for an injunction against the gov treating them as a fed subject.

http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/do-oaths-of-office-an...

On the link above Please go down to my post and see the entry I just got from the Federal Court on the Quo Warranto I filed to get this damn county judges oath.... ART VI was right in there and they told me they can't make the states comply WHAT THE F????.. So the Federal Court can't make the states honor the Constitution for the United States of America???

Please folks no need to write back and say how there is only a corporate constitution, we are under marshall law, we are enemies, bla bla bla I know that..

The point is this order should go viral across the country because the Fed Court is telling the people we can't make anybody follow the US constitution AND there is NO art III court we can send it too because I ask for one if they can't handle my order......Which means there is NO courts under the constitution.

I just think this is something the average day joe can understand without knowing all about the OZ "enterprise", etc.

The Treaty of Paris, 1783 is Null and Void, Prime Facie, Ab Initio, Nunc Pro Tunc, Ad Infinitum. Period.

The signers were not proper representatives of the Country they purported to be. They were IMPOSTORS masquerading as Americans. They were loyal to the crown, NOT America. They committed FRAUD!

Therefore:

See paragraph 1.

I agree, Mort but where's the evidence such has ever been lawfully challenged. Remember, 'silence is acquiescence' and therefore this despicable treaty is still in play today until lawfully challenged and abolished. 'Fraud vitiates all' if duly recognized and challenged. How can such be challenged when the only purported authority to bring such before are foreign agents and venues under corporate contract to protect their foreign master's interests?  This to me is a great example as to why the changes needed within our purported government can never and will ever be achieved under the status quo.

Again, this is why what has taken place in WV is so, so critical and most likely our very last chance to foment the changes needed throughout.  If not successful, the Pope's coming implementation will be Agenda 21 on steroids and the 500,000,000 max specified on the Georgia Guidestones will become a pipe dream because the latest updates are for 200,000,000 to 300,000,000 max. The Pope's authority in all this will be the still un-rebutted Secret Treaty of Verona.

In short, if WV is not successful, the over 100,000,000 registered gun owners will have to suffice as our line of defense and it won't be a pretty sight.

The correct answer "should" have been, "Republicans are defenders of the Republic and maintain the authority of the People".

Sadly, the present institution of the Republican Party has been infiltrated by anti-republican moles. The two major parties are two teams maintained by the same owner. They wear different uniforms, but legislate towards the same end result. If we analyze the Republic Party, their actions and inactions indicate that they are the "progressive" body of the Democratic/Socialist goals.

The Republic's intent has always been just a collection of words and written on paper. Those intentions must be enforced and defended by actual people to have any lasting effect. Our Republican Constitution cannot defend itself. Paper and words cannot protect, only people can. Paper and words are so all the players can have an agreement on the rules of engagement.
I would like to make a suggestion. Could we have truth in advertising when it comes to labeling political entities? May I suggest we have a more honest description for the party names.

Communist, Socialist, Conservative, and Constitutional comes to mind. Pick where you fit in. Isn't a Republic the polar opposite of Communism? If we were honest about our party loyalties and goals, wouldn't the dumbed-down "elector" rethink their choices?

Great Britain has a Labor Party (Socialist?)and also a Green Party (UN Agenda?) What's with those?

If we could count on a utopia, Socialism and Communism might be a good idea. If that's what people want, they should be able to go there and practice to their hearts content. But our society wasn't set up that way. We invite people from around the World to become Americans if they wish. At the same time we SHOULD allow/encourage those with Socialist values to expatriate to areas where they are welcomed also. America should not oppress these people either! They are free to go! Good luck in your new World. May the chains of your Masters lay lightly on your wrist.

Definition of citizen

A- an inhabitant of a city or town; especially :  one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

or

B- a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it

How about: citizen is preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people

freeman was used by the segregationists in montana because their thoughts were that citizen meant a Roman style  Emporer.

I see worlds colliding as Legislators now feel extra power over their servants

And a servant now disclaiming any servitude to the Government as they pay their fair share of taxes in money and blood.

I see knowledge of sorts but lack of understanding of position. WV case in point actions which should have taken a 100 years ago now trying to become active.

The Constitution lying on the floor of the Senate, House of Representatives, and being used as toilet paper by the executive branch while the Supreme Court applies deoderant  so the smell does not reach unbearable levels.

Once more Cities , counties  and their law enforcement studies in civics and narratives with who? Representatives who use the deoderant of the Supreme Court to lessin the smell of a dead and decaying feces they try to pass off as new material when in fact its a regurgitation of old material still used to scare children and to keep in place a control they need  so as to compliment their narcicism ego  and control.

Just thoughts as i arrize in the morning and get ready for my daily tasks..

Please don't forget that there is more than one form of citizenship recognized by our constitutional system.

State-only citizen = sovereign.

Territorial citizen = almost sovereign

Citizen of the United States aka US citizen via the 14th = subject

Citizen of Guam. US national but not a citizen even under the 14th but similar to it. = subject

Citizens of conquered lands no longer in rebellion = similar to Guam = subjects

What? Where are you getting your information? Allow me to attempt to make sense out of what your saying if I may? Firstly you said, "State-only citizen = sovereign". I've read through the Federalist papers to try and ascertain the framers intent on citizenship and here's what I've gleaned.

Madison was a proponent of State citizenship as was many other with the exception of Hamilton. Hamilton made sure he never mentioned the word citizen to avoid the whole topic altogether. Madison WANTED a NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP (Federalist 9 or 10 I believe). This would mean that the 14th Amendment was being promoted by Madison way ahead of time. This also means whatever 'Sovereignty" was being held onto would have to be given up for this to take place.

Does that mean Madison wrote the 14th Amendment? No that would be preposterous, but that does mean that he SUPPORTED the Amendments creation. You go on to say, "Territorial citizen = almost sovereign". I admit I have never heard such phraseology before. I don't know many who know as much about Territories as I do so lets explore that statement. In talking about

Territtories we have to examine how they were created. In doing so you would acquire many books and supporting SCOTUS decisions to piece it all together. here's what I've found. Land was acquired via many means;

Annexation, purchase, treaties, etc. These lands were then held under Article 4, section 3 clause 2 as Territories. There was no Constitutional 'CONVERSION' mechanism from Territory to State and so one had to be created (see Northwest Ordinance). Congress created a situation where a Territories boundaries were created by Congressional act (Organic act) and then the Territory was populated. When the population reached a certain amount the people could (if they possessed the political will) draft a State Constitution and then petition Congress for admission as a State.

If you look at Downes v Bidwell it becomes clear that the decision by Congress was that, "The Constitution did NOT follow the flag and so Territories were not necessarily under the Constitutions protection" (see Territorial doctrine in the case). So the inhabitants could not be seen as Sovereign as they were under colonial possession by the US and not citizens of the US (which didn't exist until after the 14th Amendment). If you are using the word 'sovereign' in a different capacity I'd like to know which capacity you are using it please???

The 14th Amendment took sovereignty away from the States to be able to choose who their citizens were going to be and created a unified National citizenship qualifier for every state. If I am wrong please elaborate where my lack of understanding lies.?.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service