A nation or a country is the name given to identify a particular group of people and the place where they live. Every country has a governing body that is a legal fiction created to control the people or to protect the rights of the people.
Like a corporation a government is an artificial person or a legal fiction and has no inherent rights. Lawful governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.
Many patriotic Americans try to explain how our government has gone astray by asserting that the United States became a corporation in 1871.
What they fail to realize is that virtually every country in the history of the world has been an legal fiction created by a group of individuals to control the people of a nation and their wealth.
When a government or a corporation is controlled by the financial elite the vast majority of the people become debt slaves to the banking institutions.
According to our founding fathers, our government was not created to a government of, by and for the people. It was not created to benefit the few
The Constitution was written as a rulebook to govern the government and to prevent its abuse of power. The people in each of the states created their own government and transferred a portion of their sovereignty to their state government. The authority granted to their state governments was revokable any time by the voice of the people
The representatives of the people from the states then created a national government and granted to that body a list of enumerated powers. Any power that was not granted to the government was to be retained by the states and the people.
Our government (corporation) has been infiltrated by bankers, lawyers and corrupt politicians and they have seized control of the government of the United States.
When agents of the bankers write unconstitutional laws, the nation that was created to promote liberty has become the author of tyranny. The people that were to be the masters have become the slaves in a land that once was free. We are the employers and those that we elect are to be our servants.
The only way to restore the rule of law is to expel all of the government officials that have been masquerading as public servants. Virtually ever elected official as well as those that have been appointed are enemy agents and need to be terminated.
Does it really make any difference if the UNITED STATES is a corporation or it is simply controlled by corporations?
Good input, Mangus.
I wish Nullification could work . . history tells us it will not stand . . Supremacy clause has been usurped.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by Federal courts, and it has rarely been legally upheld.
The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson andJames Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. A more extreme assertion of state sovereignty is the related action of secession, by which a state terminates its political affiliation with the Union.
Courts at the state and federal level have generally rejected the constitutionality of nullification, including the Supreme Court. The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws, including the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's ruling in 1854 that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Supreme Courtrejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
Some might like some more opinion on these subjects . .
Tragically, the left and other authoritarian types have touted the Supremacy Clause as proof that federal law always trumps State law. This inane assertion flies in the face of common sense, logic and the Constitution itself. For IF that were true, then why have a Constitution at all? We should all yield to drab submissive lives as subjects.
See if you can see the words in Art VI which are conveniently omitted when Progressives and even some unwitting folks on the right cite the Supremacy Clause as justification for federal pre-eminence in all matters of law: "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...
Yup, the words "which shall be made in pursuance thereof" are ALWAYS omitted. It's up to us to call 'em on it every time they mangle the meaning of Supremacy Clause in order to further their authoritarian goals.
Check the language of "NO STATE SHALL" in the 14th amendment . .
Nothing I've researched indicates that the 10th Amendment isn't viable and still the law of the land. Also, I'm guessing that your cites may have pointed out that the legality of the 14th Amendment remains in very serious doubt. It was driven down the throats of the defeated CSA at a time when they had no congressional representation.
WE've SO VERY MUCH to repair if we are to restore constitutional order. No question about it.
By the way, Mangus, I appreciate your diligence and obvious interest in the Constitution. Rare.
Read the many cases of the Supreme court using the 14th amendment as the power over the States . . NO STATE SHALL . . if the 14th gives the Federal power over the States in BOI limits then the powers of the 10th are gone . . the courts have never honored the concept of NULLIFICATION in all of History.
FF&R have written about the power of nullification in the past but none made it into the Constitution.
You will find the SC uses the 14th
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Remember that the Supreme Court, an unelected, black-robed gaggle of judicial oligarchs, are FEDERAL As such, they will invariably "rule" in favor of Leviathan. Thus, their "rulings', which overstep their constitutional limits under Art 3, are also subject to State nullification. Somehow, we've been brain-washed over the years to accept the notion that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Law of the Land. It's NOT and was never intended to be. To believe it is to invite tyranny.
Recall these infamous words by Gov Hughes who served as Chief Justice 1930-1941: "We are under the Consttiution , BUT the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Wow! How very far Leviathan has strayed, huh?
Again, any and all federal edicts/regulations/rulings/laws are, per the 9th and 10th Amendments, subject to State nullification. Absent this "rightful remedy", as Jefferson described nullification, there is unbridled tyranny. And that IS where we're headed today. And remember too that the federal judiciary will, of course, discount "theories" such as nullification and secession because it is in the interest of Leviathan to do so. They've been trying to justify the so-called "civil war" since 1861. So, we shouldn't be surprised by their brazen and calculated agenda.
Neither the States NOR the federal government or any its branches is about the Supeme Law of the Land, that being the Constitution. Period. We must all understand that before it's too late.
Jim, again I point to the facts that the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers did not put the word nullification in the Constitution - so the courts have rejected it since the very beginning.
BUT, as the wording of the 10th indicates, all powers not specifically delegated in the Constitution to the federal government or PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since State powers were considered so numerous, the Founders, framers and ratifiers alike, determined that those reserved powers not specifically delegated to the feds or otherwise specifically prohibited by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the States, whether stated or implied.
Madison wisely pointed out to the Ratifiers that State powers were so numerous as to defy enumeration. Thus, nullification and secession are NOT prohibited, and, thus, are two of the many implied reserved powers of the States. In truth, in this compact the States--if they so choose--can wield enormous power over the feds so long as the federal powers specifically enumerated in Art 1 Sec 8 are not violated/abridged by the States.
I'm guessing we're still on the same page regarding all this.
By the way, I'm all for attempting an Article V initiative. My only reservation is this: by adopting well-considered amendments what assurance do we have that the federal government will honor their limited role any more than they do now. So, I would say both an Art V to "fix" the obvious problems, like the repeal of the17th Amendment, imposing a State-Federal dual authority over SCOTUS appointments and timely removals of justices, nullification of judicial opinions/rulings by majority vote of States, term limits, etc. etc. etc. etc. AND nullification is the solution.
But, again, our ace in the hole--if the States get a constitutional spine--is nullification/interposition.
We back a REPEAL AMENDMENT not any new amendments . . return the powers to the States . .
Just google or yahoo our name or the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 28th - we are being used by schools and universities as sources for History and American research.
20 words can amend and repeal the offensive amendments. The 21st repealed the 18th using the same language as we use and the Congress sent the 21st out to the States using the STATE CONVENTION and nothing ran away and the other parts of the Constitution remained the same. It was a single issue amendment . . humm I guess those saying doom, scare fear and hate are just selling sour grapes.
Repeal makes sense, but I have heard others endorsing new amendments as well. I hope it's REPEAL, but I also hope for some commonsense "fixes" as well.
IMO no AV will make it if it opens the existing Constitution to new amendments or changing others. Repeal is safe, short, simple and sure . . the nation functioned for over a hundred years without the 14th [current court meanings] the 16th, and the 17th - sure Fights were had over Senate appointments and money played a part but has direct election changed those issues - I think not . .