Contrary to popular belief the Constitution for the united States is not a contract. It is a rule book written to limit the authority of the government in order to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people.
A contract is an agreement that creates an obligation to the participating parties abide by the mutually agreed upon terms.
The Constitution was written to govern the government not the people. It is the responsibility of government to obey the rules and it is our responsibility to enforce them.
If we don't hold our government officials accountable they have no incentive to honor their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution can not protect us, if we don't defend it.
Unfortunately when our Congressional Representatives violate the rules instead of being punished, they are rewarded by the Wall Street bankers and corporations who fund their campaigns.
We can not expect our elected officials to do their job, if we fail to do our job. We must either submit to tyranny or take responsibility. Giving Congress access to our credit cards is like giving the keys to your liquor cabinet to a thirsty alcoholic.
We the people elect the representatives, but they take their marching orders from the financial elite. We were supposed to be the employer and the government officials were to be our employees.
For our government to function properly, we must educate ourselves on the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility and hold our elected officials accountable.
If we don't govern our government, our government will become our masters and we will become their servants. The only way we can have a government of, by and for the people is for each of us to take responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable.
Representatives who violate the Constitution should be indicted and prosecuted and if found guilty they should be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
The Constitution is not a contract, it is the Supreme Law of the land and it is the responsibility of the people to enforce it.
If the information in my above comment is true (taken from Archives at .gov) where does the Executive Power end up ... back to the Articles of the Confederation as amended May 5th 2015 in the office of the Governor.
Only the actual language inside the actual Ratified Constitution is of importance. It was written in the simple language of the time. They used only words that every citizen could read and comprehend so if you have issues with meanings then use this dictionary.
That's a patriot myth. The Constitution was written the legal English of the time, which then as now, is not ordinary English. Now more people of that era were conversant in legal English, but terms like "due process" were not ordinary English.
read the letters and communications of the Founder, Framers and Ratifiers they do not support your take. Notice that the words are not legalese -
Terms like "due process", "jury", "grand jury", "probable cause", "cruel and unusual", and many others are legalese. Most today don't understand them.
Thank you for your concern, however I was not having difficulty in comprehending these simple words/phrases used by the authors of the constitution. Moreover, I know the importance of maintaining the chain of title throughout when creating legal documents. I can't say as much for some on this post.
The chain of title has no sway over the Constitution or the Ratifying of same. The Articles of Confederation have zero legal weight then or now. They abandoned and replaced with the approval of the States and the people.
The term United States of America is a red herring again no legal foundation except as to define the States and people are not the Federal government of United States of America.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
For someone to even suggest the The Articles of Confederation has Z E R O weight THEN or now is ludicrous. My family having arrived in 1638, and being well entrenched in the government took part in the Tea Party, Articles of Association, Articles of Confederation. So I would say your assumption that the country was abandoned and replaced with the consent of the people was incorrect. Approximately 31-35 delegates were not at the constitutional convention.
"Nineteen of the 74 delegates to the convention never even attended a single session, and of the 55 delegates who did show up in Philadelphia, no more than 30 stayed for the full four months. New Hampshire’s delegation arrived two months late, by which time two of New York’s three delegates had left in opposition to the proceedings, leaving just Hamilton behind and depriving the state of a quorum to vote. Thus, Washington wrote that the Constitution was signed by “11 states and Colonel Hamilton.”
The Articles of Confederation WERE abandoned after the Loyal Royal, George Washington usurped (Coup D'etat) the government of the country just fresh from a major war with the super power of the day.
According to the Articles of Confederation of March 1, 1781 they wrote this ...
The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
the red herring would be this ..
the United States of America or the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC, or UNITED STATES
Interesting point about the name. To understand that, one has to look at original intent. Taken in context, they both mean the same. Around 20 years ago Dan Meador did some research and found that United States of America is a public corporation with stock holders. One might wonder what business it engages in.
Apparently, we 2 are the only 2 that think so.
That's like saying Sear's in reference to Sears. That would be two separate entities. It is ALL in the name.
Both cannot be the same unless so stated somewhere in the document. It does not.
I saw the United States listed on D & B as a Religious group.
Read the preamble above the difference is clearly stated. Sear's possessive and Sears noun are still different.
In this case it does appear to be the case. An interesting point that is a little different is the term "United States". It actually has two completely different meanings and in SCt cases, one often has to look to the context to know which meaning is being applied.
This dual meaning has allowed the communists to manipulate the outcome of court decisions in a way to make it look like the court was saying one thing that appeared to grant the gov extra constitutional powers - which were then illegally put into law.