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.

Views: 757

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That was the understanding of many of the Framers, as well as Barron. Only the First Amendment was restricted to the federal government. The notion otherwise was an invention of Justice Marshall, because otherwise the Fifth Amendment would ban slavery.

Understand something!! The "Supreme Court" and all Federal Courts have been completely illegal since the so-called ratification of the 17th Amendment. So ALL the decisions rendered since are ALL illegal as well!!

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."


The greatest threat America faces on a day to day basis are those who masquerade as protectors and defenders of the American people.

D.C. has long since ceased to be of any value to the public although corporations and the obscenely rich find a home away from home in this ten square mile district.

We are also standing on the edge of a precipice and if we don’t stand up and collectively demand a return to, and an affirmation of, who we are and what has bound us together for more than 200 years, we will be driven over the edge into an unimaginable abyss.

As congress continues its daily deluge of anti-American legislation, its un-American activities, bear in mind that just because congress said it, doesn’t make it so.

Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to."

If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void.

Keep this in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in the Constitution.

Almost without exception, every law that has been passed by one administration and congress after another in the last twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government.

Who confirms all Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices, THE SENATE of the United States of America! Now made up of vain and aspiring people, that depend on "special interests" and promises they can NEVER keep, to get elected or re-elected by a mostly ignorant "so-called" democracy. A democracy that seldom reaches a majority, rather a majority of a minority, which is NOT democracy at all.

Join us, learn, then teach others! STOP the insanity of ONLY getting the results of more progressive socialism and less Americanism, before the vain and aspiring kill it completely.

Just click on the state you reside in and could vote in and get ready to help save your country from ruin:

NOT the Facebook you are used to! Get ready to stop living from one crises to another and start doing something that prevents those crises-es in the first place.

Nonsense. The adoption of the 17th did not effect the constitutionality of other actions by government which may have been unconstitutional for other reasons, but not that one. States had two senators before the 17th, and still have two afterwards. That is equal representation. Two is still two. 

Having two Senator is simply an arbitrary number selected by the Framers of the Constitution. The MOST important part of the Senate is how the Senators are selected, then sent to serve as a Senator.

People often say, "Well as long as there are 2 Senators, everything is fine."

Nothing could further from the truth and the Framers knew it. The Constitution setup two houses of the legislative branch: a Peoples House and a States House. It makes it VERY clear that the way the Senate is to be filled can ONLY be altered if ALL the States consent to it. Anyone that thinks that means consent could be given after the fact, does not think clearly.

The Constitution clearly distinguishes between the States and the People and reads "that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." "its" does not refer to people in any way, it refers to the states and ALL of them would have to consent to losing that suffrage even before a proposal to deprive it where entertained, much less done with zero consent, then allowing the normal way to amend constitution to over-rule that extremely important clause!

"Equal suffrage" means two votes in the Senate. It has nothing to do with how senators are selected. That is reading something into the language that is not there.

Arguing the details is not what the selection of Senators by the State legislatures was to give the States a place at the table of the Federal government. 

When elected the Senate became a super House chamber that no longer represents the State legislature. See McCain, Flake, Heller, Graham, Collins, and many more they go against the will of the State all the time.

The original design was for members of the Senate to represent state legislatures, but that design is not part of the "equal suffrage" requirement.

"Equal suffrage" could mean 10 each for that matter, but its refers to the states, not the people!

The individual states and the United States were each [ now 51 ] individual sovereigns. Each has a constitution to determine the powers and limits thereof of and the duties of that individual gov.

How can the fed constitution determine the rights of the state-only citizens of a state and why would it need to?  Please remember, the state constitution determined and secured the rights of the citizens of the individual state.

Please also remember, in regard to state-only citizens, no constitution grants any authority for any other sovereign to impose its laws upon another sovereign - talking about states and the United States.

The word "Rights" should have never been used.

What is a Trust, a contract between 2 parties!


© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service