Click on banner above to read some of his articles.

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: 615

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The contract is between a settlor and the trustee, which creates the trust, which exists outside of both. 

I feel the word 'right' is the best. I feel the word 'immunity is 2nd best.  What is a right?  In a constitutional reference, the word is used in reference to the ability to any thing or posses any thing that is beyond the power of the gov to question, much less regulate.  The SCt has stated that a 'right' is the same as property.  You own it outright. Ownership is not up for debate. Thus is holds the status as property.

Immunity seems a lesser word. You have an immunity from gov regulation to do an act. Not quite as strong as the statement, I have a constitutionally secured right to due process or to buy and use a firearm. I have a right to speedy due process in a judicial [ common law ] court with trial by [ not 'with' ] a jury.

One could say, I have an immunity from prosecution without due process or I have an immunity from any law that regulates the ownership of a gun or I have an immunity from any court proceeding that is not in a judicial branch court with a trial 'by' jury.

Considering the above, I understand why the framers chose the worth 'right'. This was a ward they chose in regard to things they owned that were beyond the power of gov to question, much less regulate. They 'owned' the right to a judicial proceeding if they were accused of a crime. They owned the right to trial by a jury of their peers.   It could be said that one has a property interest in an immunity - but it sounds more affirmative when the word 'right' is used - at least to me.

On a side note: None of those are 'rights' or immunities under the 14th.

This is NOT an idea, a contract, verbal or written, is any agreement offered and accepted by two parties. Some, so-called, legal scholars would say otherwise, but that is nothing more than job security of elites that think they are smarter than you are! Most have no or very little real civic knowledge, choosing to believe that the contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the STATES can be changed whenever any group can raise enough hell to get our mostly useless public servants to think it is more important to get elected or hired. Choosing to commit perjury, rather than possible loose an election or a job!!

SUFA will NOT tolerate this perjury any longer and will become the ANTI-SPECIAL INTEREST group of experienced patriots, bent on FORCING adherence of the Oath Of Office, NOT the party line!

Just click on the state you reside in and could vote in and get ready to help save your country from ruin:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/statesunitedforamericans/permalink/...
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.

"The people" cannot be party to a contract unless they have an agent which represents them, which would be some kind of sovereign lawgiver. The "federal government" cannot be a party before it exists. People here need to clarify their thinking on these concepts.

None of this helps us work together for real reform. It is just idle navel-gazing.

"The people" had agents representing them, the Framers at the convention.
Also a contract is formed whenever two party agree upon its contents, period! A contract does not even have to be written, even in a court of law!

The representation that mattered was by the ratifiers (not "framers") at the state ratifying conventions. 

Our ancestors that were alive in 1787-1788 gave their consent to the create a new government, but did you ever give your consent? Are we bound by an agreement made hundreds of years before we were even born?

With our ancestors gave their consent, do we have a right to withdraw our consent? According to Thomas Jefferson we do. He stated in the Declaration that when the government becomes destructive, we have a right to alter or abolish it.

If you make an agreement are your children and grandchildren lawfully bound to that agreement?

Ketih,

Every State when they joined the Republic as a new State gave the consent of the people through their elected representatives and a majority rules in the States. So, yes each of us have given our approval voting in each election. 

The Declaration of Independence is not LAW and has no sway in the real world of Constitutional law. Like the letters, articles in newspapers, even history books there is no provision inside the Actual Constitution for any words, clauses or articles can be altered without a Article V amendment. 

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers chose only words of the time that all common people could read and comprehend. Seems they were better able to read back then. 

We give our consent by not organizing to amend it where necessary to correct flaws and oversights by the framers. Voting or other acts is not consent.

NAILED IT!!!
The PEOPLE elected reps for the state they lived in, those reps elected or appointed reps to attend a convention to figure out how to fix the Article of Confederation (AOC). Those reps included many more than the few most have heard of i.e. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, etc. and they prayed, debated, prayed, voted, prayed, debated, voted, etc. for months, then decided that fixing the AOC was not possible. They then started praying, debating and voting on a new document, later called the Constitution for the united States of America.

After many months of praying, debating and voting they came up with a document that started out with WE THE PEOPLE, not WE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, NOT WE THE STATES, etc. At that time WE THE PEOPLE meant a public group of the people collectively. It was then sent to the STATES for at least 3/4's of them to accept it. It was NEVER sent to the private people individually. The contract that was formed was between the public sector, PEOPLE, and the public sector, STATES. Offered by the people and accepted by the states.

Oaths of Office were in that document and added to the constitutions of the states in order to lock in support for those constitutions. Oaths actually meant something then and contracts were considered as important as treaties, which are also contracts.

As a private person, none were ever offered the Constitution to accept as a lawful contract. Oaths of Office are offered by the public servant and accepted by either a judge, a state department, the governor, or the department they are in (public sector). Until an individual, private person accepts the Oath offer as a private person, there is no lawful contract and the offer may be withdrawn at will if an acceptance does not occur from any in the private sector.

Think about it... if the Oath of Office was obeyed, at all cost, it would not matter who gets elected or takes a job as a public servant. The Constitutions are the platforms for all, parties be damned. The constitutions do not recognize any political party nor their "platforms"!

If any private person demands that public servants obey the Oath of Office they take above all else, they MUST first accept it as an offer making it a lawful contract between them, as a private individual and the public servant making the offer.

Here is a copy of a cover letter to get started:

Hello (Public Servant name)                                       

I am sending this packet of notarized papers to you directly to inform you that I am legally accepting your offer of the Oath Of Office you have taken as a legal contract between you and I.

There is no need for you to reply, as you have already given me the offer.

This is simply notification that I am accepting it as a legal contract between you and I.

I am sure that you have read and completely understand both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State represented in the Oath you have taken and will never violate it and you have the ability to make sure your Oath comes first.

I am simply doing this to make sure you and I understand nothing is more important than that Oath Of Office you have taken to be one of my public servants.

Your service is much appreciated.

I Remain,

 (Signature)

Proud member of States United For Americans - SUFA!

Enclosure

Would you like to know more?
Become a member of the 21st century version of the Sons of Liberty. Every contract is an offer, but until it is accepted by an acceptor, it means absolutely nothing. When a Public Servant makes an offer (taking the Oath Of Office) the acceptor is whatever branch or department they are being placed in. YOU are NOT a legal acceptor of that contract, therefore the offeror is under NO contractual agreement with YOU, just whatever branch or department they are being placed in. YOU have no standing for breach of contract when that Servant violates their Oath Of Office, unless YOU have legally accepted the offer.

States United For Americans - SUFA has the steps you need to Accept the Oath Of Office as a binding contract between YOU and YOUR public servants and begin saving our Americanism.

Join or re-join us, learn, then teach others how to STOP the insanity of ONLY getting the results of more progressive socialism and less Americanism, before the vain and aspiring kill it completely.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” --Samuel Adams, the true father of Americanism!

Just click on the state you reside in and could vote in and get ready to help save your country from ruin:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/statesunitedforamericans/permalink/...
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.

I Remain,
Howard Douglas McCormick
Founder and president of States United For Americans - SUFA

Keith,

Will historical records in 2257 (240 from now) report that we, the majority, GAVE our consent for the conundrum we find ourselves in today? 

I hesitate to believe the individuals witnessing the 1787 Coup D'etat would want to be remembered as 'giving their consent' to be overthrown.

The constitution of which there has been so much conversation the last few days was NOT ratified by the organic government of The United of America.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service