In 1787 a contingent of men claiming to be representatives of the people met in Philadelphia to draft a Constitution. This collection of white men were predominately wealthy lawyers, merchants and land owners who were represented by the financial elite.
The Colonies united under the Articles of Confederation were in serious financial trouble and it looked like the newly founded nation was doomed to collapse under the burden of debt. The Colonies owed a vast amount of money to Great Britain and the London Bankers were concerned that the newly formed American states would be unable to pay their debt.
I believe that the London Bankers conceived a plan that would replace the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution which would create a much stronger central government; one able to tax the people so that it could pay off its debts.
Our nation was bankrupt and our creditors wanted to be assured that the debt would be repaid. The Constitution was written to satisfy the London Bankers that we would repay the debt.
The Constitution was written to restrain the government, not the people. The document grants the authority to the government to do certain enumerated things, but it did not grant to the government the authority to tell the people what to do or how to do it.
It is impossible for a man to be truly free if he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of another man or a government. We have a God given right to do whatever we want as long as our actions to not harm or injure another human being.
Today we are merely shadows of what we could and should be. Instead of being free and independent servants of our Creator we have become debt slaves to the bankers.
Replies
I recall the words of Patrick Henry upon hearing of the ratification of the Constitution and being subject to a not unfounded concern and effort to deceive. "I smell a skunk," declared Patrick Henry. Some years ago I purchased a very enlightening tome entitled, Cracks in the Constitution. This particular view brought out the fact of some rather uncomfortable truths involving the construct of America's constitution. That argument was not settled until the mid 1800's and that great and unnecessary conflict referred to as the Civil War or more properly as, The War of Northern Aggression. Thanks for reminding me, I must dig that long neglected tome out and read it again. It is a fact that Jefferson and Henry remained at odds throughout the remainder of their lives. Perhaps further pursuit of this topic might reveal the reasons for the estrangement of these, the most imposing of the founders.
The Constitution of 1787 was written to remove restraint on the people running the Consolidated government that was formed from a working Federation, which was organic, or grass roots, compared to the fraudulent Constitution of 1787. If that is not understood it is then likely that there will be compounding of errors from that false start.
Other than the fact that Congress can propose Bills which become law when signed by the president. The who concept that the government cannot tell people what to do or not to do is not well supported by argument.
And yes, under common law, one is born subject to jurisdiction of the country in which one is born, although by statute that can be changed to include birth on soil.
And no, you do not have, under our Constitution, any 'god given rights' to do whatever you want to do.
What's so hard to understand that you live in a country of laws?
If you want to be truly free, then you have to find some land which lacks a sovereign. And yes, the US has a sovereign as well, "We the People" as represented by our Government.
Have you even looked at common law principles?
When Goldman Sachs and the financial institution donate millions of dollars to elect Congressmen don't you think that they have a reasonable expectation that the legislators will repay them for their generosity.
We do not live in a country of laws. We live in a country of statutes. Laws that violate the life, liberty and property of the people are not laws, they are unconstitutional edicts. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in the case Marbury V Madison announced that laws repugnant to the Constitution are not lawful.
You are now avoiding the issue at hand. Statutes represent the laws passed by the representatives of "We the People", although I understand the confusion here. They are not unconstitutional until they have been found to be such and saying that they are does not make it so.
You have made the logical fallacy that when you do not like a law, you get to decide yourself that it is not lawful. That is why we have our Constitution and the Courts, not just the opinions of wishful beliefs.
So I assume you agree with my observations, as you have chosen to ignore them ;-)
And yes, you and I agree that the power of money has grown too large, and this may be something where we can agree upon remedies.
Once we agree that there are proper procedures to deal with objections, you may come to understand why your claims have little legal relevance. You may believe that these laws are unlawful, but that's just your personal opinion. Convince the courts and you have a much better case, or elect representatives who pass appropriate legislation into law.
These people are obviously misinformed.
A number of Constitutions were organically created out of necessity while a very powerful gang of criminals where destroying innocent life in America through simple fraud and simple extortion that was only complicated to meet the demand for deception as a means of defeating any effective defense of the innocent from the guilty.
On the deceptive side of things were debtors "courts," also known as Admiralty, or Equity, or Exchequer, or Nisi Prius, or Communist, or Fascist, or Socialist, or Capitalist, or any word that hides the actual fact that those conducting those "courts," are extracting value and destroying life.
That scenario is explained well by Thomas Paine in Common Sense here:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
That scenario, which is in one term knowable as fraudulent extortion, meaning the extortion is hidden behind a fraud, which is a money counterfeiting monopoly created as a demand made by an extortion collection monopoly, is also explained in fine detail here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY
In even finer detail here:
http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/...
Even finer detail here:
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-41-43-part-ii
Those are the words of Richard Henry Lee.
Here is some information on Richard Henry Lee:
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/richard-henry...
Richard Henry Lee
6th President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
November 30, 1784 to November 23, 1785
The most powerful organized criminals must set aside trial by jury, which is trial by the whole country, which was legem terrae when English was not a language, and which is common law now that English is a language, and common law is based upon, at least, Matthew 7:12, also known as The Golden Rule.
The most powerful organized criminals have to get rid of the due process that works to inform the innocent of the facts concerning the most powerful organized criminals, so the most powerful organized criminals must create a counterfeit version of all that is good.
Where there is good government where the innocent are effectively defended from the guilty criminals (America between 1776 and 1787) there must be in place a counterfeit version of good government (Con Con of 1787), so as to incorporate all the victims into one legal fiction where the criminals make the victims pay for their own demise, which also happens to destroy the criminals themselves.
If people do not get the simple facts understood, then the people are less well defended than sheep.
If people blame the government, for example, are they blaming good government (trial by the country as a due process due everyone without exception so as to find the truth where the truth can be found by the whole country) or are they blaming the most powerful organized criminals?
If the people affix blame falsely then the people are bound to send the most powerful organized criminals everything they can, every power they have, in their defense of the people, to the criminals who destroy the people, including the destruction of the criminals themselves.
If that is not understood, in its simplicity, then who, by what authority, is claiming that anyone, anywhere, is perpetrating a crime upon anyone?
Nothing of relevance was provided by Joe other than his wishful thinking. Oh well, it shows that good arguments cannot be rebutted. As I said
That is a two-edged sword my friend...
What you claim to be fact may not necessarily be so. Thus...