Submitted by Morton IX
A tiger that has no teeth cannot survive and in similar fashion, a nation cannot survive unless it enforces its laws. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, is not being enforced and we have resorted to being ruled by tyrants instead of laws. If we do not support and defend the Constitution; for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.
Unless we the people are willing to enforce its provisions, the Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper. If we wish to continue under Despotism, then The Constitution cannot protect us. Unless we are willing to defend it, the Constitution and the rule of law will disappear.
Are we ready and willing to defend it?
Views: 2
Replies
I like the picture, and it is an excellent analogy.
ditto Mr. Bachman's comment ! Taking the Constitution classes from Hillsdale College & registered as a Common Law jurist......old & sick, but still fire in these old bones !
Actually most of the Constitution, the unambiguous parts, is mostly being enforced. The problem is about 80 key words and phrases, most of which were clear to the Founders, but are ambiguous to people today, that clever lawyers have twisted to suit the interests of their clients. See http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu+.htm
Ever complain about how legal contracts are often too long, complicated, and full of legalese? Well, in most cases that is the result of experience with simple contracts that contained ambiguities that were exploited to subvert the original intent of the contract. Over time lawyers tried to protect their clients from other lawyers by finding and closing all the loopholes, until the result was much longer and more detailed.
Of course, the result of that evolution in loophole closure is often a contract that almost no one reads and only a few lawyers understand, so the adaptation can be overdone, but the right balance is still likely to be a lot longer and more detailed than that original simple contract.
Laws work the same way. People start with simple ones and then discover reality is more complicated than the simple laws contemplated. In an effort to deal with some of those complexities the laws are made more detailed and complicated, and that means longer. One might say that none of that should be necessary, if everyone involved only used common sense and tried to be fair, but if that would work we wouldn't need any laws at all.
So what do we do about the main law, the Constitution, and its 80 ambiguities? The first thing is to understand how it is being violated. Most patriots are vague about that. They are even more vague about what to do about it. It's not that there are not plenty of reform ideas they could push toward adoption, but instead of working for good solutions they too often seize on bad ones that would not work if adopted and would probably make the situation even worse. They too often don't know enough to tell which reform ideas are good and which ones aren't.
I'll give you a tip. If the reform idea is simple, direct, obvious, and appealing, it's almost certainly bad. Sorry but you are not likely to fix a watch that no longer keeps good time by banging it with a hammer. There is no substitute for an expert watch repairman, and if you are not prepared to become one then you had better learn how to pick one.
Naturally, I have some reform proposals. But I warn you. They are not simple, direct, obvious, or sexy. It takes hard work for most people to understand them. But they might actually work.
See http://jonroland.net/proposed_bills and http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm and get started by demanding your candidates for Congress introduce, sponsor, and vote for them.
I will take the time to review the proposed bills this week of March 24th. One problem with legislation is that we have so many statutes and rules dictated by the agencies. Most of these rules, etc should be under the direction of the states' legislatures, not the federal government.
Our Founding Fathers fully admitted the Constitution is worthless in an immoral society. It is all we need if society was moral. Therein lies the problem, does it not? The Constitution is not the problem, for the most part. It is the decay of society. Hollywood has had a major roll in that decay, as well as the corrupt creeps in government, from Hamilton on down. As long as society keeps patronizing Hollywood and its immoral trash, and as long as society is focused on sports, rather than its duties to society, as long as society keeps allowing power hungry politicians into leadership positions, conditions will not improve. Society is going to have to put business ahead of football, basketball, baseball, and the Olympics, stop patronizing pornography, homo-sexualism, and abortion, or you need not expect any different results. There needs to be a house cleaning party to prepare for the Second Coming, and that is what this upcoming war is all about. The scriptures say that the slaves shall rise up against their masters. Is that not what is happening?
Of course. I do something to defend our Constitution almost every day. One thing I do is pay attention to the Constitution Club.
Here is some food for thought.
When we talk about the nullification of the Constitution through the Emergency War Powers Act of 1933, we should also consider by what "SPIRIT," and by what"INTENT," the original Constitution was devised, and by WHOM!
You seem to be confused based on all your posts you have been creating. It seems to me that you do not know the difference between the two statuses in this country. You must first understand there are two statuses in law and the difference in law between these two.
If you do not understand the difference between these two, you will always be trapped inside the same circle of slave mentality THEY intended for you to be in.
You must first get educated and understand the difference between these two statuses in law:
1. A man with rights secured and protected by the bill of rights and constitution, and,
2. 14th Amendment U.S. citizen with NO rights, but only 'privileges' granted to it by its creator (U.S. inc) known as 'civil rights' not secured and protected by the Bill of rights and the Constitution and must follow all this corporation's codes, statutes, acts, legislation, etc.
You do not understand your status in law or else you wouldn't be complaining every time this private U.S. Corp does anything to its 14th Amendment U.S. citizen which it DOES HAVE 'legal' authority in doing so because they created it in 1868, they own it and have authority over it to grant and take away privileges.
This U.S. Corp DOES HAVE authority over its creations including the 14th Amendment U.S.citizen which they created in 1868 in which this (14th Amendment) 'U.S. citizen' IS an employee of this Corp and that it is bound by every code, statute, act, legislation, etc, of this private corp located on d.c.
I explained to you this situation in one of your last blogs and even included a video for you to watch in order to make your aware of how and why you think the way you do.
Obviously you haven't taken the time to watch the video explaining the difference between a man (one of the people) lawful and a (14th Amendment) legal U.S. citizen.
It's obvious you DO NOT understand the difference between 'lawful' vs. 'legal.'
Once you educate yourself and learn the difference between the two, you will only then finally understand what is going on, how and why things are happening the way they are.
Until then, I don't think you should be putting up anymore blogs because all you're doing is causing confusion amongst yourself and everyone else reading your blogs.
YOU MUST FIRST REALIZE THE PROBLEM BEFORE YOU CAN CREATE A SOLUTION.
And right now, you don't know what the problem is.
Freedom Warrior,
All I can say to that is; REALLY? Have you really read everything I wrote or just some of it? Did you not see me post directly to this site that I have already filed affidavits with my County Recorder's office? I am Sovereign by declaration. I not only know the difference, I have LAWFULLY declared as much. I have read THOUSANDS of pages of documentation and even posted articles here in reference to the difference between 14th Amendment dual citizenship and Sovereign Citizenship I consider myself somewhat of an expert on the subject at this point and with all due respect, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!
Also Freedom Warrior,
YOU seem confused. You said there are two STATUTES. All statutes are "LEGAL" and therefore if you mean there are two sets of rules, one LEGAL STATUTE on the other CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, then I agree. There are two sets of rules and you do not even know me or my life. I have been given ALL KINDS of flack for knowing the difference and trying to tell everyone I know that THEY are walking the on the wrong side of reality. In fact trying to get the word out about that very thing is why I came here in the first place. So again I will reiterate; YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!
P.S. - its STATUTES, not STATUSES. It would seem it is you who is confused!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next