richard9151
Forum Replies Created
-
Sonik Fury wrote on Feb 1 2008, 02:18 PM:You're dead wrong![post=”4466″][/post]Always, according to you. In the regard of Social Security, in a small way, yes, because it is not insurance; it is an income tax as explained in the Social Security Enabling Act (which I have posted about before, but would be more than glad to do so again if your memory is lacking).
As to what insurance is, nope, not wrong there.
-
Riverway wrote on Feb 1 2008, 02:38 PM:richard9151 wrote on Feb 1 2008, 09:57 AM:“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13 1
Just to give you an idea how people are fooled… the word power there is actually the strongest word in the Greek language for the absolute right to choose. It is even translated liberty or right in other verses of the bible. So what Paul is actually saying is:
I like to take things in context!
Paul here is speaking about governmental authority. The word you claim is “power” is the Greek word “exousia” which used in the context of this scripture translates to mean: authority, jurisdiction.
You see, he goes on to reference rulers and authorities in the CONTEXT of civil government.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Besides, I don't want to take away from an otherwise excellent post
Riverway
[post=”4467″][/post]I am glad that you enjoyed the post. I must also note that I did not write this post; it came from Brother Gregory, and, I have learned that when Gregory states something it can be taken at face value. Nothing hidden, and, I have yet to catch him in an error. Not to say he is perfect, but if he made that statement as listed in this post, and he did, then sans his admission that there was an error, I accept what he said.
And, if you will remember some of the other posts that I have put up, and which I wrote, it takes a lot to get me to back off!
I think what Paul was referring to was the right to choose the rules and authorities. I think you will also find that stated in the Declaration of Independence in a slightly different manner.
Basically, what Brother Gregory and the others in His Holy Church are doing is learning to live freedom, and not trying to claim freedom from the rulers of the earth. If you understand what I mean.
-
Sonik Fury wrote on Jan 31 2008, 06:47 PM:Deflation in a fiat system can be fixed in a matter of days. The Fed can simply pump money into the system and fix the problem. Inflation is difficult to restrain in a fiat system. Therefore, the former is simple to fix. The latter is troublesome.
You stated: “…when a government is no longer Sovereign and permits private commercial banks to create credit, which is then placed into circulation by the private banks as a medium of exchange.”
That's silly. The United States of America still retains its sovereignty even if it permits a private bank to create credit.
[post=”4460″][/post]Your objection is false on its face. The United States government issues no money into circulation, except for coinage. None. Nada. Zip. 0.
This has nothing to do with a private bank creating credit. It has to do with using ONLY some form of that created credit, i.e., Federal Reserve Notes, as a circulating medium of exchange.
In short, this is not a fiat system, which is what was used in Brazil, Germany, and M?xico.
You said; The Fed can simply pump money into the system and fix the problem.
From that, it is obvious that you never read all of the post. I would suggest that you put your fury away for a while and do so. And pay particular attention to the end, where I explain that the Federal Reserve Bank is NOT a government, and, it has no method of pumping anything into the system, EXCEPT, reserves to create more credit. Which means, there must be qualified borrowers, with some expectation of repaying the loans, available to accept the credit.
There is not. Enjoy.
-
I am impressed. Very impressed, and what impresses me the most is this;
Quote:I purposely deleted all the material I had previously downloaded from the WTP site.Why? Because every premise that the WTP works with is flawed, and I have to think that the reason it is flawed is because they are working with attorneys.
I refuse to accept that the LAWYER Crier was acquited as an accident in his 'wilful failure to file' trial. That trial will end up causing more problems for people than anything else could possibly do.
Why? You know why; once again the cry will go up; THERE IS NO LAW! And once again people will lose their homes or businesses, and many will go to jail. Things such as this do not happen by accident; there is generally a well organized plan of terror behind it.
And I refuse to accept another thing; that attorneys such as Crier and his so-called defense team are unaware of the Social Security Enabling Act.
And I refuse to accept another thing; that attorneys such as Crier and his so-called defense team are unaware of the nature of the tribunals they work in.
What I do accept is what the Bible tells us about lawyers. And, the natures of men. Blessings to you all. Richard
Oh, did I mention that I am impressed by this letter?
-
Admin wrote on Sep 14 2007, 07:33 AM:One website focusing on nonpublication is:
It also turns out that even nonpublished cases appear within Westlaw, so there is no need to compile such a list of nonpublished cases.
I do agree with you, however, that no case should go unpublished for the many reasons you cited and others.
[post=”4240″][/post]Yes, there are other reasons.
Quote:Personally, I think that courts should not be allowed to even issue unpublished opinions.Bing, just the fact that unpublished opinions exist is an admission of the fraud of the system. THEIR system; not ours. To the best of my knowledge, the last of the true judicial courts in America were the county courts, and these were closed out by the BAR associations, working in concert with the various state legistatures and the State Supreme Courts in the 1930s.
If you want to understand, look up tribunal in Black's Law Dictionary, and pay close attention to the part about 'under Roman law.'
What we are doing here in America is dealing with administrative contract enforcement tribunals, which exist only WITHIN the United States. BUT, this is not revealed to the public, therefore, the lie can only be sustained if those cases which begin to break the veil are disposed of.
Please permit me to give you an example. The latest 'wilful failure to file income tax' case that was won by the defendent was the Crier case. Crier, of course, is an attorney, i.e., an Esquire. HE OWES THE TAX. He is a BAR card holder, and as such, he is required to have a Social Security number. As I posted, and as you all understand, the nexus for the Income Tax is a contract through Social Security. BUT, that can not be admitted by the judge in the tribunal, because it would begin to break down the shield behind which that judge and all other participants in the fraud hide.
The judge could have simply explained to the 'advisory panel' (jury) that this case was simply a contract dispute, and if you find that the defendent does indeed have a contract which requires that he pay the Income Tax, then you must find him guilty.
Of course, then he would have had to explain that the advisory panel was actually within an administrative contract enforcement proceeding, instead of a judicial trial, and we all know that ain't gonna happen!! So instead, 'they' have an out in their system; any case which violates 'public policy' or which violates the terms and conditions of the existing contracts that most Americans are ensnared in, well, they simply do not publish them.
It is hard to conceive of any other choice 'they' have if they are to keep 'their' system operating, and the benefits that 'their' system bestows upon 'them' coming.
This comes back to what I have said before; you can not beat 'them' in 'their' system; it is too well organized and established. And because every time we/you beat them in 'their' tribunals, 'they' simply do not publish the result, we/you are faced with an entirely new fight every time you enter into 'their' tribunals.
You have to start over, from scratch, EVERY time. Especially since most Americans, by the time they reach this forum, are already in trouble (or they would not be looking for answers/help) and so deeply entrenched in contracts (anyone got a state issued marriage lic. on them?), that the chances of 'winning' such a fight are slim to none. And generally, slim is out of town.
So we come back to my theme; the only solution is mass education, to break the hold that the Constitution holds over most so-called Christians, and the love affair that those same Christians have been having with the fruit of the Constitution, the United States government.
In that regard, here is a link to the latest update (Sept. 12, 2007) of the paper I wrote titled; There is no Constitution; it is a carefully crafted illusion…..
This is a PDF file that is ready to print, or, read. And, it includes page numbers, and when updated info:
http://www.brainwashington.info/othersites…%20Part%201.pdf
While you are there, try this; http://www.brainwashington.info/
Then, click on The Ultimate Jural Society Handbook and enjoy!
-
Sonik Fury wrote on Sep 5 2007, 07:58 AM:Finally, here is the NAIL in the coffin. The US Constitution under Article V is subject to “revision” be it capitalization or whatever. The bottom line is – it is subject to revision through the Amendment process:Quote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Oh wait no – I'm still wrong in Richard's eyes! (sarcasm) <_<
[post=”4212″][/post]Quote:Oh wait no – I'm still wrong in Richard's eyes! (sarcasm)This time I agree with you; you are wrong, unless, of course, you can show me the amendment that was openly debated, in public, and that approved of the MASS changes made by the LAWYERS to the Constitution. Absent that, explain the following to me in view of how Senators are now elected (I shall point how here, before you begin, that the amendment changing the election of senators was NOT approved by 100% of the states);
Quote:and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate -
Bing wrote on Sep 10 2007, 07:23 AM:I noticed about 3 or 4 years ago, any number of errors and deficiencies with the Avalon website run by Yale Law School, so it has long ago lost its credibility with me. And when I wrote to them, they never replied or fixed their mistakes. What does that tell you.
And that so-called Constitutional law expert at Yale is at best, a shill for the ABA, and is not qualified to carry the jock straps of a couple of folks in this Forum, who are not only as learned than he, but they are more honest.
Bing
[post=”4220″][/post]Quote:a shill for the ABA, and is not qualified to carry the jock straps of a couple of folks in this Forum, who are not only as learned than he, but they are more honest.With this, I assume that you also refer to about 99% of all lawyers, in general, correct?
-
Riverway wrote on Sep 4 2007, 12:32 PM:Richard, we in this forum rely and depend upon settled case law to defend and substantiate our positions, not commentaries.
Do you have any Supreme Court rulings in regards to this change of wording and capitalization?
[post=”4209″][/post]LOL! Why? Would you care to have me forward you to a section for lawyers where it is discussed as to how they may/may not quote from an unpublished case? (Sorry about the delay, but I got back to work last week for the first time in a month!)
I know of three cases where people were acquited for wilful failure to file their taxes. None are published cases. And sorry, I do not remember the case names, as they simply are not important. No one can quote them in a court of THEIR law today, or tomorrow. On the other hand, the so-called prosecuter is free to quote as many cases as he wished, that people lost. In each of these cases, lawyers make the decisions as to what is published and what is unpublished. And what you are telling me is that what the lawyers decide is, somehow, important. Well, if you have 'faith' in 'their' system, I guess that is correct.
I am, actually, appalled at the lack of response here to the idea that the lawyers, in secret, can take the Constitution, which, I assume, everyone here considers to be of some importance, change it as they wish to a set of rules that they establish, and no one has any objections.
Let me make this clearer; neither you, nor I, nor Sonik, was at the 'secret' convention where the Constitution was written. None of us have ever spoken, personally, to anyone who was there. And to tell me, or anyone else, that the attorneys of this world have the 'right' to change ANYTHING in the Constitution without an open, public debate, is non-sense. And, reveals much about the lack of moral fiber in this nation.
It is also interesting that in Lexus there is a recent article, penned by a professor of law at some university or other, that talks of how there is some big mis-conception about the form of the Constitution in its final version, the version that was adopted by the States in union. That is interesting because the professor is claiming that the changes in the capitalization and etc. occured BEFORE the Constitution was adopted. He claims that the parchment copy of the Constitution is NOT the final, accepted version. (Funny (NOT!); that parchment version is the version printed in Black's Law dictionary.)
It is also a lie. I have read some of the papers about the debates about the Constitution in the various state assemblies, particularly in Virgina, and the Constituiton was adopted exactly as submitted, with the Bill of Rights, and without change.
I also had an associate, since deceased, that concluded that the Constitution is written at a grade level 26, meaning that you would need 26 years of formal education to understand it by simply reading it once.
I also posted the reasoning behind changing the capitalization in A Constitution, by and for attorneys; when they codify it.
And I have also made the point that I do not care much for 'their courts,' and that my efforts are aimed solely at mass education.
Now, this is a Christian group, so how should we approach this question about lawyers?
Luke 7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Luke 11:45, 46
Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Luke 11:52
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
-
Admin wrote on Sep 4 2007, 08:12 AM:Richard 9151,
Perhaps some caselaw on changes in the capitalization of the constitution proving your premise to Mr. Sonik?? Why don't you enlighten him?? That is what he wants.? Until you produce the caselaw or citation proving your premise, which is that a change in capitalization requires an official amendment, then he will continue to question your conclusions, which is:
Quote:THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CAN NOT CHANGE THE original CONSTITUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE STATES IN UNION.[post=”4206″][/post]Why? Is there actually more people in this forum that do not understand/accept that the so-called government of the United States does not have the authority to change ANYTHING in the ORIGIANL Constitution? Other, I mean, than Sonik? First off, the capitalization of words in the ORIGINAL Constitution is not the only changes made. There are also changes in spelling, and punctuation. However, since what you ask is not that hard to do, let's see what we can find;
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Constitution.html
Quote:1857 CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA — CODIFIED[This version of the Constitution incorporates into the original document all amendments adopted through the 1998 general election and omits certain provisions apparently superseded or obsolete. The footnote following an amended section is the latest action only. The original Constitution and amendments in chronological order, referenced in footnotes following some sections, may be found in the official printed Code of Iowa. References in footnotes to the Code refer to the Iowa Code. This codified version generally adopts the rules for capitalization and punctuation used in drafting legislation.]
As I stated before, as can plainly be seen in Sec. 18 of the act creating a government for the District of Columbia, the Constitution OF the United States is codified at; 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871);
Quote:And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon States by the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States ; but all acts of the legislative assembly shall at all times be subject to repeal or modification by the Congress of the United States, and nothing herein shall be construed to deprive Congress of the power of legislation over said District in as ample manner as if this law had not been enacted.Please permit me to repeat what was said at in the first quote;
Quote:This codified version generally adopts the rules for capitalization and punctuation used in drafting legislation.Again, noting that it is the Constitution OF the United States that is named in Sec. 18 of 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871).
At the national archive of the ORIGINAL Constitution, the name of THAT Constitution is; Constitution for the United States of America.
Now, is there more needed? If so, I am sure I can find it.
No. Wait. I am going to take this a step further, since no one seems to be willing to accept facts which seem to not be in accordance with their beliefs.
Go here;
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14th_amendment_dyett.doc
Quote:IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF UTAH(Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 [1968])
THE NON-RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
(Judge? A.H. Ellett)
I am going to note only a very, very few of the words of this paper, such as;
Quote:When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the Senators and Representatives from the 25 northern States voted to deny seats in both Houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern States.? The full complement of Senators from the 36 States of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240.? Since it requires only a majority vote /? to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 Senators and 182 Congressmen from the North were seated.? All of the 22 Senators and 58 Representatives from the southern States were denied seats.Joint Resolution No. 48, proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation.? In order to have this proposed Amendment submitted to the 36 States for ratification, it was necessary that two thirds of each House concur.? A count of noses showed that only 33 Senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50 seated Senators.?
While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a Senator, it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. /?
One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the Senators from New Jersey.? He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment.? The leadership in the Senate, not having control of two thirds of the seated Senators, voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature.? It was the law of New Jersey, and several other States, that a plurality vote was sufficient for election.? Besides, the Senator had already been seated.? Nevertheless, his seat was -refused- and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.
In the House of Representatives, it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated.? Only 120 voted for the proposed Amendment, but because there were 30 abstentions, it was declared to have been passed by a two thirds vote of the House.
One more piece of material to show what all was going on at that time in Washington, DC, 1867 – 1871;
Quote:By spurious, non-representative governments; seven of the southern States, (which had theretofore rejected the proposed Amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress), did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment.? The Secretary of State, (of July 20, 1868), issued his Proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause Amendments to be published and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.? Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:`And whereas neither the Act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication., authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution;
`And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of [naming 23, including New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];
`And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been ratified by newly constituted and newly established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama;
`And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this Department that the legislatures of two of the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not irregular, invalid, and therefore ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either of them, to the aforesaid amendment;
`And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];
`And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States next there after named, as having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly constituted and established legislative bodies, together constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States;
`Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuant of the second section of the act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do hereby certify that if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey ratifying the aforesaid amendment are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States, which purport to withdraw the consent of said States from such ratification, then the aforesaid amendment had been ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.”? * * * /
Congress was not satisfied with the Proclamation as issued and on the next day passed a Concurrent Resolution wherein it was resolved:
`That said Fourteenth Article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State.'
Resolution set forth in
Proclamation of Secretary of State,
(15 Stat. 709 [1868]).
See also U.S.C.A., Amends. 1 to 5, Constitution, p. 11.
Thereupon; William H. Seward, the Secretary of State (after setting forth the Concurrent Resolution of both Houses of Congress) then certified that the Amendment:
`Has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.' /
Most of this is material I am working with for the second part of the paper. Any other question?
-
This is a message to everyone that is interested; I have edited this post to the newest version, which I have rereleased for general distribution in many different locations with many different groups/men.
More than 500 different individuals have read this material, and while more than a few were upset, no one could point to a specific error. That does not mean that this paper is without error, so please be diligent when reading it and report any problems found. Blessings, Richard
-
Sonik Fury wrote on Sep 4 2007, 05:24 AM:Okay I tell ya what – let's make this easy. I be wrong and you be right. Ok? Thuis, you be happy and continue living your illusion.
This capilization nonsense stems and his under off spring guise of the ALL CAPS THEORY which (like Christian Protestanism) is man-made. If we have no “Constitution” merely because of a lousy capilization problem which does not change the spririt and meaning behind it
then…
You have no right to travel. . . (so stop complaining about Big Brother interfering in your right to travel)
You have to right to speak. . . (when the government speaks – shut up!)
You have no right to petition. . . (stop asking questions and demanding answers)
You have no right to bare arms. . . (so shut up preaching about your right to have a gun)
You have no right to associate with anyone (so stop complaining when the government interferes with such right)
You have no right to remain silent (so open your mouth when the government tells you to)
You have no right to vote (so stop bi'chin and moan'in about Electronic voting systems)
You have no right to “Full Faith and Credit” – (so stop using legal sources against me when trying to prove your wild ideas and stop using cases like US vs Lopez about government legislating within the union)
You have no right to demand the third amendment protection (so stop complaining about martial law and when soldiers are quartered in your home)
You have no right to protection of your private papers (so stop complaining when IRS Agents raid your home)
You have no right to any allegiance! (LEAVE THE COUNTRY!)
You have no right to a jury trial (So stop complaining about it and do not demand it when you get arrested!)
You have no right to earn a living (So stop quoting Supreme Court cases in which you rely upon to reach the conclusion that you have a right to earn a living)
You have no right to sovereignty (Since the US Const is in of itself a legal document that implies individual sovereignty, STOP COMPLAINING that you are not sovereign! Besides, the US Const. does not exist right?)
But then again, my reasoning is flawed and I am just like the “sheep” – right? No wonder the idiots at Quatloos make fun of people in this movement! Cause of dumb and ill-founded theories like capilization!
We already said lets make this easy so we shall? – YOU BE RIGHT and I BE WRONG. Oops no wait a minute. All caps do not exist right? Let me re-write that: You be right and I be wrong!
[post=”4203″][/post]UMMMMMM. Let me see, what will it take to get through to you….. or, is it worth the effort. Well, yes it is, BUT, only because of others who will be reading this; so the following is NOT for you, Sonik. It is for everyone else who is interested in facts and reality and do not wish to live in a wonderful world of OZ. And, if you EVER start to think, perhaps you will begin to see that a failure to grasp the nuts and bolts of what is going on is what leads to…. no matter who gets elected…. nothing ever changes. Ya think?
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CAPITALIZATION, so stop with the idiocy, and stop bringing in different ways to disrupt the flow of information. I begin to think you are a shill, and the only interest you have is in disruption.
THIS IS ABOUT CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. I have only said this about 5 times, so please, pay attention; THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CAN NOT CHANGE THE original CONSTITUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE STATES IN UNION. That, Sonik, is known as the amendment process. And, once you identify that 'they' have, indeed, changed ANYTHING, including a comma, capitalization of A word, spelling of A word, then anyone can identify that something else is going on.
I have also posted in this thread where you can find official copies of BOTH Constitutions.
I have also posted in this tread where the Constitution OF the United States is codified, including the wording of the codification.
Now, if that is beyond your ability to understand, let me put it a little more bluntly;
I am right.
And, yes, you are wrong.
Anything else?
-
Author #2 wrote on Sep 3 2007, 05:48 PM:Richard 9151:
The 1871 act to which you refer is found below:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/16Am…tuesAtLarge.pdf
Nowhere within the act is the specific version of the constitution which was adopted mentioned. Why do you conclude that it is the Constitution FOR the United States rather than the Constitution OF the United States?
[post=”4200″][/post]I beg your pardon, say what? Please see Sec. 18;
Quote:And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within said District, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act, subject, nevertheless, to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon States by the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States ;Now, at the national archive of the ORIGINAL Constitution, the name of THAT Constitution is; Constitution for the United States of America. I would hope that you would double check me, however, I see no error in what I have said and written.
I also, once again, urge you to look at the other post and, very carefully, follow the trail that I have laid down about the so-called Supreme Court. I think, once this is fully hashed out, you may find it of interest.
-
Sonik Fury wrote on Sep 3 2007, 10:04 AM:Author you said: “the States who are party to the Constitution cannot consent to an enlargment of federal powers within their borders”
The case you use is weak because it relates to “officers” of the state and not to the soveignty of the state. The states are sovereign within there own respectable boundaries. Those sovereignties may have intercourse with other sovereignties whether commercial or political with other sovereignties. Such relationship has been held to be compatible within the Ninth Amendment.
In fact the case you cite UPHELD cooperative federalism so I do not see how you are using this to sustain your conclusion.
This observation OF and FOR is just nonsense. Can someone show me the two Constitutions and the two versions and when the first was ratified and when the second was ratified and the legislating body that ratified both consitutions?
Also cite the case (any case from any court) that makes such distinction..
This should be humorous…
[post=”4195″][/post]I am very glad that you are amused. BUT, perhaps if you bothered to read the info, instead of snarling about it, you would find that info that you want.
The ORIGINAL Constitution was ratified, some say illegally, in 1788, as I recall. If you need me to confirm that, I will be happy to. You may go to an official government archive site to look at it;
Go here for a copy of the ORIGINAL Constitution FOR the United States of America;
Original Constitution for the United States of America
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-…transcript.html
I should note that I posted this info to you already. AND, if you write any legal papers, BEFORE you flame me again, I suggest that you check a couple of those legal papers and VERIFY that you have actually quoted from the ORIGINAL Constitution.
Go here for a copy of the Constitution OF the United States
Constitution of the United States
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm
This Constitution is codified at; 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871).
Now, before we go any further, I also suggest that you check this out;
http://supreme.justia.com/us/77/273/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 77 U.S. 273 (1869)
This is the case that I speak of in the post; There is no Constitution, it is a carefully crafted illusion….
And please, read it carefully….. you may find a couple of surprises as to the basis of the so-called Supreme Court. Of course, if you would rather, you can simply read the post that I have in this thread. You know, the one I mentioned to you about 5 times so you would not forget; There is no Constitution, it is a carefully crafted illusion….
-
Author #2 wrote on Sep 3 2007, 09:07 AM:Reb,
Even under the concept of Cooperative Federalism
[e.g. http://sedm.org/LibertyU/CooperativeFederalism.pdf]
the States who are party to the Constitution cannot consent to an enlargment of federal powers within their borders.? To wit:
Quote:“To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 759 (1991) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory v. [505 U.S. 144, 182]?? Ashcroft, 501 U.S., at 458 . See The Federalist No. 51, p. 323. (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 118 -137 (1976), for instance, the Court held that Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S., at 842 , n. 12. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944 -959 (1983), we held that the legislative veto violated the constitutional requirement that legislation be presented to the President, despite Presidents' approval of hundreds of statutes containing a legislative veto provision. See id., at 944-945. The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the “consent” of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, the facts of this case raise the possibility that powerful incentives might lead both federal and state officials to view departures from the federal structure to be in their personal interests. Most citizens recognize the need for radioactive waste disposal sites, but few want sites near their homes. As a result, while it would be well within the authority of either federal or state officials to choose where the disposal sites will be, it is likely to be in the political interest of each individual official to avoid being held accountable to the voters for the choice of location. If [505 U.S. 144, 183]?? a federal official is faced with the alternatives of choosing a location or directing the States to do it, the official may well prefer the latter, as a means of shifting responsibility for the eventual decision. If a state official is faced with the same set of alternatives – choosing a location or having Congress direct the choice of a location – the state official may also prefer the latter, as it may permit the avoidance of personal responsibility. The interests of public officials thus may not coincide with the Constitution's intergovernmental allocation of authority. Where state officials purport to submit to the direction of Congress in this manner, federalism is hardly being advanced. ”
[New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)]
Richard 9151:
I agree with you. Thanks for pointing that out.
Where, pray tell, may we find the TWO versions of the constitution:
1. The Constitution OF the United States.
2. The Constitution FOR the United States.
[post=”4194″][/post]Go here; Go here for a copy of the Constitution OF the United States
Constitution of the United States
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm
Go here for a copy of the ORIGINAL Constitution FOR the United States of America;
Original Constitution for the United States of America
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-…transcript.html
Please, bear with for a minute. Think this through with me. Every federal judge, and all other 'judges' as well, have both copies with them of the two Constitutions. Now, the way the Constitution OF the United States is changed, in so many ways, means that ANY judge, with just a moments work, can tell if you are using the codified version of the Constitution, or, the original. And despie what Sonik Whateverheis thinks, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE in establishing your status.
I really think that you need to read the other post, and pay close attention to the part about the so-called Supreme Court; There is no Constitution, it is a carefully crafted illusion…
-
Author #2 wrote on Sep 3 2007, 02:55 PM:Richard 9151,
Very interesting!
1. The capitalization is different
2. The word “defence” is replaced with “defense”.
[post=”4197″][/post]Yes, it is, isn't it. And it goes much further than this; I stopped counting at 50 differences. Why? Because it really does not matter how many changes there are; there is no authority under the original Consitution to change anything. So once you find the first change, it is all over.
If you followed what I have been posting, then you begin to see what actually happened in 1871 when the Federal government codified the Constitution; it was not the original Constitution, but a NEW Constitution; and sans the original 13th Amendment. And I suspect that all federal judges know what is going on, so, if anyone quotes a Constitution in their court papers, and the quote is from THEIR Constitution, what do you suppose happens to you in THEIR court? I suspect also that this is the reason why there are so many changes; it is impossible to quote THEIR Constitution without some difference, a marker as it were, showing in the quote.
If you would read the post, There is no Constitution, it is a carefully crafted illusion…, I think you would begin to see more as to where I am going. The second part of that paper deals with the Civil War.
By the way, what I posted here; There is no Constitution, it is a carefully crafted illusion…, is not the final version. I have released that, but did not do another post here.