The Constitution is a Con Game

[Buck111]

47 years ago today the constitution did not protect these childrens Bill of Rights. It did not restrain government and nobody was held to account for it. The constitution is a con game. The sooner people wake up to that fact, the sooner we can move ahead as a free people.


It’s the Anniversary of the One School Shooting the Govt Won’t be Ramming Down Your Throat


On May 4, 1970, a disorganized and nonviolent antiwar protest turned violent and deadly when the Ohio National Guard inexplicably opened fire on students at Kent State University — indelibly polarizing the United States populace to an extreme arguably unabated since.

Guardsmen opened fire on the assembled crowd, unleashing between 61 and 67 bullets in 13 seconds — which left four people dead and nine wounded. Now, 46 years after the unjustified bloodbath, critical questions remain unanswered about both details of the incident, as well as circumstances that culminated in the shooting of unarmed protesters.


Read more at It's the Anniversary of the One School Shooting the Govt Won't be Ramming Down Your Throat

 

[Buck111]

 

[regent]

47 years ago today the constitution did not protect these childrens Bill of Rights. It did not restrain government and nobody was held to account for it. The constitution is a con game. The sooner people wake up to that fact, the sooner we can move ahead as a free people.


It’s the Anniversary of the One School Shooting the Govt Won’t be Ramming Down Your Throat


On May 4, 1970, a disorganized and nonviolent antiwar protest turned violent and deadly when the Ohio National Guard inexplicably opened fire on students at Kent State University — indelibly polarizing the United States populace to an extreme arguably unabated since.

Guardsmen opened fire on the assembled crowd, unleashing between 61 and 67 bullets in 13 seconds — which left four people dead and nine wounded. Now, 46 years after the unjustified bloodbath, critical questions remain unanswered about both details of the incident, as well as circumstances that culminated in the shooting of unarmed protesters.


Read more at It's the Anniversary of the One School Shooting the Govt Won't be Ramming Down Your Throat

Sort of reminds one of George Washington and the whiskey rebellion.

 

[Buck111]

47 years ago today the constitution did not protect these childrens Bill of Rights. It did not restrain government and nobody was held to account for it. The constitution is a con game. The sooner people wake up to that fact, the sooner we can move ahead as a free people.


It’s the Anniversary of the One School Shooting the Govt Won’t be Ramming Down Your Throat


On May 4, 1970, a disorganized and nonviolent antiwar protest turned violent and deadly when the Ohio National Guard inexplicably opened fire on students at Kent State University — indelibly polarizing the United States populace to an extreme arguably unabated since.

Guardsmen opened fire on the assembled crowd, unleashing between 61 and 67 bullets in 13 seconds — which left four people dead and nine wounded. Now, 46 years after the unjustified bloodbath, critical questions remain unanswered about both details of the incident, as well as circumstances that culminated in the shooting of unarmed protesters.


Read more at It's the Anniversary of the One School Shooting the Govt Won't be Ramming Down Your Throat

Sort of reminds one of George Washington and the whiskey rebellion.

Yes, indeed. The Whiskey Rebellion was one of the first times the constitution was "interpreted" differently from how it was written (in favor of government and disfavor of the people)

"Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the United States. During the trials of the two men convicted of treason, Circuit Court Judge william paterson instructed the jury that "levying war" includes armed opposition to the enforcement of a federal law."

 

[Buck111]

Nobody defines the constitution better than Lysander Spooner.


NO TREASON
No. VI.

THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY.


I.

NT.6.1.1 The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

“We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
NT.6.1.2 It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
NT.6.1.3 Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
NT.6.1.4 We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor’s Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
NT.6.1.5 This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their “posterity” to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.

Lysander Spooner – No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority