The Constitution is a Con Game

[Onyx]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

Damn right!

We have all these paper worshipers that believe they can control the tyranny of rulers with magical documents. They are idiots, through and through.

 

[Onyx]

One of the quickest Ignore I have ever done.

The ignorant shall ignore.

Keep on bowing down to that piece of paper. It will never answer your prayers.

 

[Onyx]

Comparing the long train of abuses listed in the Declaration of Independence to the current political conditions, it's easy to recognize that the Constitution has been entirely ineffective at constraining government.

Not to mention the constitution authorized greater state authority over the prior Articles of Confederation. The moment citizens started refusing to pay taxes and follow the laws of aristocrats, the scared ***** drafted a document giving the government more power to protect their asses.

 

[Onyx]

That's how the game works.

Yep, and the game keeps dicking you useful idiots around until time continuum.

 

[ibc]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we've had, or has been powerless to prevent it. -Lysander Spooner.

Conclusively it is the former, i.e. ...it was "Authorized". The Preamble explains it unequivocally. It was not about the "common" man. The Constitution is a contract and your not a party to it.

This is a document drafted by the PEOPLE" of the "UNITED STATES" for, the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" The "PEOPLE" guaranteed that the debt payments of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
would be made to the King. -Article 6, clause 1

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation".

The United States of America founded under the Confederation of states went into debt to fight the war against the King. The king tired of the war and had other issues in Europe agreed to conclude the war with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. This agreement was the repayment of the loans authored by the said countries in that treaty. Article 4 of this treaty puts their (The Kings) claws in our buttocks.

The United States of America, the 13 colonies, became disunited, fought amongst themselves, refused to pay their share of the debts, and was gaining the attention of the king for failure to pay. Because of this disunity, 55 PEOPLE gathered together and attended meetings to reorganize and centralize the power of government and to agree to form a new entity called the "UNITED STATES" in 1787. Only 39 of those attendee's signed the constitution forming our present style of government.

The Preamble of the Constitution paraphrases to the King what these 39 individuals intend to do with the original agreement and how they are going to run the country.

We the People [capitol "P" changes legal meaning in contract law, and applies to the signatories only] (which formed the entity) of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect "Union", establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our "P"osterity. See Black's 6th ed. "All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation", do ordain and establish this Constitution [for] the United States of America.

One entity did FOR another entity. See Art.1, sect 2, para. 3; "...the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States". Not the United States of America.

This contract, Constitution is founded, abides and is subservient to international law, based on a compilation of rules, maxims, and guidelines formed over 4000 years of governance compiled in the form of a book referenced in the US Constitution. See, Art.1 sect. 8 para. 10; "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the "LAW OF NATIONS".

The Law of Nations is a Book!

Most of you went to centralized centers of education... think you were missled? facts misrepresented?

 

[Onyx]

Most of you went to centralized centers of education

IE, Reeducation camps

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

You should say that this is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

 

[Onyx]

You should say that this is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Here comes C_Clayton_Jones right on que.

It is a hard days work, snobbishly dismissing political nonconformists.

 

[Buck111]

The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we've had, or has been powerless to prevent it. -Lysander Spooner.

Conclusively it is the former, i.e. ...it was "Authorized". The Preamble explains it unequivocally. It was not about the "common" man. The Constitution is a contract and your not a party to it.

This is a document drafted by the PEOPLE" of the "UNITED STATES" for, the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" The "PEOPLE" guaranteed that the debt payments of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
would be made to the King. -Article 6, clause 1

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation".

The United States of America founded under the Confederation of states went into debt to fight the war against the King. The king tired of the war and had other issues in Europe agreed to conclude the war with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. This agreement was the repayment of the loans authored by the said countries in that treaty. Article 4 of this treaty puts their (The Kings) claws in our buttocks.

The United States of America, the 13 colonies, became disunited, fought amongst themselves, refused to pay their share of the debts, and was gaining the attention of the king for failure to pay. Because of this disunity, 55 PEOPLE gathered together and attended meetings to reorganize and centralize the power of government and to agree to form a new entity called the "UNITED STATES" in 1787. Only 39 of those attendee's signed the constitution forming our present style of government.

The Preamble of the Constitution paraphrases to the King what these 39 individuals intend to do with the original agreement and how they are going to run the country.

We the People [capitol "P" changes legal meaning in contract law, and applies to the signatories only] (which formed the entity) of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect "Union", establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our "P"osterity. See Black's 6th ed. "All the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest generation", do ordain and establish this Constitution [for] the United States of America.

One entity did FOR another entity. See Art.1, sect 2, para. 3; "...the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States". Not the United States of America.

This contract, Constitution is founded, abides and is subservient to international law, based on a compilation of rules, maxims, and guidelines formed over 4000 years of governance compiled in the form of a book referenced in the US Constitution. See, Art.1 sect. 8 para. 10; "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the "LAW OF NATIONS".

The Law of Nations is a Book!

Most of you went to centralized centers of education... think you were missled? facts misrepresented?

Thank you for adding to the conversation.

The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we've had, or has been powerless to prevent it. -Lysander Spooner.

Conclusively it is the former, i.e. ...it was "Authorized". The Preamble explains it unequivocally. It was not about the "common" man. The Constitution is a contract and your not a party to it.

A contract requires a meeting of the minds and a signature. Only the original signers of the CONstitution ever agreed upon it and to it. Therefore it only applies to them and they are dead. Government knows this and that is one of the reasons the united states became the United States, a corporation (a business).

 

[Onyx]

A contract requires a meeting of the minds and a signature. Only the original signers of the CONstitution ever agreed upon it and to it. Therefore it only applies to them and they are dead. Government knows this and that is one of the reasons the united states became the United States, a corporation (a business).

The statist argument is that you do not need to sign a social contract to consent to a social contract.

To justify the tyranny of the state, they argue that if one lives among society, then they are party to the laws that society creates. There are several fallacies with this logic, most prominently being...

1. Nothing legitimizes the state as the voice for society

2. Society refers to the collective population, meaning 100% of all members. In this regard, no majority or minority in a society has the right to speak for everyone.

 

[Buck111]

NT.6.0.1

The first and second numbers of this series were published in 1867. For reasons not necessary to be explained, the sixth is now published in advance of the third, fourth, and fifth.
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.

For those who would like to expand their minds and learn the truth, you can continue reading Lysander Spooners 'NO TREASON' at Lysander Spooner – No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority

 

[Onyx]

For those who would like to expand their minds and learn the truth, you can continue reading Lysander Spooners 'NO TREASON' at Lysander Spooner – No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority

I have a whole library of anarchist literature. Are you an anarchist?

 

[Buck111]

For those who would like to expand their minds and learn the truth, you can continue reading Lysander Spooners 'NO TREASON' at Lysander Spooner – No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority

I have a whole library of anarchist literature. Are you an anarchist?

I lean that way, but I don't confine myself to any certain dogma or beliefs. Especially any that are political or even quasi-political. I find it easier living with myself when I am not trying to live by others ideals.

Am sure you are familiar with Larken Rose. I think when Rose speaks in his videos (you can find him on YouTube, ladies and gentlemen) he speaks what people already know but were afraid to realize. He has opened a lot of peoples eyes.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Only we the people can keep or give up what the founding fathers set forth. I am willing to die for my freedoms; are you?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I say that the CONstitution is a con game because it neither grants rights nor protects rights. Men interpret the meanings of the CONstitution to benefit their opinions and beliefs. These same men use the CONstitution to control the actions of the masses.

The 'Bill of Rights' is the most important part of the CONstitution, yet they can be suspended by the government. This means they are privileges and not 'rights'. Rights cannot be manipulated or taken; privileges can.

You should say that this is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

 

[ibc]

Only we the people can keep or give up what the founding fathers set forth. I am willing to die for my freedoms; are you?[

If you are referring to the type of sacrifice in the war of independence of 1775-1783, the answer is no!

That war was a mercenary army fighting for the People's cause not yours. -emphasis mine. "On June 17, 1783, Congress received a message from soldiers of the CONTINENTAL ARMY stationed in Philadelphia, which demanded payment for their service during the American Revolutionary war. The soldiers threatened to take action that day if their complaints were not addressed. Congress ignored their message, but the soldiers did not act on their threat. Two days later, however, the Congress received word that a group of about 80 soldiers had left their post at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, approximately 60 miles west of Philadelphia, and had joined with the soldiers stationed at the city barracks. The group of approximately 500 men had effective control over the weapons stores and munition depot. The next morning on June 20, the State House was mobbed by as many as 400 soldiers demanding payment. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave." - Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783

" PEACE AT LAST: The war for independence was all but won by 1783. Soldiers and civilians alike rejoiced. The army could be disbanded; officers and enlisted men could go home. The bad news was that the eight exhausting years of conflict had left the United States with an empty treasury and a staggering war debt. How would the government PAY the long-overdue money it owed to the soldiers of the Continental Army. let alone the special bounties and other reenlistment incentives so liberally offered during the darkest hours of war?

A PRECARIOUS SITUATION: Entire Continental regiments had mutinied over the lack of pay during the war. Now, some officers wanted to march the whole army to Philadelphia. They argued that only the threat of force would prevent Congress from abandoning its promise to provide Continental officers half pay pensions for life once the war ended. A moving address by Commander-in-Chief George Washington in March, 1783, defused this so-called Newburgh Conspiracy, but the situation remained precarious. The government shifted its attention to dispersing the angry, still unpaid rank and file.

EMERGENCY MEASURES: Congress decided to furlough rather than discharge most of the army in the months leading up to ratification of the peace treaty. Entire regiments marched to their home states under the tight control of their officers. An emergency loan enabled the government to give each soldier on month's pay in cash. Each man received the remainder of his back pay in government certificates redeemable for cash, plus interest at a future date. At General Washington's suggestion, soldiers were permitted to keep their uniforms, muskets and other army-issued equipment. Lacking decent clothing, food and other necessities, many men quickly spent what little cash they received and sold their certificates, muskets and other possessions to support themselves and their families. Only a few regiments remained under arms at West Point, New York, when Congress began formally discharging the entire army in the fall of 1783." -Wars End: The Promises OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION


-Good day to all and that all is well.

 

[ibc]

Only we the people can keep or give up what the founding fathers set forth. I am willing to die for my freedoms; are you?

 

[ibc]

Only we the people can keep or give up what the founding fathers set forth. I am willing to die for my freedoms; are you?

You are willing to die for your freedoms? what freedoms? You have granted civil rights, are you referring to these? That which is granted can be un-granted. I'm assuming your are framing your question around the alleged sacrifices of the men who fought in the Revolutionary war from 1775-1783? To answer your question, the answer is no!

Greetings,

That war was fought with a mercenary army for the People's rights and freedoms not yours.

Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783
"On June 17, 1783, Congress received a message from soldiers of the Continental Army stationed in Philadelphia, which demanded payment for their service during the American Revolutionary War. The soldiers threatened to take action that day if their complaints were not addressed. Congress ignored their message, but the soldiers did not act on their threat. Two days later, however, the Congress received word that a group of about 80 soldiers had left their post at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, approximately 60 miles (97 km) west of Philadelphia, and had joined with the soldiers stationed at the city barracks. The group of approximately 500 men had effective control over the weapons stores and munition depot.[2]

Protests
The next morning on June 20, the State House was mobbed by as many as 400 soldiers demanding payment. The soldiers blocked the door and initially refused to allow the delegates to leave. Alexander Hamilton, then a delegate from New York, persuaded the soldiers to allow Congress to meet later to address their concerns. The soldiers did allow the members of Congress to peacefully adjourn that afternoon.[3] That evening, a small Congressional committee, headed by Hamilton, met in secret to draft a message to the Pennsylvania Council, asking them to protect Congress from the mutineers. The letter threatened that Congress would be forced to move elsewhere if the Council did not act.[2] -Wikipedia

Peace at Last
The war for independence was all but won by 1783. Soldiers and civilians alike rejoiced. The army could be disbanded; officers and enlisted men could go home. The bad news was that eight exhausting years of conflict had left the United States with an empty treasury and a staggering war debt. How would the government pay the long-overdue money it owed to the soldiers of the Continental Army, let alone the special bounties and other reenlistment incentives so liberally offered during the darkest hours of the war?

A Precarious Situation
Entire Continental regiments had mutinied over the lack of pay during the war. Now, some officers wanted to march the whole army to Philadelphia. They argued that only the threat of force would prevent Congress from abandoning its promise to provide Continental officers half pay pensions for life once the war ended. A moving address by Commander-in-Chief George Washington in March, 1783, defused this so-called Newburgh Conspiracy, but the situation remained precarious. The government shifted its attention to dispersing the angry, still unpaid rank and file.

Emergency Measures
Congress decided to furlough rather than discharge most of the army in the months leading up to the ratification of the peace treaty. Entire regiments marched to their home states under the tight control of their officers. An emergency loan enabled the government to give each soldier one month's pay in cash. Each man received the remainder of his back pay in government certificates redeemable for cash, plus interest at a future date. At General Washington's suggestion, soldiers were permitted to keep their uniforms, muskets and other army-issued equipment. Lacking decent clothing, food and other necessities, many men quickly spent what little cash they received and sold their certificates, muskets and other possessions to support themselves and their families. Only a few regiments remained under arms at West Point, New York, when Congress began formally discharging the entire army in the fall of 1783.


A Dangerous Situation
The end of the war was in sight by 1783, and not a moment too soon. The United States treasury was empty. Congress needed to shed the costly burden of maintaining the Continental Army as soon as possible. Yet, how could Congress peaceably disband these soldiers when it lacked the means to pay them? Whole regiments had rioted and even mutinied over the lack of pay and other perceived grievances during the war. Discharging officers and enlisted men without giving them their back pay, pensions and bonuses could spark a full scale uprising.

Promises to Pay
Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris managed to negotiate a hasty cash loan that would put one month's pay in the soldiers' pockets. The remainder of their pay would be issued in government scrip that could be redeemed for cash at a later date. The government also generously allowed soldiers to keep their army-issued weapons, uniforms and equipment.

Crisis Averted
Congress decided to furlough most of the men, rather than discharge them. After all, the peace treaty had not yet been finalized. The British army still occupied New York City; the army might be needed again. Regiments marched home under military discipline, thus preventing any disgruntled, ill-disciplined soldiers from looting the countryside or marching on Congress. Once they were safely dispersed, Congress issued official discharges to these men. The few remaining regiments stationed at West Point, New York, were discharged over the summer and fall. By the winter of 1783, the army was safely disbanded, and Congress had averted a serious crisis. - War's End: The Promises of the American Revolution, Shays Rebellion.

 

[ibc]

My apologies for the double post, I thought I deleted my original.... it ended up here.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

As an American we have more rights than any other individual on earth. Having been outside the United States and seen how others live I understand that. I also witnessed how ugly Americans can behave in foreign lands in their attitudes toward those they consider beneath them. As an officer I did what I could to at least try to get through to my own men but that was only a drop in the ocean but it has to start somewhere. Despite what politicians say "character does matter" and if you want to reach people you have to treat them the way you would treat your own family members.

I saw G.I.s hang out car windows to slap local girls on the rear. I asked my men how they would react if they saw Communist Chinese soldiers do that to their sisters on the streets of their home towns and they would have been outraged so I asked why would you do it in a foreign country? I tried to teach these young guys just because you can do something does not mean it is OK because you are an American and you think you are doing it in fun. In a foreign country it can cost you your life.

With rights come obligations as rights are not free. They have been paid for in blood and I have friends that paid that price. You don't have to believe it or accept it but many millions know better. Me, I don't care about politics, oil, economics, but family and freedom. Touch those and your prospects of living to a ripe old age are slime and none. As I have said before, my father was a First Sgt. in WWII and he raised me to be a soldier from the time I could walk. By the time I entered college I had memorized the kill and wounding radiuses of all the mortar and artillery rounds in current use in the U.S. Army. In 1969 I started studying Gung Fu at Arkansas State Teachers College (under a former black U.S. Army Officer who volunteered his time to train our "Counter Insurgency Unit" run by the Special Forces in hand to hand combat as he was a specialist in open hand combat) to now Arkansas State University before transferring to Eastern New Mexico University where I graduated at the top of my ROTC class in military tactics. If one wants to be free one MUST be prepared to at any moment to defend that freedom be it from and outside force or an internal force seeking to take away our freedoms. The threat from those within our own society who would wish to take away our rights and freedoms is just as real as those from the outside. I laugh at the libtards with their panties all in a twist over AR15 when any trained soldier knows the most feared many on any battlefield is the one trained with a scoped sighted sniper rifle which is usually bolt action. Be he a trained sniper, a designated marksman, or just a very well trained civilian in long range shooting along with, observation, field craft, escape and evasion, and camouflage he can reap great damage all out of proportion on a much larger force.