RSS

Tag Archives: United States Constitution

Sovereigns or Anarchists?


English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I wrote this article back in February.  It was lost in the piles.  Now it’s found and–without further proof-reading–published:

The Constitution of the United States was ratified by the people in A.D. 1789.  In that same year, the Congress proposed thirteen Amendments to the Constitution.  Of these thirteen proposed Amendments, ten were actually ratified.  Today, these ten are commonly referred to today as the “Bill of Rights”.

When Congress first proposed these Amendments, they sent copies of the proposed Amendments and a “cover letter” to the governments of each of the States of the Union.  The “cover letter” explained the fundamental purpose for the Amendments.

Today, that “cover letter” is largely unrecognized but can be found on the internet if you search for “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.   That “Preamble” declares in part,

Read the rest of this entry »

 
16 Comments

Posted by on August 7, 2012 in 2nd Amendment, Sovereignty, Treason

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Government Corporations


There was a time when I and most other legal reform advocates assumed that all “corporate government” was bad.  Over time, I came to see that–as much as despise and distrust corporations–corporate government is at least a necessity and, properly conceived, a possible benefit for the People.

The fundamental question is not “Am I dealing with a governmental corporation?” but rather “Who owns–and therefore benefits from–the governmental corporation I’m dealing with?  Am I presumed to be one of the beneficiaries of that corporation or merely one of its customers or even employees?”   I.e., “Is the governmental corporation I’m dealing with a “public” corporation that is owned by all the People and therefore works for the best interests of the “public”/People–or is it a “privatized” corporation that’s owned by some private individuals and works for the best interests of those private individuals rather than for the best interests of the “People” in general?

Read the rest of this entry »

 
7 Comments

Posted by on June 17, 2012 in Constitution, Corporations

 

Tags: , , , ,

US Military: War Without Constitutional Authority?


United States Senate election in Alabama, 1996

Image via Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia, “The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 3-4 times larger than the 240 billions of the military budget of China . . . and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined.”

In the first three years under the Obama administration, we’ve been involved in at least three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya).  We are probably already involved covertly in a 4th “war” in Syria.  And we are likely to soon be involved in a 5th:  Iran.

That’s quite a record for a President that won the Nobel Peace Prize.

When it comes to war, we be busy.  Why?  Because there’s big money to made in war.  As a result, America has become the world’s principle war-monger and our national motto might be changed from “In God We Trust” to “Better Living Through War” (or, if you’re a George Orwell fan, “War is Peace”).

Read the rest of this entry »

 
25 Comments

Posted by on March 11, 2012 in Fascism, Treason, Video, War

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

What If?


Andrew Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks a series of “what if” questions.  All of these “what if’s” appear to already be true.

I was particularly surprised to hear Judge Napolitano ask “What if the States were mere provinces under a totally nationalized and centralized government?”

Judge Napolitano is the first high (or formerly high) government official that I’ve heard of who’s given credence to the “The State vs. this state” hypothesis that I and others have been advocating for over a decade.  Where he refers to “provinces,” I’m inclined to speak of “territories” or “territorial states” (rather than States of the Union).  Perhaps Napolitano’s description (“provinces”) is better than mine (“territories,” etc.).  But if we disagreed as to nomenclature, we apparently agree that the very nature of our State’s governments has been radically changed into something unconstitutional and treasonous.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

“ABC This Week” Analyzes the Constitution


First page of Constitution of the United States

Image via Wikipedia

Five successful, seemingly intelligent journalists discuss The Constitution of the United States.  In doing so, they largely display their collective ignorance.  Even George Will–who can be overpowering with his knowledge of facts–seems to have no real understanding.

None of them seem to even suspect that there may be other documents  as authoritative as the Constitution (see, “The Organic Laws of The United States of America“).

I’d bet that most people who read this blog or listen to my radio shows, will find this discussion laughable–and also a little chilling.  How th’ hell can even the “elite” be so damn ignorant?

video   00:48:32–but only the first 29 minutes deal with the Constitution.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/255556/abc-this-week-sun-jul-3-2011

 
6 Comments

Posted by on July 7, 2011 in Constitution

 

Tags: , ,

The States of the Union vs. the Territory


Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...

Image via Wikipedia

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union.  In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old.  So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone.  The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US.  I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.

I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe.  I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis.  But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce.  I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Organic Laws of The United States of America


Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer

Image via Wikipedia

Today, most people have never heard of the Articles of Confederation or the Northwest Territorial Ordinance.  Although virtually everyone has heard of the “Declaration of Independence,” virtually no one realizes it is not merely an interesting historical document but is, in fact, as much the law as The Constitution of the United States.

Instead, virtually everyone presupposes that The Constitution of the United States is not only the “supreme law of the land” (as per Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution), but is the only “law of the land”.  As a result, people presume that in order to understand the “law of the land,” we need go no further back in time than to the Constitution.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Preamble to the “Bill of Rights”


Bill-of-rights

Image via Wikipedia

Today, it’s generally forgotten that when the “Bill of Rights” was ratified in A.D. 1781, that it included a “preamble” from Congress that explained fundamental purposes for those first ten Amendments.

Understanding these fundamental purposes is important since those purposes constitute evidence of the intent of the Amendments/law.  The law is the legislators’ intent. In the case of the Constitution and Amendments, the “legislators” are We the People.  The preamble to the “Bill of Rights” explains the People’s/sovereign’s intent behind the Bill of Rights and thus explains the fundamental “law” of those Amendments.

For example, once you understand this “preamble,” you’ll see that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the people of the several States of the Union—but not against invasion by foreign enemies—but rather, from despotism imposed by our own federal government.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,001 other followers