RSS

A 9th Amendment Road Back to Unalienable Rights

11 Nov

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

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

“Don” is one of this blog’s regular most prolific “commentators”.  He recently posted the following comment:

 

“THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
“ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

“Sec. 1.”FREEDOM  AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. . . .”

“FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE>>>>>subject only to the Constitution of the United States. <<<<< This should make a light come on, especially when you consider IF it said: “subject only to the Constitution of the United States as unlawfully amended.”

 

In Reference to New Mexico, Don wrote:

 

“Text of Section 1:
Supreme Law of the Land

“The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The words above prove, at least to me, the relinquishing of “State Sovereignty” to the Federal Government. I call it betrayal of trust & worse.”

Don apparently sees State constitutions that recognize the supremacy of the federal Constitution as potentially dangerous.  I more or less agree with him but, as I’ll try to explain, I’m not overly concerned with that possible danger.

I’ll explain my nonchalance by noting, first, that the second sentence of “The unanimous Declaration by the thirteen unites States of America” (a/k/a “Declaration of Independence”) of July 4th A.D. 1776, declares in part,

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That’s the single most radical sentence in at least 2,000 years of western political thought.  It’s the basis of declaring that every man, woman and even unborn child is a “sovereign” and government is a “public servant” rather than ruler.

Let’s dissect that sentence:

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident

The authors are about to list several “truths”.  These “truths” are “self-evident” meaning that they require no evidence or proof to be established.  In theory, you and I could build arguments in court based on these “truths” with nothing more than a claim and reference to the “Declaration”.  These “truths” are the legal and spriritual axioms on which our nation was originally built.  These “truths” are probably more powerful than mere “facts” in that “facts” can be denied or even disproved.  I doubt that a properly established “truth” can be refute or denied.

I suspect that, properly presented, these “truths” may be irrefutable in an American court.

After all, we celebrate the “Declaration of Independence” every 4th of July in America’s single biggest national holiday.  (Only Christmas—an international holiday—is “bigger” than the 4th of July.)  If I were to use one or more of the “truths” found in the “Declaration” as premises for an argument, what judge or adversary would expressly deny those “truths” on the record?  How could they deny the validity of those “truths” without openly declaring that the principles of the “Declaration” had been abandoned and there was no longer any reason for 4th of July celebrations?

 

2.  The first irrefutable “truth”:  “all men are created equal”.

Every “man” is “created” by God.  Even though each of us carries our parents’ DNA, it’s also probably true that each man is individually created by God.  If so, it at least seems unlikely that any such man is “evolved”.

While each “man” is created “equal,” there is no declaration that such equality extends to “persons,” “citizens,” “inhabitants,” “taxpayers,” “fiduciaries,” “occupants,” “animals” or “residents,” etc..  If you want to claim your endowment of God-given, “unalienable Rights,” you’d better start by establishing that you are a “man” (or woman) made in God’s image.

One distinction between “men” (made in God’s image) and “persons” may be that “men” are created by God while “persons” (according to the 14th Amendment (A.D. 1868)) are merely “born”.  If so, you were a created “man” in your mother’s womb for roughly 9 months before you were born and deemed to be a “person” under the 14th.

Which came first?  The man or the person?  The answer’s obvious.  You were a man made in God’s image before you were born and deemed to be a “person”.  More, you were made a “man” by God and a “person” by society.  Which capacity carries more weight?

The moment of a “man’s” “creation” is not his birth, but is instead, no later than his conception (when the sperm joins the ovum).  As you’ll read, the moment of each man’s or woman’s creation also marks the moment when that man/woman is “endowed” with God-given, unalienable rights.

While speaking to the prophet Jeremiah, God said at Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; . . . .”  Thus, if God knew any of us before we were formed in the womb, our creation must have preceded our conception, and certainly preceded our birth.

 

3.  Second irrefutable truth:  “that they [men] are [equally] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

I don’t know the source of “inalienable rights,” but I know that it is a self-evident and irrefutable truth that my and your “unalienable Rights” flow from our Creator-God, our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

Because unalienable Rights flow from God, no one can lawfully deprive us of such rights.  These unalienable Rights are as much a part of us as our eye-color or DNA.  No living man, institution or even government has the right to arbitrarily deprive any man of any of his God-given, unalienable Rights.

More, because these “unalienable Rights” flow from our “Creator,” it follows that those “unalienable Rights” attached at the moment of our creation. Thus, insofar as any man has the God-given, unalienable Right to Life, that right would attach no later than the moment of the man’s creation.  That moment of creation is no later than the moment of conception (and, as per Jeremiah 1:5, may even have preceded the moment of conception).

That means that under the principles found in the “Declaration,” every abortion is an act of murder.  None of us have the right to deprive an unborn “man made in God’s image” of the God-given, unalienable Right to Life that attached at the moment of that man’s (or woman’s) creation.

According to the “Declaration’s” first irrefutable “truth,” all men are created equal.  Given that our unalienable Rights are an attribute of our creation, it follows that all men made in God’s image are equally endowed at the moment of their creation with an identical set of God-given, unalienable Rights.  No man (or woman) made in God’s image has any more—or less—God-given, unalienable Rights than any other such man.

 

4.  Third irrefutable truth:  “that among these [unalienable Rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Three God-given, unalienable Rights (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) are specified in the “Declaration,” but because these three are only “among” the list of unalienable Rights, they are not the only unalienable Rights.

There are other, unspecified unalienable Rights.  But what are they?

I can’t say for sure, but I can say that all “unalienable Rights” flow from God.  Therefore, I presume that any other right that flows from God, would also be an unalienable Right.

The Bible does specify some such God-given rights.  For example, we each have the right of “dominion” over all of the animals as per Genesis 1:26-28.

As per Genesis 1:29, we have the unalienable Right to eat “every herb that yields seed”.*

However, searching the Bible for express declarations of God-given “rights” is difficult since God rarely specified any rights that He’d given mankind. More typically, God specified the duties he imposed on mankind.

Nevertheless, it’s axiomatic that one man’s duty defines another man’s right.  Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin.  If you can find a duty that’s imposed by God, you can—by implication—also find a correlative right.  If a duty is declared by God, the correlative right is arguably unalienable—and, incidentally, “spiritual” in nature.

 

•  The third sentence in the “Declaration of Independence” declares:

 

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Let’s dissect the first half of that sentence:

1.  “That to secure these rights . . . .”  Which rights are they talking about?  They’re talking about the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the 2nd sentence of the “Declaration”.

 

2.   “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . . .”

Q:  What is the primary purpose of government, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

A:  To “secure” the God-given, unalienable Rights to every man, woman and even unborn child.  This was the basis for describing this country as the “land of the free”.  Government was obligated to secure your unalienable Rights even you were too young, too ignorant, too lazy or even too drunk to know what your unalienable Rights were or how to secure them.  (Today, of course, if you don’t know your rights and know the exact procedure for claiming them, you don’t have any.  As such, this is no longer the “land of the free”.)

 

3.  “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . . .”

Q:  Are all governments expressly obligated to secure our God-given, unalienable Rights?

A:  No.  The only governments that are expressly obligated by the “Declaration” to secure our unalienable Rights are the “Governments . . . instituted among men”.  Thus, if a government were not “among men,” the obligation to “secure” our “unalienable Rights” could not be based on the authority of our “Declaration of Independence”.

Q:  Which governments are “among men”?

A:  Thirteen States were created by the “Declaration of Independence”.  Those thirteen States were independent from Great Britain and also from each other.  It is inconceivable that the Founders expressed fundamental principles of rights and correlative duties in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the “Declaration” but did not apply those principles to the governments of the thirteen States created by that “Declaration”.  The governments of those States have to have been governments “among men”.

In A.D. 1781, those thirteen, independent States united under the Articles of Confederation into a perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  I can’t quite prove it, but I have no doubt that each of the resulting “States of the Union” remained “governments among men” and were therefore still obligated to “secure” each man’s God-given, unalienable Rights. Each new State that joined the Union would join in an equal footing and would therefore also include a “government among men”.

I also can’t quite prove it, but I’m confident that the “federal” government created by the Articles of Confederation was also a “government among men”.

But it’s much less clear to me if the subsequent government created by The Constitution of the United States in A.D. 1789 was also a “government among men”.  Article VII of that Constitution declares, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”  It’s arguable that the States of the Union are composed of the People, that the People are “men,” and thus declaring the federal government to be “between the States” is tantamount to saying that the federal government is also “among men”.  If so, our federal government was also originally obligated to secure each man’s God-given, unalienable Rights.

But my scant reading of history doesn’t necessarily agree with that conclusion.  Instead, it appears to me that if the federal government was involved in securing unalienable Rights, it happened only in relatively rare instances wherein the State governments had failed to secure such rights and the injured man appealed to the federal courts.

I’m not saying that the federal government was never obligated to secure our unalienable Rights.  Maybe it was; maybe it wasn’t.  I am saying that the governments of the States of the Union were clearly “governments among men” and thus, if you wanted to secure your God-given, unalienable Rights, the courts of a State of the Union (if you can still find such courts) would be the ideal venue.

But let’s suppose that the federal government was never “among men” and the governments of the States of the Union have been supplanted by the administrative, territorial governments of “this state”.  Would any current government still be a “government among men”?  Would any current government still be obligated under the 3rd sentence of the “Declaration” to “secure” our God-given, unalienable Rights?

Maybe not—especially if you were a 14th Amendment “person” rather than a “man made in God’s image”.

Nevertheless, all hope is not lost.  As you’ll read, the 9th Amendment remains as a possible “self-help” remedy for enforcing our unalienable Rights.

 

•  Unalienable Rights are the “gold standard” of rights.  Civil rights are granted (and easily voided) by governments or even other men.  Civil rights are trivial compared to God-given, unalienable Rights.

Therefore, I’m obsessed with the idea of establishing that I am a “man made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-28) and “endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (“Declaration of Independence”).  I will gladly march into any court in the world so long as that court recognizes my God-given, unalienable Rights.

So (finally getting back to Don’s complaint about State constitutions that admit the supremacy of the federal Constitution), I’m not rattled by any potential dangers posed by The Constitution of the United States because the 9th Amendment to that same Constitution opens the door for me to lay claim to my God-given, unalienable Rights.

I recognize that the State constitutions drafted after the Civil War may include some dangerous language that tends to make the federal Government “supreme”. However, I don’t mind being deemed subject to the Constitution of the United States so long as there’s a 9th Amendment which declares:

 

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The 9th Amendment expressly guarantees that all rights held by the “people” shall be retained even if those rights aren’t expressly mentioned in the federal Constitution.   The God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration” are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.  Nevertheless, under th 9th Amendment those unalienable Right are still retained by the people and should therefore be accessible to the people.

More, It’s an axiom of law that for every “right,” there must be a correlative “duty”.  Thus, for any right retained by the “people’ under the 9th Amendment, there should be a correlative duty on the part of government to recognize and enforce that right.  If the government can be made to recognize my unalienable Rights under the 9th Amendment, it follows that the government should be subject to also enforcing my unalienable Rights.

But, note that the rights retained and enforced under the 9th Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) must be held and claimed by the “people”—not by the citizens, inhabitant, taxpayers, occupants, employees, residents or persons of the United States.

If you want to claim your God-given, unalienable Rights, you must first establish that you are one of the “people” of a State of the Union and/or of the Union itself (“The United States of America”).

Therefore, I contend that, so long as I can establish that:

1) I am a “man made in God’s image”;

2) that I’m a man endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights;

3) I’m one of the people [not one of the “persons,” “citizens,” “taxpayers,” “fiduciaries,” “employees,” inhabitants,” “animals” or “residents” etc.] of a State of the Union and/or of the perpetual union styled “The United States of America”; and

4) I can make a claim as one of the “people” under the 9th Amendment (and possibly also under the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion)); then

5) I have access to my God-given, unalienable Rights, I am nigh unto a “sovereign” and I am good to go into any court where this system or the Good LORD places me.

 

•  I do not propose that using the 9th Amendment constitutes a “get out of jail free” card.  I don’t suggest that using my “theory” guarantees that I will win every, or even any, court battle. I can easily be defeated. If they could crucify the Christ, I guarantee they can crucify me—and you, too.

But if they’re going to punish me, they won’t do so with my consent.  If they are bent on punishing me, they’ll have to ignore what I regard as a strong claim on my God-given, unalienable Rights—and knowingly breach their correlative duty to recognize and “secure” the unalienable Rights granted by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym. If they want to openly and intentionally violate God’s law, that’s their business.  I leave it to the Good LORD to judge them however He sees fit.  But, until He imposes such judgment, there’s nothing I can do about it other than “stand firm to the end”—and that suits me just fine.

 

•  So, in sum, this article is simply a convoluted attempt to illustrate that the “unalienable Rights” declared in our “Declaration of Independence” can be accessed by means of the 9th Amendment.  Therefore, I don’t find The Constitution of the United States to be particularly scary.  Could there be dangerous elements (14 Amendment) in that Constitution?  Sure.  Could there be near-blessings (9th Amendment) in that Constitution?  Yes, indeed.

Is the Constitution half empty or half full?  The answer’s up to you.

 

 

*God introduces the concept of “seed” in Genesis 1:11-12:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

That’s a particularly interesting description of the food we have a right to eat since I doubt that any “herb” (plant) could be found at the time of Genesis that did not “yield seed in itself”.  All plants were capable of reproduction (having its “seed”—the capacity for reproduction—“in itself”) and therefore all presumably yielded seed.

So why not simply declare that we could eat all plants?  Why add the “seed in itself” condition?

I believe “seed in itself” condition meant that man was entitled to eat only those plants that were fertile and capable of reproduction.  But why include that condition if all plants 3,500 years ago had “seed in themselves” and were capable of reproduction?

Curiously, the “seed in itself” condition was recently compromised with the advent of hybrid and GMO plants which may “yield seed” but do not have “seed in themselves” (the capacity to reproduce).

Likewise, GMO and hybrid plants are the result of the union two “kinds” of plants and therefore, the GMO plants do not satisfy the Genesis 1:11-12 reference to “yielding seed after his [singular] kind”.  GMO foods yield seed that are after two [plural] “kinds” of plants.

As I understand the Bible, the descriptions of plants suitable for us to eat implicitly warns against eating GMO foods.

Is that warning a mere coincidence, or could it be that Genesis was intentionally written to warn against eating GMO plants 3,500 years before GMO plants appeared?

Could it be that GMO plants were specifically designed to be incapable of reproduction and therefore outside of the realm of God-given, unalienable Rights to eat virtually all plants?  Could it be that, being incapable of reproduction, GMO plants are therefore suitable to be exclusively owned and controlled by major corporations?

I think the answers to those three questions is Yes.

I always stand to be corrected, but I find the “seed in itself” requirement for plants suitable man’s food to be mind-boggling.  If it’s true that Genesis warned against GMO foods, 3,500 year before GMO foods existed, that warning would constitute an astonishing evidence of the existence of God and the power of the Bible.

 
42 Comments

Posted by on November 11, 2012 in 9th Amendment, Unalienable Rights

 

Tags: ,

42 responses to “A 9th Amendment Road Back to Unalienable Rights

  1. Southern Grey

    November 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM

    I would take issue with the idea that the Declaration spontaneously spawned any sort of government in the states. Instead, in declaring the political institutions authorized and permitted by King George III to be null and void, the Declaration established anarchy; there was no structure immediately available to rush into the vacuum they created. This situation changed, of course. But for a fleeting while the people actually had all their rights intact and suffered no imposed duty.

     
    • Timmy

      November 11, 2012 at 10:22 PM

      I like what Southern is saying here… it’s like the Declaration was just that– more of a notice and statement of intent. Putting England and the King on notice of separation and establishing the principles of thinking behind the revolution.

       
      • Adask

        November 11, 2012 at 11:09 PM

        You might want to take a look at an article I published here, in May of A.D. 2011 entitled The Organic Law of The United States of America. It explains that the “Declaration” is not simply a notice or interesting historical document, but is as much the “law” as The Constitution of the United States. See, https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/

         
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 7:08 AM

      Hello, Southern Grey, Do you like Southern Comfort ? I do !
      @anarchy;

      In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:

      “While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation.” [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]

      I,Don,am an avid arnarchist, as defined above. Personally, I believe the best kind of government would be a benelovent dictatorship, old time golden rule meaning, type.

       
  2. Huey Campbell

    November 11, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    I like your “argument”. It fits my reasoning as perfectly logical.
    I love the truth of being, “a man created”
    I thought of the promise made involving the “seed of the woman”. And, of the man, whose daddy was not a human.Even so come……..and please hurry……

     
    • Adask

      November 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM

      Amen.

       
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 6:46 AM

        Adask
        November 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM
        Amen.
        Yes!!
        To: Who it may concern:

        @2. The first irrefutable “truth”: “all men are created equal”. (<Alfred Adask,excerpt comment)

        @The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (in pertinent part)

        "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…."

        If this statement includes "ALL" men," why were the "people of color" "considered" "inferior" & "subordinate" to their "Masters?" Why were the "people of color," considered property? I know these questions ruffle the feathers of some people but this is because of the lies & misunder-standing of what "slavery" really consisted of. First, ALL of us,Red,Yellow,Black & White are inferior & subordinate & are SERVANTS to something(s) Always have been & always will be Why do so many "Black people" carry "White European Names & Surnames" of their "Masters" if they think they have been oppressed by the honkies,a.k.a crackers,etc.? Cassius Marcellus Clay,Jr; changed his "ID" to Muhammad Ali,why don't they do the same? I'm told that I am the "master of my dog." I don't think my dog would object if she knew I was her master because she knows I love her. And, we ARE the best of friends. This is also the way it was,at least for the most part, with the "masters & servants" back in the "days of slavery." I have put a lot of study into this issue too !! I do not expect any response from anyone regarding this comment but if we take one thing at a time, & can agree to some degree at least, on something, we will make some progress towards the truth of why we are in the mess we are in. I will close this portion of my sermon, by saying from what I have discovered about "Slavery," I wish I could have been a slave. I would have been so much better off than what I have been forced to go through in this "enlightened age." Remember the "Waco & Ruby Ridge "human events." NO!! that is not a question,it's something to remember.There are many other human events just as bad that I am aware of. It's just that those human events did not make the "National news." One of these "human events" involved a 92 year old lady & the oppression that happened to her,by FrankenSTATE, and she was 92 years old. Please, consider the "questions" in this post.

         
      • Huey Campbell

        November 12, 2012 at 7:34 AM

        Don, I share your frustration.
        We are all slaves to the elite. We wear their shackles, though they are invisible.
        We are shackled into their system at birth and given an account. “They” receive a portion of our labor all our productive lives. I purchase my freedom, to be allowed labor, each April 15th. I paid over $20,000 last year so my wife and I could be free to produce again this year.

        Damn them (the elite) to hell. I had much rather be a “slave” to my creator. I believes he loves me, else he would not have created me.

         
      • Don

        November 13, 2012 at 4:10 PM

        “THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
        “ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

        Is, “THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION” and, “The Constitution of the State of Texas,” one & the same?
        I,Don,don’t think so. If I am wrong, then, TEXAS, &, The State of Texas mean the same thing
        I did not use all caps as showing above. I cut & pasted it just the way it “showed up.”

         
  3. Timmy

    November 11, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    Great thinking as usual. I do think you’re missing a key point from Genesis, in that you are citing texts concerning the Garden before the rebellion and fall. Mankind’s status changed radically post fall in many ways. Yes, Christ redeemed man from the fall, and the earth itself, but it appears quite obviously that that redemption and restoration process won’t be complete until He returns.

    Still, lots of good points to consider.
    I once heard a lawyer say something like “I could care less what the Constitution says; it’s only a document for what the government can do, and how it operates. And the bill of rights only says what the government cannot do. Neither has anything to do with me directly…”

     
  4. Don

    November 11, 2012 at 11:25 PM

    Dear Alfred,

    You covered a lot of “issues.” I would like to respond to each one but not all at once.To me,the most important point & by far,in everything you said, was:

    Therefore, I’m obsessed with the idea of establishing that I am a “man made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:26-28) and “endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (“Declaration of Independence”). I will gladly march into any court in the world so long as that court recognizes my God-given, unalienable Rights. AND, “But if they’re going to punish me…………..” (Amen!)

    The next issue,is your thinking on “all men are created equal’. I believe this too, but it seems they/we don’t stay that way. There is something important to say about this “equal” point/issue which I would like to bring up later. Then,we will go from there ( I stand to be corrected also ) .

     
  5. Anon4fun

    November 11, 2012 at 11:58 PM

    Adask: {One distinction between “men” (made in God’s image) and “persons” may be that “men” are created by God while “persons” (according to the 14th Amendment (A.D. 1868)) are merely “born”. If so, you were a created “man” in your mother’s womb for roughly 9 months before you were born and deemed to be a “person” under the 14th.}

    Black’s Law Dictionary supports your conclusion:

    “PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.”

    While still in your mother’s whom, you had no rank in society, so you were not yet a person.

    You did not have the rights that go with being born. However, since you already existed, you did have the rights that go with being created.

    On a related subject, we find this in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

    In the next paragraph, it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

    Who is “we”? “We” is the previously mentioned, “one people” of the thirteen united States of America. In other words: We the People.

     
  6. Steve

    November 12, 2012 at 7:40 AM

    When I make my “declaration” that I am a man/(wo)man, created in God’s image and I retain my unalienable rights, THEY cannot rebut that and therefore cannot penalize me without my consent. They can only deal with the “dead, ficticious person….the corporation” for they themselves are “private contractors” working for dead, ficticious persons that are also corporations. All statutes, codes,rules and ordinances are for commercial purposes and only apply to the employee/contractor of the corporation. Only Naturual Law applies to the people! (I may be right/wrong, this is just my opinion from all my research which includes reading many of the articles on this site and from Rod Class, Santos Bonnaci, Kate from Gaia, and a few others that seek remedy from the tyrannical corporation called the UNITED STATES.)

     
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM

      Steve
      @November 12, 2012 at 7:40 AM

      Stay out of New Mexico.

       
  7. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 8:27 AM

    Huey Campbell
    November 12, 2012 at 7:34 AM

    Good Morning, Huey Campbell,

    @I had much rather be a “slave” to my creator. I believes he loves me, else he would not have created me.

    What an honor & a PRIVILEGE it IS to be a “servant’ of our Creator. Servant/Slave,same difference

    10 cents/dime,same difference. There has to be a “chain of command.” this too is not understood

    as it should be. Love is an outgoing concern for each other. Husband & Wife? it’s not 50/50, it’s

    supposed to be100/100. IF we,all peoples,nations,had an outgoing concern for each other we

    would have a utopia beyond imagination. But, it’s tragic that what we really have for the most part

    is, hate,greed,& jealousy. It’s “Hey LITTLE you, let BIG IMPORTANT ME through MOVE

    OVER,STAND ASIDE. It’s Me,myself,& I. Wouldn’t it be grand if we just thought of how we could

    make someone else happy today & he/she was thinking the same thing about you & me. There is

    not much love in this world,sad to say. It’s also sad to say that the “immediate future” looks dark &

    gloomy & that’s saying something good about it. I say it’s dark & gloomy because I have a clear

    view of it. HOWEVER !! I also see the “end result” & no words can describe how glorious, peaceful,

    & beautiful it is, at least I’m not able to describe it. My sweetheart, my dog, just told me she needs

    to go outside & to pay attention to her for a while. See what I mean about being a servant? Yet I

    am her master? She bends over backwards to make me happy. I try to do the same for her

    Thanks Huey > אני אוהבת אותך

     
  8. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM

    Huey, One more thing. Remember ! We are in the “time” that no good deed will go unpunished. I know you have heard of “Murphy’s Law,” Boy !! Have I ever.You know what Murphy’s problem was?
    He was an optimist.

     
  9. William

    November 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM

    Help me out here, those of you that have traveled through South America, Mexico or any other Latin American country, did you notice their Civil Law systems and codes are based on Roman Civil Law?

    It appeared to me that a man in their system has something called a Natural Person by which a man is granted the capacity to act in their Civil Law system.

     
    • pop de adam

      November 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      I was watching some B-rate science fiction movie called Cyclops. In this movie they presented a collisium like event complete with a ringmaster, I thought it rather funny and perhaps unintentionally accurate that this ringmaster addressed the roman crowds as: “freeman and citizens, the Emperor presents to you…..”

      This wikipedia page is a good introduction:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

      I also think a cursory study of a translation of The Code(s) of Justinian is interesting, I gathered that civil law relates to subjects(people not issues), put another way slave law.

      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.asp

      Fordham is a jesuit university if it may concern anyone. Myself I am wary of placing to much stock in things that appear to be antiquities, but then again the principles of stare decisis allow for precedents to over-ride progress sometimes.

      -Pop

       
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        pop,

        @ “I also think a cursory study of a translation of The Code(s) of Justinian is interesting, I gathered that civil law relates to subjects(people not issues), put another way slave law.”

        Once again, The U.S.of A. was established by common law principles,beginning with The Mayflower Compact & The Statute of 1776 & this “Nation stood & would stand before all other Nations as a Christian Nation.” If people want to call “Common Law” “Civil Law” I have no problem with that. They can “call it” anything they like. I have a court case here somewhere that says: Our ruling will be based on the Common Law & The Holy Bible which is the source of the Common Law. I LIKE THAT !!! The problem is,now,today, Courts don’t decide issues that way no mo.

         
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 6:53 PM

        Shalom, pop,

        @ I was watching some B-rate science fiction movie

        I think we can learn a lot by watching B-rated science fiction movies,especially if we want to know what the truth is,about anything. B rated movies are something else aren’t they? Actually, they don’t have to be B rated Science Fiction movies, It’s the B rating that is important. B rated movies of any sort have a tremendous amount of information of what truth is all about. If it’s not B rated, I’m not interested in watching it.
        אני אוהבת אותך

         
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM

      To:William:

      @…their Civil Law systems and codes are based on Roman Civil Law? ”

      The U.S.of A. was established by common law principles,beginning with The Mayflower Compact & The Statute of 1776 & this “Nation stood & would stand before all other Nations as a Christian Nation.” Today, via subtle usurpation,betrayal,& “appropriate legislation,” I believe we have Roman Civil Law now too. People appear to not see that the Roman Civil Law WAS the martial law/rule,OF the Roman Empire.

      Personally, I don’t believe the word “person” is a bad word, in & of itself. When there are a thousand definitions of any word, we just have to pick the best definition that fits our way of thinking, it seems. I am concerned about how words are defined in statutes,that are said to apply to me. I know I have found the “key” to this understanding. But, since we are not robots, machines,etc there will be disagreements on what anything & everything means. Let’s say there are 3 different people who have 3 different opinions of you & me. We,you & I, are to each of those 3 whatever those 3 think you & I are. So, if those 3 want to fight it out on which one of the 3 is right, since their opinions conflict with each other about what you & I are, that’s there problem. Who knows, maybe all 3 of their opinions are wrong.

       
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 12:25 PM

        ….their problem, not there problem. I do make superdooper errors & too many times,& can hardly EVER see my errors until AFTER it is posted. Why is this?

         
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 2:08 AM

      William
      November 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM
      @ “Help me out here.”

      HELP ME GET OUTTA HERE !!!

       
  10. William

    November 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    Did it ever occur to anyone here that we have no King, and yet every white male in America became equal in status to those kings of Europe when Independence was declared ?

     
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

      Shalom,William,
      @Did it ever occur to anyone here that we have no King

      Yes we do have a King, & that King is,Yeshua (Jesus Christ). This is also the answer George Washington gave to some people who asked him if he would be their King. He said: “We already have a King, & that King is Jesus Christ.” Anyway, I have a king & I bet you know who too. No, it’s not what follows. The following is my secret message I send to special people.
      אני אוהבת אותך

       
      • todreigus

        November 12, 2012 at 7:07 PM

        @Don

        “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” must be a C rated movie then, hehe.

         
  11. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

    todreigus
    November 12, 2012 at 7:07 PM
    “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” must be a C rated movie then, hehe.

    Yes! Yes! Yes! By ALL means YES !! (heh-heh-heh)

    Thanks for understanding. I was beginning to feel like the Alone Ranger.Tonto has went. He said he wanted to went. He asked me to went with him, he did say les went. I told him I was sorry to see him went. WHERE CAN I GET THIS C RATED KILLER TOMATOES MOVIE? I’m SURS. (heh-heh)

    אני אוהבת אותך

     
  12. todreigus

    November 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

    Attack of the Killer tomatoes, here you go > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Xop3a-9hA

    Can you pass the ketchup please, doh!

     
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

      todreigus
      November 12, 2012 at 8:44 PM

      WOW !!! THANKS !!!! OK I’m gonna B off, well er-ruh er ruh, you no whutum tawkun baut. I goan B watchin dis C thang. U duhh mane mane. There was a song called The Tomato Vendetta. Anyway, I know what few people that may read my comments think I say things I can’t back up I said, before, there is a song called I’m my own Grandpa. Hope you enjoy the lyrics.

      Now, many many years ago
      When I was twenty three
      I was married to a widow
      Who was pretty as could be

      This widow had a grown-up daughter
      Had hair of red
      My father fell in love with her
      And soon the two were wed

      This made my dad my son-in-law
      And changed my very life
      My daughter was my mother
      ‘Cause she was my father’s wife

      To complicate the matters
      Even though it brought me joy
      I soon became the father
      Of a bouncing baby boy

      My little baby then became
      A brother-in-law to dad
      And so became my uncle
      Though it made me very sad

      For if he was my uncle
      That also made him the brother
      Of the widow’s grown-up daughter
      Who, of course, was my step-mother

      I’m my own grandpa
      I’m my own grandpa
      It sounds funny I know
      But it really is so
      I’m my own grandpa

      My father’s wife then had a son
      [ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/w/willie-nelson-lyrics/i_m-my-own-grandpa-lyrics.html ]
      That kept them on the run
      And he became my grandchild
      For he was my daughter’s son

      My wife is now my mother’s mother
      And it makes me blue
      Because, she is my wife
      She’s my grandmother too

      I’m my own grandpa
      I’m my own grandpa
      It sounds funny I know
      But it really is so
      I’m my own grandpa

      Now, if my wife is my grandmother
      Then, I am her grandchild
      And every time I think of it
      It nearly drives me wild

      For now I have become
      The strangest case you ever saw
      As the husband of my grandmother
      I am my own grandpa

      I’m my own grandpa
      I’m my own grandpa
      It sounds funny I know
      But it really is so
      I’m my own grandpa

      I’m my own grandpa
      I’m my own grandpa
      It sounds funny I know
      But it really is so
      I’m my own grandpa

      these lyrics are submitted by kaan

       
  13. Don

    November 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM

    The Constitution of the U.S.of A. was ALWAYS the Supreme Law of the Land in its proper SPHERE.
    This PROPER sphere is explained in Article 8 to wit:
    “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)……….”
    Because of my “shortcomings” etc., I am unable to explain that this “sphere” is, NOW, includes ALL of the U.S.of A., AND,
    I am unable to explain that the “original” meaning of the Constitution of the U.S.of A. NOW means
    what so called “Appropriate Legislation” beginning with the WAR Amendments says it means.

    IF IF IF, Lex Mercatoria,& David Ewing, would help me, as I believe they will understand what I am about to say,THEN, they could say,in a different way,the same thing,and maybe THEN it would be understood.We,most of us,are the “frog in the boiling water,” as explained by, Mark Suster.
    We did not notice WHEN the water was becoming “warmer.” How could we,when we were not even “born?” BUT,HOWEVER, we can see what “others” did “see” by going back to the beginning of the “change” & see what the others SAW.

    The 180 degree turn from the “original meaning” began with the 11th Amendment, next, the 12th. HOWEVER, this would have been no problem IF,it, the continuation of the 180 degree turn stopped THERE,OR, IF anymore future amendments were ALSO made per the necessary & proper “power clause” as the 11th & 12th were made. In fact, there would not have been ANY 180 degree turn with the 11th & 12th EXCEPT for the 13th Amendment “power clause.” This is where the complete 180 degree turn was in “full circle.”

    I have asked repeatedly, WHY the “necessity” of TWO power clauses? No response from anyone, YET, at this time.

    We “HAD” the “Necessary & Proper” power clause but this has been “replaced” by the “Appropriate Legislation” power clause.These “appropriate legislation” power clauses & the “legislation MADE therefrom since the beginning thereof, SLOWLY, so as not to notice that the “water was getting warmer,” & here we are, today, trying to figure out what has happened.

    Once again, for the umpteenth time,I have posted the following to HOPE someone could see
    that at least ONE man SAW what was happening, & I,Don, KNOW the following has only continued.

    “All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other.” (President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867)

    “Appropriate Legislation” legislative machinery,e.g, the Power Clauses in the WAR Amendments-martial law, military coercion——Notice the Military Flags in ALL the SO CALLED “civil Courts” DAMN IT !!!

    “… here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 (million) people at once.It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all…” President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867

    And, the stealthy beat goes on & has never truly stopped since President Johnson said those words.

    PLEASE !!! take notice of the words,”POLITICAL DISFRANCHISEMENT” “THAT PURPOSE” and “NONE OTHER” in:

    “All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other.”

     
  14. Christian Gains

    November 13, 2012 at 11:14 PM

    This IS the MOST significant learning BLOG that I’ve yet entered here (and THAT’S saying something folks, because I’d have said the same about several other previous posts),…GREAT!

    “We the People” are soooo UTTERLY IGNORANT of the FACTUAL REALITY & MEANINGS of the words of the LAW!

    We are Soooo ignorant of the verbage, the meaning shifts, the changes in reasoning…ALL of these FACTS that NEED to be learned, (altho, in TRUTH, it’s a bit late, and PROBABLY NOT according to the Lord’s ULTIMATE purpose…after all…a Nation that has so UTTERLY forgotten, [worse yet, REJECTED], their God & Savior, needn’t expect glory & honor…70A.D. is more our likely future) — Rev. 18:4 – 19!!! But!

    Let’s do what we can to gain greater understanding of what the word “CONSTITUTION” actually entails & means, and, what the words in our LAWS SHOULD MEAN, DO MEAN, but are being misrepresented to us, by subtle means, by a subtle creature. (Gen.3:1).

    It’s pretty indicative, (of how demonically the “authorities” are being “led” / “influenced” / “commanded”), when one must go back 250 yrs. of WORD MEANING, to determine what the PRESENT LAW actually means.

    Don is asking the right questions…(i.e. slavery is actually recognized as acceptable in the Scriptures — ck out the Jubilee![Lev, 25 & 27]) And, MANY of the other presently “politically incorrect” ideas, and concepts, are totally acceptable by God’s own specific statements!

    “We the people” have allowed ourselves to be moved sooooo far from the original base of the ORIGINAL MOTIVES for founding this Nation.

    You’d do well to research Francis Bacon’s “NEW ATLANTIS” doctrine, and the correlation between the Plymouth Colony, and the “Massachusetts Bay Company”…one being God led, and the other being finance motivated — and, as well, the relationship between “Merchant Banking” and the European EMPIRES that arose just before, and after Columbus’s discoveries — (Note: I didn’t mention N. America for a reason).

    Also, ANSWER THIS QUESTION: “Why are our leaders ALWAYS repeating the mistakes of the past?” [i.e. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan]. Also…16 TRILLION debt?!? Is that somewhat familiar….(can you spell DEPRESSION)? Is this a pattern?

    A hint: = “He who fails to learn from History, is DOOMED to repeat it’s errors”…..nuff said!

     
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM

      @Don is asking the right questions.

      By saying,”Don is asking the right questions,” you just lost some,if not all credibility, with either, Alfred Adask, or, ADASK ALFRED, or,ALFRED ADASK, & some of the commentators & readers on this BLOG. Take that comment back, MAYBE you might be forgiven if you do,but I doubt it. I know I ask the right questions but about the only right answers,for the most part, I get is from PatriotOne. Thank you for “”seeing” what apparently most others cannot.

       
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 3:02 AM

      Christian,
      I have a feeling you like Robert Bork. I do. But if you do, don’t say so on this Alfred Adask “LAW” site, else you may lose even more credibility. :) I do not expect a response.

       
  15. Cody

    November 16, 2012 at 1:22 AM

    If you have 9 digital FRNs, I recommend this legal review of the Declaration of Independence. It is established international law.
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3491637?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101301583943

     
    • Don

      November 16, 2012 at 10:03 AM

      Cody
      @November 16, 2012 at 1:22 AM

      What is the solution as to what we do to not be oppressed by FrankenSTATE?

       
      • Adask

        November 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM

        The first step is diagnose the problem.

        Once the diagnoses appears to be correct, the next step is to inform the public. Insofar as this is a political problem, it will require a political solution. The “Frankenstate” exists because the vast majority of Americans are “Frankenfolk” in that they are extraordinarily ignorant. The “Frankenstate” exists as a function of public ignorance. Educate enough of the public and the Frankenstate might disappear.

         
  16. Don

    November 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

    Adask
    @November 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM

    I am responding to your message above mainly because as you, Alfred, say, I,Don am SO VAY-EEEEN. I asked “Cody” a question, & YOU, ADASK, answer the question, or at least try to answer. Soooo,you either have another “ID” or you received the question, I sent to Cody,OR, maybe you are just trying to help Cody out. However, It’s plain to me that you are going to pick & choose nothing else other than what you want to respond to.

    I asked YOU, Alfred earlier today, a question, but YOU have not responded to my question to YOU !!! You, Alfred, respond however, to a question I asked Cody to respond to. Was my question to you, Alfred, to HOT to handle?

    Alfred, I owe you an apology & I now make that apology. You DID use the proper, appropriate, as
    N “appropriate legislation,” when you said I was a “prolific” writer. Prolific in the sense of an Antonym,means, BARREN. So, you were right again, as usual. I apologize. I apologize mainly because I am SO VAY-EEEEN, as YOU, say I am & I apologize because I am SO PROUD, to proud to apologize. I apologize also because of my SELFISHNESS.

    However,I do not appreciate you,Alfred,putting me in the same catagory as a TRAITOR, which you have done, not today, but a while back. STILL, I could read between the lines & see that at least, you did not literally mean I was a TRAITOR. I never brought this up either because I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Actually tho, you did say I was in the same catagory as a Traitor. OR,even these BLOG exchanges are ALSO being altered. Good Day

     
  17. Don

    November 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM

    Adask
    @November 16, 2012 at 11:07 AM

    You, Adask,say: “The first step is diagnose the problem.”

    I,Don, tried, a long time ago to alert you that some strange unusual things were happening in posting messages, etc. Your response was: “It works just fine for me.”

    I think I understand NOW, more than ever, what you were REALLY saying. I am going to be away for a while,good news for you, but I say this only because when you do come up with “something” else about my vanity,self-centeredness,selfishness,& ALL the other good traits I have,& I don’t respond, it’s not because it’s a got’cha. I’ll “stand firm” with you too!

     
  18. James

    August 20, 2014 at 3:11 PM

    Something to think about…STATES outside of the 13 original colonies are territories purchased or ceded by TREATY to the UNITED STATES. This means that they were and are TERRITORIES of the UNITED STATES (Federal Gov’t). Digging into the STATE Constitutions of any STATE outside of the 13 colonies will get you NOWHERE. Acutually the info. would come from Virginia and New Englands Constitutions since they were the first. Any Constitution outside of the orig. 13 are not even worth reading in my opinion! The 13 colonies only ceded small portions of land (mainly for national gov’t buildings, armories, military bases etc) to the UNITED STATES. They also ceded the egress and ingress to neighboring STATES for interstate commerce purposes. Commentaries on the United States Constitution by Joseph Story says so in plain english. Very good book, I highly recommend it for Constitutional clairity!

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s