It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Concerns On Constitutional Violations

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 05:54 PM
I was just refreshing myself on the Constitution & have noticed quite a few *violations* that have been enacted. Many of the Articles & Clauses copied below are only partial quotations. I suggest you read the entire document itself before using this post for reference purposes.

The purpose of this post & another that will follow (Concerns of Amendment Violations) are designed to support The American Petition & to give the American Citizen Body some documentation to work with for the goal of cleaning out the rampant corruption within the Federal Government. In all ways & means, my intent is to accomplish this task in a peaceful manner & to abide by the Constitution itself in the methods used to accomplish this task. In all ways & means, I will not condone a violent upheavel unless the safety & security of the American Citizen Body is directly & violently threatened by the corruption within the Federal Government.

Article 1:
Section 1 (Outlining legislative powers): All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Violations: Any & all "Exectutive Orders" that have *ever* come from the Oval Office.

Section 2: (Outlining the qualifications of elected Representitives): No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Violations (or not?): According to the wording, a Representitive, when elected, must *move out of the State* which elects him? Is this to be taken to mean that a Rep, when elected, can best serve his State by moving to the Federal Capitol? This particular way of wording it doesn't seem to make sense...Any explanations?

Section 3 (Outlining the Senate & powers of impeachment): Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Violations: Any President who has been impeached & has *not* been tried by a court of Law. The Senate can only try for Impeachment, but the Judicial Branch is required to try for crimes after Impeachment has taken effect. Has Clinton been faced trial for his crimes yet? Last time I heard of, he hasn't been to trial for Adultery. I haven't been following his "post-career" activities very closely...
Even though Amendment 17 modifies this Section, it does not modify this particular Section to invalidate such violations I've mentioned.

Section 6: (Outlining general rules & procedures for the operating of Congress): They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses...
Let's take a look at the definition of "treason" for a moment. Webster's Dictionary defines treason: noun: The crime of betraying one's government or attempting to overthrow it: Treachery.
According to the second definition, treason is *not* limited to include treachery against the government...It also includes a government's treachery to its people as well. How much evidence exists that actually indicates that the government itself is responsible for instigating treachery against the citizens? More than I'm willing to list here. Therefore, the American Citizens *do* have the legal *rights* & *obligations* to arrest the members of a treacherous government & make them stand trial for the crime of treason against the Citizens.

Section 8 (Outlining the purpose & use of monies through taxation; Some general guidelines for Defense): To borrow money on the credit of the United States
Comment: Isn't it pretty much agreed, nation-wide, that the government has gone a wee bit *too far* with this one?

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States
Comment: Due to the excess of the government, doesn't it seem that they're leading the entire Nation into bankruptcy? Doesn't it seem odd that the excesses of the Federal Government have led to the rampant recent increase of Bankruptcy Suits?

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
Violation: GWB's appropriation of *trillions* of dollars for the War on Terrorism "for as long as it takes".

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
Comment: What gives GWB the right to draft & execute the Home Defense Act? As an Executive Order, it's mere *creation* is Unconstitutional...But it "allows" him to define any citizen as an "insurrectionist" with broad all-inclusive statements. The entire Home Defense Act (as well as many other President-created documents) & the majority of it's contents is nothing but a slap in the face to the Constitution & the American Citizen Body as a whole.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Violations: Any & all laws created that violate the Constitution are nothing less than the government commiting Treachery & Treason against itself & the American Citizen Body as a whole; Refer to the passages concerning "Exectutive Orders". How many such "laws" are in existance today? How many times has the government legislated & enacted laws when improper representation of the People has taken place? Without informing the citizens & collecting their opinions & debates to such proposals, this contitutes Improper Representation...Therefore, without Proper Representation, such new laws are illegally enforced. Even more, in *any* case where the government holds "secrets" from the Citizen Body, any legislation based upon such "secret" information also constitues Improper Representation.

Section 9 (Outlining Immigrants & Commerce): The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Comment: How about the institution of Income Tax as an Emergency Measure against the Great Depression back in the early 1900's? Once the Depression was over with, Income Taxes should have been illegal, but the Federal Government passed an "es post facto" law that made Income Taxes legal...But the law to *continue* the collection of Income Taxes is, in itself, illegal & Unconstitutional. Therefore, the American Citizen Body does *not* have to pay Income Taxes & were *not legally required to* since the Great Depression ended.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
Violations: Too many to list. This is a broad statement the means that any State may export (The generality of this statement would include "export to another State" or "export to a foreign country") its goods for commerce & shall *not* suffer any Federal tax or duty. As a side-effect, this means that the Federal Government cannnot engage in foreign commerce with any goods or monies, excepting those gained by Federal Taxation...However, much of the Federal Government's *use* of goods/monies gained from taxation are clearly defined & don't include foreign trade.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
Violations: Unknown, but probably numerous. I'm not privy to the details of intra-state commerce to the extent of knowing if any States are paying such fees to other States. This would require more research.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
Violations: Any & all "black budget" expenditures that have ever come to vote in Congress. These are expenditures from the Treasury that aren't even defined to those who vote for these expenditures. Many of these expenditures are not even published...Either to our elected officials or to the American Citizen Body.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
Violations: Considering that such duties & imports can only be taxed for the purpose of *directly & exclusively* paying for the costs of *inspections* of the goods being traded, I wonder how many violations of this one exist? Any *profits* made from such duties & imposts are clearly Unconstitutional.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Comment: This clause *does* allow States to form bodies of troops *without the consent of Congress*...For as long as GWB continues the "War on Terrorism". Have you joined your local militia lately?
This clause also allows the States to form Anti-Terrorist investigations & Anti-Terrorist Defenses of its own...Yet how many times has the Federal Government *excluded* a State from the investigation of terrorist attacks? How many times has the Federal Government *removed all evidence* to such an investigation?

Article 2:
Section 1 (Outlining voting procedures for elections): This is a long section & I've counted at least 3 violations...Especially concerning the rampant corruption evident in recent times. You can access the Constitution for yourselves & see what violations have been evident. Even though Amendment 12 supersedes the actual Constitution for this Article & Clause, it does not invalidate this complaint to address the corruption evident against the voting proceudres.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Comment: Considering that the President's Inauguration includes a vow to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (The entire oath *is* included in the Constitution itself), then any President who *violates* the Constitution is to be considered as not being able to "discharge the duties" of his Office & should therefore be *removed* from Office. Any person appointed (temporarily) or elected (for the term) to the Office is under the same obligation to uphold the vows relating to the Office or risk removal.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Violations: Too many to list here and not confined to the current Administration. I'm also fairly certain that, if certain "governmental secrets" were revealed, even more violations would be evident. Note that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires this Nation to preserve a retired President's benefits *after* he's stepped down...Currently, any retired President *can & does* receive such "retirement benefits"...At the cost of the Citizen Body.

Section 2 (Outlining Presidential control of the military): The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.
Comment: Perhaps the idea of the States forming their own militias is not such a good idea after all...Especially not *before* the rampant corruption of the Federal Government has been corrected.

Section 4 (Outlining the cause for impeachment): The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Violations: You've already seen my opinion on Treason & Treachery, as officially defined above. Also note that Impeachment also calls for *trial* afterwards, whether the crime was high or low. Remember my comment above concerning Clinton's trial for Adultry? What of the crimes that GWB has *pardoned himself* for? He can't be tried for those, but what of the crimes he can stand to be accused of since his self-pardon?

Article 3:
Section 3 (Outlining Treason): Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Violation: This outlines how the Constitution applies the definition of Treason as it concerns the United States of America. By instigating Terrorist Acts within national boundaries (How much evidence of this is apparent to the American Citizen Body at large? How many people can be called as "witnesses"?), the United States Government itself has commited Treason against the *Nation* of the United States. Please note that the phrase "levying war" only denotes "against the United States", *not* specifically "against the United States Government". This means that "levying war" against the Citizen Body is also a criteria that the Federal Government ignores, especially since the United States Government itself has been violating the Constitution. If put to trial & convicted, the holders of Governmental Offices can be forced to foreit *everything they own* as well as be ousted from Office.

Article 4:
Sections 1-3: Open for discussion for possible violations...I cannot comment on these until more is researched. Keep in mind that Amendment 13 is to be referenced before these Sections should be discussed.

Section 4 (In its entirety): The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Violations: No Republic form of government has been evident in this Nation for quite a few *decades*. Also, by sending troops overseas, the Government merely leaves us *weakened against invasion*. This is true for *any* war that the Government has declared that requires troops to travel beyond our boundaries. Another point is that the Government itself has been instigating, by policy and/or direct action, domestic violence...Even against the word of domestic & international expert advisors.

Article 6 (In its entirely): 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.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Violations: How many laws have been legislated that are *not* within "pursuance of" the Constitution? More than I can research & count...How about your research? Only those laws that are "in pursuance" to the Constitution are legal for the Government to legislate...Any other laws enacted are nothing more than a slap in the faces of our Founding Fathers & the Citizen Body of the United States. Also note that not only the President himself is bound by oath (or affirmation) to support the Constitution...*All* Representitives, *all* Senators, *all* State Legislators, *all* State & Federal Executive & *all* State & Federal Judicial Officers are bound by oath (or affirmation) as well.

There *has* been a legal argument (in Boston, 1870) that addresses the fact that the Constitution binds no one without their consent & that any individual who was not alive at the time of it's drafting & enactment is not bound by it. Check out for some details.

However, I *must* point out at this time that, Article 6 of the Constitution points out that no one be admitted to the listed Governmental Offices unless he/she makes the voluntary vow to bind themselves to the Constitution. If such person(s) refuses to take that vow, then they also forfeit the position in the Office. Therefore, the Federal Government is not allowed to use this argument for the purpose of violating the Constitution.

posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 06:37 PM
Yeah...our democracy is still strong, but the people are letting it weaken >.< Stupid Clinton Signed hundreds of Executive Orders, that alone makes him a bad president, and I am unsure how many Bush has signed so far...if any...

no signature

posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 08:04 PM
You raise very good points MD, very interesting, I'll have to think about those.

posted on Nov, 8 2002 @ 08:27 PM
Well FM, considering that Bush felt justified in *pardoning himself* once he once in office, what more could you really expect from him?

Merely by pardoning himself, he's publicly admitted himself to be a criminal! IMO, the Constitution should have restricted the President's ability of pardoning to *not include himself*. By leaving that restriction out, they leave that Presidential power open to criminals who would abuse it for their own sake & not for the sake of the Nation. I really can't blame our Founding Fathers for not thinking of the possibility that a criminal would get elected. They probably figured that any background check would reveal a criminal for what his is...Except that GWB chose to *conceal* his background & stave off proper investigation until he could assume Office...Which the Constitution clearly states that he should *not* have been able to do because he was not *qualified* to assume Office until his background had been checked out.

Therefore, GWB has been trampling on the Constitution *before* he assumed Office, trampled on it even *more* in order to get *into* Office, then Pardons himself to avoid the repercussions of trampling on it in the first place...And is now long overdue prosecution for his *continued trampling* of the Constitution since he issued that pardon for himself.

He needs to include handcuffs when he's also choosing which cufflinks he's going to wear for the day...

[Edited on 9-11-2002 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Nov, 18 2002 @ 11:41 AM
Civil liberties and freedom as we know it are being weened away from us in the name of American privatization and colonialism. Here is an article that I believe would be right up your alley


posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:44 AM
Great post I'll have to study this further, but you make great points.


new topics

top topics

log in