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.


US Constitution is Above Politics

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:09 PM
It's been said that "Politics is the Art of Compromise." This thread was started to prove that the Constitution is not subject to political compromise & therefore, leaves little to no room in the US Government for "politics."
In all cases below where bold emphasis is contained within an "External Source box," the bold emphasis is mine, to highlight the points that I'm writing about.

To start, let's establish the actual legal power of the Constitution itself:

Source: US Constitution, Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

So, by the words bolded in the Preamble, the US Founding Forefathers envisioned the Constitution as the legal equivilant of a contract of employment between The People & its servant Government; It's clear that it is "We the People" who actually "ordain & establish this Constitution" for the common good of the Nation as a whole.
But what is it that creates the legal binding of the servant Government to its employers, The People?

Source: US Constitution; Article 2, last of Section 1

Before he (referring to the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And also:

Source: US Constitution; last of Article 6

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.

This means that all Federal & State Government Officers, of all three Branches are bound by legal Oath (or Affirmation) to support the Constitution...So this does establish legal enforcement upon the entire body of the Federal & State Governments. In short, the Constitution not only delegates Powers at every level, but also enforces legal limitations upon the use of those powers. Breech of Oath to the whole (or any part) of the Constitution is a Federal Offense against The People of the States United; If entering into Court due to indictment, such trials would be named, "The People vs........" & should be conducted as the most serious crimes against the Supreme Law of the Land!

Source: US Constitution; Article 2, Section 4

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.

Congress can Impeach anybody in any Federal Government Office, for any crime whatsoever! There is nothing that specifies any difference between "elected" & "appointed" Offices for the purpose of defining which Crimes can be applied to whom! Along with the specifically named crimes of Treason & Bribery, the mere inclusion of the terms " high Crimes & Misdemeanors" ensures this! The only point that I'm not certain of is that the phrase includes "civil Officers of the United States:" As such, it is not clear to me whether or not State-level Officers would be included...As a matter of precisely describing the legal definition of jurisdiction, that phrase may be interpreted to also mean "civil Officers of the States United," which would include State-level Officers.
For example, if you (as a Citizen of the US) were to describe yourself as , a Citizen of the State of , One of the States United, then you would not be legally required to hold a State-level Drivers' License (issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles) in order to travel (and/or transport your personal property) in your own automobile on Public Roads for your personal (non-commercial/non-business) purposes. The specific details on jurisdiction & terminology in the Statutes concerning that previous statement are detailed at , here & are very important (We can thank the ATS Member theindependantjournal for first supplying these links in this thread); Believe very firmly that, if you're hauled into court for not having a license, you must be certain of the Stautes & Terminology in order to avoid conviction on this matter!

Let's get back on track here & take a specific look at the Crime of Bribery for a moment:

Source: Webster's Universal Dictionary & Thesaurus, 1st Edition, 1993

bribe n money or gifts offered illegally to gain favor or influence; the gift to achieve this. *vt to offer or give a bribe to.
bribery n (pl briberies) the giving or taking of bribes.

Kind of leaves most (or all) of those lobbyists out in the cold, doesn't it? So does this mean that (most or all) lobbyists are, by common practice, seeking to bribe members of the US Government for the purpose of gaining favors or influence from Government Offices? As Webster's definition specifically states that this practice illegal, not only can the members of Government who accept bribes be Impeached (& subsequently indicted for trail by Court), but also the lobbyists themselves who offer the bribes can be indicted & charged for the crime of bribery.

And here's a portion of the Constitution that, while it doesn't specify any particular Crime, it does warn of the dangers of allowing the possibility of "split loyalties" to act within the Government:

Source: US Constitution; Article 1, last of Section 9

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

This seems to be one of the most ignored of the Constitutional limitations in Government; This is the section that describes what kind of dangers to The People would be present if any Office Holder in Government has "split loyaties." How can The People trust any Official to do their Constitutional Duty to America if said Office Holder already has official ties with a foreign nation? Therefore, unless receiving the "Consent of Congress," no person who holds any such foreign-originated "Emoulment, Office, or Title" can even be allowed to sit in any Government Office at all...This being grounds for automatic disqualification!

But, here's a problem inherent with so much corruption currently in Government:

Source: US Constitution; Article 1, last of Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

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.

So, it's the Senate only that can conduct trial for Impeachment...And it takes two-thirds of the presiding Senators to render judgment...But this would mean that, in order to Impeach corrupted Senators from their own ranks, there must be at least three Senators who would not currently be up on charges! Are there even three Senators that haven't already been corrupted & still be ethically qualified to conduct Impeachment trials in the first place? This would take some serious investigation, wouldn't it?

Three more points that should be noted from these two Constitutional statements:
#1: Punishment from Impeachment involves only "removal from Office" & "disqualification" from any other Federal Office; If the phrase "the United States" is also interpreted to mean "the States United," then disqualification from Office would also include State-level Offices.
#2: Any Officer Impeached is still liable to indictment & trial under the Judiciary Branch for the very same Crimes for which Congress had levied the Impeachment punishments.
#3: The Chief Justice only needs to preside over Congressional Impeacment proceedings when the President is being tried for Impeachment; Any other Government Officer facing Impeachment does not require that the Chief Justice be presiding.
Continued Below

[edit on 30-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:14 PM
Concluded from Above

Speaking of the Chief Justice, would it be possible to be Impeached from that Office?

Source: US Constitution; Article 3. Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The Term of Office (for Superior & Inferior Courts) specifies "good Behavior." But even though this has been interpreted to mean "lifetime," the stated term still specifies "good Behavior" during that "lifetime" in Office! So, by strictest interpretation of actual Constitutional writ, this means that the Chief Justice & all Officers of the Inferior Courts as well would not be immune to Impeachment if they have displayed "bad Behavior" while in Office!

Well, as long as we're talking about the Powers delegated by the Constitution, let's see what Powers are granted to the People:

Source: US Constitution; Bill of Rights--Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, does this mean that the Constitution gives the power to the People to legally replace the entire Government if such becomes neccesary to root out the very corruption that has degraded the Government in the first place? It sure as hell does!

So why are there so many People still sitting around on their @$$3$ while such corruption runs rampant in the Government? All it would take is a few People to get started by talking to a law firm (that has a specialty in Constitutional Law) in their local area & having them coordinate efforts with other various law firms across the country in order to press the fact that The People all over the States United really want a Government that will adhere to its legally binding Constitutional Oath. As a matter of fact, there's such a law firm accessable on the internet: The Supreme Law Firm--Check it out!

From this point on, anyone who wishes to post or discuss more about any alleged Constitutional Torts commited by the US Government, post 'em & we'll open up more discussion! Instead of merely hitting those crooks with the lawbook, why not build up enough ammo to throw the whole flippin' legal library at 'em!

posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 08:26 AM
What is the status of the Emoulent law in the US contitution and how it would apply to Hillary CLinton accepting the position of Secretary of State position.

new topics

log in