It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

U.S. Constitution invalid for nearly 75 years

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Vast un-Constitutional powers are granted by emergency power rules and remain in effect until the President declares the emergency over. (Property seizure, military deployment and martial law, travel restrictions and censorship etc. are granted without further Congressional approval.


Let me guess. You're a Ron Paul supporter, right? And only Ron Paul can save us and restore the U.S. Constitution to its original intent and purpose.

Is there no thread on ATS that doesn't lead to Ron Paul?




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by jackinthebox


Let me guess. You're a Ron Paul supporter, right? And only Ron Paul can save us and restore the U.S. Constitution to its original intent and purpose.

Is there no thread on ATS that doesn't lead to Ron Paul?


No, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I have not studied his views at all.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I've immediately hit a stone wall... I highly doubt the Constitution is or has been "invalid". The Supreme Court probably would have noticed.

Anyone here believe the ACLU would not have been all over this if it were true? I would not worry about it based on what can be found.


I do not believe that "hitting a stone wall" in one's research is a valid disclaimer of the topic. I believe the opposite is true. Not finding data that should be there seems to me a deliberate attempt to cover the facts. I cannot speak for the Supreme Court, nor the ACLU, but I expect that the conspiracy could thread through their ranks as well. Shall we see how deep the rabbit hole goes?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Meatclown
 


In the mid 90's I opened an office in Missoula Montana. After refusing to pay a bribe to a Fire Inspector to open and explaining to him I would pursue him in court for asking for a bribe, the next person to approach me was someone involved with this Maritime Law issue and why I should not pay taxes.

Over the next few months I was visited by a half dozen of the followers of this group. I was shown numerous tapes and had the same explanations I've seen over the years from others, including the "fringe on the flag" argument. None of them, including the characters on the tape, were qualified to cite law let alone define it. They were all parroting the same words obviously from one source. 3 of them also tried to get me to join a White Supremacists group. They were all shady characters and two of them admitted to Poaching and other crimes as if ignoring the law was a way of life for them. I found it amazing these people would have the audacity to even attempt to interpret the law considering their obvious disregard for it. Of course I grew tired of them and refused further visits from these obvious criminals. I noted on the news a few years ago the at least one of them ended up in prison.

If you want to give me links to credible people, including Lawers Associations or Sitting Judges who agree with that old arguement I'd be happy to read and reconsider. You will understand my scepticism from my past experience with this and the people involved.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


That is a valid argument. I was not closing the door on this. I suspect if all this is true then there is a legal reason it is meaningless today. I am unable to go to D.C. and research something like this so I'm limited to what is on the Internet. Which is not much and not too convincing. In fact this sounds like something that may have originated from the "John Birch Society".

Edited to note: I don't think the fact that Government Documents have not been digitized that far back, considering the volume of Documents, is Conspiratorial in any way.


[edit on 11/19/2007 by Blaine91555]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Skepticism is healthy, and I also applaude you on being open-minded at the same time.

The "tax" argument I've heard before, but not based on Maritime Law, again it was based on the Constitution. The author David Icke has touched on this subject I believe, saying that income taxation has never been ratified by Congress.

As far as your personal experience goes, there are always those less desireable individuals who will latch on to any conspiracy theory, or anything else for that matter, to profit from anothers ignorance. But that dosen't stop with white supremacists and corrupt fire officials. I have a hunch these undesirables may sit right at the top too.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This country was f'ed from the beginning and I believe the founding fathers knew it. I mean come on. How can you speak of liberty when you have slaves tending to your estate, or deliberately exterminating the natives of this country? I believe that they were very knowledgeable and wise, but flawed to say the least.

I think the point in history that will be the critical point of America's ultimate demise, was in the 1880's when corporations were given the same rights as living, breathing human beings. This along with JP Morgan's influence over the goverment along with the establishment of the Federal Reserve created great wealth and power. But just like any clever scam, someone will eventually figure it out and unfortunately we are the generation that's going to have to suffer for the mistakes of the greed driven pricks from the past.

The constitution was always dead because the people "we" elected to positions of power, never believed in it in the first place.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Conundrum04
 


I would like to think that over time our nation would and has worked to overcome the flaws of our founding fathers to reach the ideal that they seemed to have put forth. Slavery did in fact end, but then one might argue that minimum wage today is merely a slave wage.

This is a bit off subject, but the mention of JP Morgan reminded me of something else I've been thinking about. I can't remember where I read it now, but I believe JP Morgan is a direct descendant of the famed pirate Henry Morgan. Thinking then of pirates, the flag they waved is often referred to as a "Jolly Roger." Of course each pirate flew their own interpretation, though generally similar with a skull and crossed bones. The Skull and Bones Society, a link perhaps? Have we been governed by pirates all along? Or have they been working to steal America for themselves since the society was founded in 1832? Hmm...must think more.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04
This country was f'ed from the beginning and I believe the founding fathers knew it. I mean come on. How can you speak of liberty when you have slaves tending to your estate, or deliberately exterminating the natives of this country? I believe that they were very knowledgeable and wise, but flawed to say the least.

I think the point in history that will be the critical point of America's ultimate demise, was in the 1880's when corporations were given the same rights as living, breathing human beings. This along with JP Morgan's influence over the goverment along with the establishment of the Federal Reserve created great wealth and power. But just like any clever scam, someone will eventually figure it out and unfortunately we are the generation that's going to have to suffer for the mistakes of the greed driven pricks from the past.

The constitution was always dead because the people "we" elected to positions of power, never believed in it in the first place.



You are very smart and frighteningly accurate. They let the people believe in a free country because it motivated them to become slave workers and owning slaves let them believe they were not slaves themselves. And it is only from the view of the elite few where their contempt is clearly visible- otherwise is it hidden by a seemingly caring government for the people and by the people.

Remember folks- Evian is naive spelled backwards!

Put down the bottled water and think for yourselves.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 

"By the skillful and sustained use of propoganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."
-Adolf Hitler



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meatclown
The constitution can't be ratified because it wasn't a legitimate representation of the will of the people, because the people never signed it. In other words, the federal government NEVER got consent of the governed. The constitution really doesn't have any legal power, but represents whats known as "the law of the land," (i.e the common law) as it was understood and accepted in America at the time.

The states themselves ratified it.


Originally posted by Conundrum04
How can you speak of liberty when you have slaves tending to your estate...

Slavery was normal back then. It's how the economy was run, really. Thankfully, industrialization helped end that.


Originally posted by Conundrum04
...or deliberately exterminating the natives of this country?

The United States never really exterminated them in that sense, especially in the time of the founding fathers. The worst we got was probably between 1812 and the Civil War, but that's a rough guess.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I'm not going to offer you legal advice as this is just about the worst possible place i could do that. I am familiar with some of the anti income tax arguments and yes, to a large extent, they are frivolous. My only bullet-proof argument, if you seriously don't want to pay income tax, is to rescind your social security number (i.e your taxpayer identification number), without this, DC courts, aka maritime admiralty courts have zero jurisdiction to enforce their "code," period. Any tax on a sovereign individual, be it his person, trade, or labor, constitutes a violation of property and amounts to theft.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Meatclown
The constitution can't be ratified because it wasn't a legitimate representation of the will of the people, because the people never signed it. In other words, the federal government NEVER got consent of the governed. The constitution really doesn't have any legal power, but represents whats known as "the law of the land," (i.e the common law) as it was understood and accepted in America at the time.

The states themselves ratified it.


And what, might i ask is a "state," and how can they possibly claim to represent the population at large and myself, who wasn't to be born for another 200+ years?

Like i said, the constitution is not a legally binding contract. Its is representative of a unbreakable moral code of law. If that code of law is forgotten by the people, and to a large extent it has been, the constitution really is, in the words of george bush, just a piece of paper.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


LOL- wasn't he a crazy well-informed....tool....ROFL!

You're beautiful!



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


I don't know that Jimmy Carter would have been allowed to. I once heard a story about Jimmy's first day on the job. A small group of people held a meeting with him to basically "reveal the secrets." These were the top dogs, head of CIA etc., and some with titles and names you've never heard of. Of course, no one knows what was said in that meeting, but the new President emerged from that meeting crying and trembling.

If anyone can find this story anywhere, please post it. I really can't remember where I read it.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

The United States never really exterminated them in that sense, especially in the time of the founding fathers. The worst we got was probably between 1812 and the Civil War, but that's a rough guess.


You're correct up to a point.

What exterminated most of the "indians" was the plague, which was brought over by the europeans in the 1600's. But also, it was because the "indians" weren't prepared for the unbelieveable deceptiveness of the "white eye". This was eventually the ultimate downfall for them.

Broken treaties/promises, manifest destiny and all the other BS, after the US became a nation, eventually made it all to much to handle for these people.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

I still don't see how this rendered the initial declaration dormant or otherwise no longer in effect. Congress does not have authority to render it dormant until the power is returned to them to do so. Besides dormant doesn't really mean much anyway. A dormant virus could still wipe us all out.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meatclown
And what, might i ask is a "state," and how can they possibly claim to represent the population at large and myself, who wasn't to be born for another 200+ years?

Like i said, the constitution is not a legally binding contract. Its is representative of a unbreakable moral code of law. If that code of law is forgotten by the people, and to a large extent it has been, the constitution really is, in the words of george bush, just a piece of paper.

By that logic everyone who is born after the signing of a law isn't obligated to follow it.

I don't know about you, but I like not dying or being robbed. Your anarchism is showing.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
"1776 is the answer to 1984" Ron Paul for president!!!!


Alex Jones



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


I don't know that Jimmy Carter would have been allowed to. I once heard a story about Jimmy's first day on the job. A small group of people held a meeting with him to basically "reveal the secrets."

If anyone can find this story anywhere, please post it. I really can't remember where I read it.



I could not find any story about this meeting. But I reviewed the Jimmy Carter diary which is online through his library. Day one of his presidency appears to contain all the normal trappings of inauguration day. But day two is interesting. On Friday January 21 1977 he had a meeting in the afternoon with the acting CIA Director. What is interesting is that the time is blanked out with a ? and the participants, with the exception of the acting CIA Director, have been blacked out by the library. Could this be the meeting you speak of. Interesting at the very least.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join