Originally posted by jimmyx
while i basically agree with you, sizzle, we do however, need some type of order to function in a civilized way.
Originally posted by sizzle
I firmly believe in law and order.
The Founding Fathers had realized that, even though governments will always seek total control over the People, that there was a
need for
government. For the first time in history, they conceived a form of government that would be least onerous to the People. The Constitution evolved
from a series of previous documents, beginning with the Magna Carta, then to the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation & then
onto the Constitution & the Bill of Rights: As such, they also reasoned that if something of concern was not
specific within the Constitution,
the People & the government must "back-track" along this evolutionary path until they find the appropriate guidelines within the earlier
documents.
So, as it stands, the Constitution is the current Supreme Law of the Land, secondary to (inspired from & an extension of) the Natural Laws as set
forth by the Creator. As such, any "lesser law" cannot run counter to or attempt to supercede the Constitution without becoming
automatically
invalid! So it is through the Constitution itself that the Founding Fathers established Rule by Law as opposed to Law by the Rulers.
Stop & consider the following points within the
Constitution:
It's been ruled by the Supreme Court (I don't remember & can't re-locate the actual court citation for this case) that no one can be held
legally-bound by the terms of the Constitution...Unless they actually sign it (as the Founding Fathers did) or legally declare themselves to be bound
to it.
However, within the Constitution itself, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 8 & 9 (concerning the President) as well as Article 6, Clause 3 (concerning,
quite literally, all other Offices of all three branches on State & Federal levels) does accomplish just that--Requiring the entire government
structure to legally bind themselves to the Constitution before anyone assumes any Office! By such Oath/Affirmation, they not only are bound by all of
the Constitution itself, but can still be held accountable for other crimes as well (as per Article 2, Section 4), even if such crimes are not related
to their Authority in Office!
The punishment is called Impeachment. Let's look at that:
Impeachment
Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in
office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously
taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of
guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the
proper authorities for trial before a court. Source: Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia
So this means that any Officer is not only
fired from their job with prejudice, but is also
required to be tried for their crimes...Also
consider that the mere charge of "Breech of Constitutional Oath of Office," being that it's the Supreme Law of the Land that is the contract
itself, is automatically considered to be a
Felony Level Offense!
With the evidence cited as a matter of public record, gathered over a decades-long history, just the fact that such a large "structure of laws" has
been enacted without Constitutionally-approved "due process" forms an extremely large case against the government on the whole. Not only the would
the Unconstitutionality of historical actions could be rendered void in an instant, but the current incarnation of the government can be held as
"accomplices" to the previous government (by illegally enforcing previous Unconstitutional acts) as well as charged with their own crimes!
According to the
definition of a "republic" form of government (as per Article 4,
Section 4), not even the People have the ability to "vote away" any of their unalienable Rights & the First Amendment also prevents the government
from doing so! By "supporting & spreading democracy" in the USA & across the world, and under consideration of the government's Oaths & duties,
this alone constitutes
yet another Felony Offense!
So with the Constitution alone, with no consideration of the "technically voided" legal structure that has been enacted, is more than enough for the
People to "throw the book" at the government as a whole...Indeed, once their own legal structure comes into play, it allows the People to literally
dump nearly the whole Library of Congress on them! The modern equivilant of the biblical version of "stoning the offender" because it's not likely
that anyone could survive such a deluge!
---------------------
Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that everything from birth certificates to the social security cards have been nothing less than a
"contract" the renders the signers subject to the Unconstitutionality of the "corporate government." Then if the judiciary declares that the
signer did not "read the fine print" & "ignorance of the law is no excuse" as a reason to keep those contracts valid, then what about this?
Those contracts (birth certificates, social security, etc.) never really had the "fine print" actually printed on the contract itself, did they?
Wouldn't that mean that those contracts were misrepresented right from the start, since the full terms of the contract were not made known to the
signer when presented with those contracts? So wouldn't those contracts, being misrepresented, be voided due to misrepresentation of the contract &
the fraudulent intent of those who created those contracts?
Who wants to join the race for the research to determine if the very same UCC Codes (or other bodies concerned with "Contract Laws") can invalid
those contracts under these very same conditions?
**First to find out can be the first to post the proof right here in this thread!**
Even so, considering all of the above as a whole, would this not be logical & reasonable to conclude that
all of those laws regulations, etc. would
be held as completely invalid right from the start, since none of it ever had Constitutionally-approvable due process? Would this mean that the
Social Security system was
never valid? The Birth Certificate process was
never valid? The Federal Reserve Act was
never valid?
The Patriot Act was
never valid even though it passed legislation without the Due Process of debate & first checking for Constitutionality?
After all, most of Congress
never even read the thing in the first place!
Hey, I'm all for the idea of ridding our government of corrupted Officers & influences...But then, who are we going to "hire" to refill those
Offices? Also, where else are all those newly-unemployed people going to find work now that too many jobs have already been "outsourced" or
populated with
illegal aliens?
