US residents in military brigs? Govt says it's war

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

So one piece of paper is higher than another.

That's what I'm telling you.

Why? It is my constitutional right to express such. An enemy of Americans? Now you're acting exactly like the government, why not just label me a terrorist while you're at it, commie came easy for you.

Are you a flag burner too?

I have seen no evidence that you are a terrorist, only that your argument is TERRible.

As far as being a filthy Commie, well, I'll leave it to everyone else to decide if that duck quacks.

Because you sold your soul for it. Just like every other slave embraced by this fence. The title to your car embrazens the parallel value as the money you payed for it. It only means as much as you allow it to be which ultimately is your own personal subduance to the government and automotive contractors. Try building your own car.

I didn't sell # and you don't know JACK.

In point of fact, I paid no money for my car in the overall scheme of things. I also did at one time build my own vehicle.

Subduance? Making up words now?

Are you frustrated because I constitutionally question your constitution? Or is it because you think I'm being unconstitutional, becuase I am can assure you that I am well within the confines of the constitution.

Goddamned flagburner.

Well that's better than asserting me to be a dirty commie, and for the record: No.

reply to post by scarlett1125


I hear what you are saying to me. I think there might be some misinformation about what happened in this scenario, and I know what the lawyer said about going out into the community and picking people up.

1. The FBI had PC and warrants to pick this guy up...That part is all legal and there is no way around that for now...no matter what anyone here says. What happened is after his designation as a combatant the military took custody, as the Geneva Convention then applied to his case. What is now being determined is where the boundary between power and populace applies in these types of cases.

I do hink we should be watching this closely yes I do, but for what reason is the average joe going to be able to be classified by the president as an enemy combatant. do we really thin the President has time to evaluate and designate large masses of people as enemy combatants....I am sorry I am not seeing that, nor do these people engaged in these types of operations have the time to be watching you and yours and determine when you do and don't have your weapon. First of all there is not enough manpower and second theere is a lot more to gaining intelligence then worrying about if one has weapons. Third party politics would be all over it. the outcry would be rediculous. I mean look where we are right now, were discussing this guy who is most likely a terrorist and should be where he is, otherwise he would most likely be devising ways to kill our familys.

Another thing I have already said is if they want you, individually, bad enough...they are coming to get you. It does not matter what any case law precedent is. Your brakes will go out, youll disappear from the mall, your house will blow up from a gas leak, perhaps it was a robbery gone wrong....Do you see what I am saying, and then I ask once again where do you and i as a common citizen fall into being targeted like that....we dont. Again case law, the Supreme Court, ear marking precedents Prima Facie is important.

Now if it comes to uprooting the American Troublemakers who are speaking out, well now were talking about everyone. I do see what you are saying and yes Mcarthy was right its just no one wanted to accept it, so they blackballed him, those were the days when you targeted individuals but that day is long gone....and we have to remember there are bad guys out here and we need to be looking for them and we need to fair laws that protect the public rights but still allow us to hang the badguys but those badguys do not equate to us.....and I dont think that is what is going on in this case

reply to post by birchtree


While he may or may not be a terrorist, this label of "enemy combatant" concerns me deeply. Anyone can be defined as an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist." Look into the Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization Act. Main Core is another interesting government program. The NSA wiretapping alone is enough to make people wonder about why they need to spy on Americans. I realize that they can take me when they declare martial law, but it seems to me that if they can do it before declaring martial law, they can get rid of a lot of us who would truly be "combative" when they do declare martial law. If they are only dealing with sheeple, it will be a lot easier.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
We have elected a government that takes measures to protect us from our own idiocy (as a world), in reciprocation the retributions are a loss of some freedoms for safety.

But that's not what their jobs are supposed to be. This kind of attitude in government positions is what drives them to violate their Oaths to the Constitution.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."--Benjamin Franklin

Also, from the Prevent Tyranny; My Views menu:

As time progresses we look at the words of the law or amendment, but have lost the meaning or the reason for it’s existence, and we start applying the law against those it was not meant to affect. For example, the 14th Amendment was enacted to ensure that the freed slaves received protection, under the Constitution. This amendment did not affect the population of the Union who were already citizens or their posterity; you can not give to someone what they already have.

The term “General Welfare” has probably been used more to enslave man than any other term. This is akin to your father telling you “It’s for you own good.” Other terms used, synonymous with General Welfare, are “what is best for all,” “for their best interest,” “for the public good,” etc., etc. That is not what the founders meant by General Welfare. There have been many articles written on this term - some in favor of expanding governmental power, others on limiting governmental power. It is my position that the latter is correct. If the founders wished congress to have such broad, sweeping power, they would not have gone through the trouble of enumerating what powers they did have...

...President Madison, throughout this admonition to the House, refers to specified and enumerated powers of Congress. He went on to state that this was the established and consistent rule of interpretation for the powers of congress, and to give a broad interpretation would give Congress a general power of legislation, which it did not have. Within the context of “general welfare” the congress must stay within the enumerated boundaries set by the Constitution. He concluded by stating that if the Congress did not have these defined and limited powers they would be able to legislate anything using the common defense and general welfare clauses, and this was wrong. If it was wrong then, then it is wrong now.

The meaning of words has a tendency to change, over time, so we must determine what the founders meant. In order to establish a proper context for this discussion I will refer to Webster’s Dictionary from 1828 which gives the definition of Welfare as:
1. “Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.”
2. “Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.”
The term states means governments. The founders knew, very specifically, the meaning of general welfare when they wrote it into the Constitution. Notice the distinction between the definitions as applied to persons and to states. Clearly, when speaking of “general welfare”, they knew a government could not provide for the specific “welfare” of every citizen to include sickness, health, prosperity, and happiness. No government in the world could provide such a thing. The government could only provide general welfare, an opportunity to enjoy peace, prosperity, and the “ordinary blessing of society.”

Why do you think the Founding Fathers never wanted America to be a democracy?
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”--James Madison

They loathed & feared democracy as much as Cold War Era America loathed & feared communism! As stated in the Constitution, Article 4, Section 4 (bold emphasis is mine):

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.

The Founders knew from historical precedence that democracy is nothing less than "Mob Rule," where one person with a good PR firm could persuade 51% of the population to vote away the Rights of the other 49%. This is why the election process has mutated into a media circus based upon popularity rather than true convictions & commitment to the Constitution. That's democracy at work!

However, there is one recourse (short of violent revolution) that comes from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113 (passed unanimously, I might add):

If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions
or disturbing the public tranquility.

In short, it means that until the government have corrected their vast & numerous violations against the Constitution, all Citizens listed on a valid Petition for Redress of Grievances are allowed to keep their money. Since the Right to Petition is in the First Amendment, it is the single most important peaceful recourse the People have to get the government straightened out...If that fails, the last option is to exercise the Second Amendment, as per described in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Become a leader, a president, a mayor a governor and do something.

Join the very same system that's already corrupted & rotten to the core?...The same system that's already "legislated," "over-ruled" & "Executive Ordered" against the very same Constitution that they've sworn/affirmed a legally-binding Oath to obey?
When hell freezes over, pal...Much better that the People start enforcing the Supreme Law than to join the crimi
You should have been alive in pre-WW2 Germany...You sound like you've never studied Hitler's rise to power, otherwise you'd be seeing that Hitler's path to power is already well under way in the USA--RIGHT NOW!
It's better to take a look at the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (bold & italics emphasis is mine):

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What do you think your money is? The constitution must be changed so that we can keep the world a somewhat peaceful place.

Our money was fine until the Federal Reserve Act was legislated in violation of the Constitution, the gold & silver standard we had was illegally replaced by a debt-driven system much like the practice of "corporate scrip" during the Industrial Revolution. No, it's not the Constitution that should be changed, because our whole system of economics was already changed, with the net result that enslaves America to an Unconstitutional banking system. It's the Federal Reserve that led the US into a never-ending cycle of boom-n-bust that's created the National Debt...We didn't have that until the Fed Res went into "business."

A nearly-equally serious violation of the Constitution occurred when corporations were given "Citizenship" status: As corporations are not human beings (not even a true living entity of any sort), they should not be given the same Rights as Citizens. In fact, one of the primary reasons for the War of Independence happens to be how the King of England used English military to enforce the "policies" of the English Charters (ie: corporations) in the colonies.
If you've forgotten this much of American history, then you've already forgotten why America was the first-of-its-kind as a nation.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Thee Essential Liberties of your Homeland are infinitely limited. Your freedom is infinitely limited. You are governed by the good and not allowed to persue evil without lawful retribution.

Our liberties & Rights are limited only by our personal responsibility to avoid violating the very same Rights of other people: Once we have violated the Rights of others then we're to be held accountable. But not the government, oh no, they try to hold themselves above accountability for their crimes & that's in violation of the same Law we're subject to.

Look at the second quote in my signature below: The problem is that the government tries to place itself above the Code!

Otherwise, our Rights are not subject to limitation or restriction by the government itself...Or have you also "forgotten" that (in the First Amendment) "Congress shall make no law abridging..." our unalienable Rights.

---------Continued Below----------

---------Continued from Above---------

And since all powers of legislation lie in the hands of Congress, then neither the Executive or Judicial Branches have any authority to "abridge" our Rights. In short, Bush & Ashcroft have also been committing more violations of the Oaths of Office required by all Government Officers to obey the Constitution. No, it's not the Constitution that needs changing...It's what needs to be enforced against those who've violated it! It's those in history & the current day who've sworn to uphold the Constitution & continue to violate it that have created America's problems...This is why the Constitution should be enforced, not changed or abandoned.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I'd love to see the world united as one, it would rid it and us of the territorial dominance and ignorance accomponied and portrayed through the likes of the "patriotic" (insert country here) people such as yourself.

I'd love to see a one-world humanity too...But the so-called NWO seeks to dominate not unite. The power has always been in the hands of the People & this has been true down throughout the whole of human history...The People have always had the sheer numerical superiority over those in government who seek to dominate. Thusly, a one-world humanity can only evolve through the People themselves, not through the efforts of a severely-limited number of "rulers" wishing to dominate the world.

We must socially evolve into it, not be dragged kicking & screaming...And yet it's through the efforts of these very "leaders" that humanity's social evolution is retarded & ceases to grow! Take a look at the current education system, for example...Our children are indoctrinated to rely on the group & the government instead of encouraging personal responsibility & personal development. Without individuals of superior capabilities, then the group cannot volve either, because humans are (by nature) social creatures so when individual excellence is achieved, the group prospers as well.

Our so-called "leaders" strive to do good only for themselves & dominate others to do the work for them...People like this are a very small minority in the human population & tend towards positions of "leadership" or "rulership," but the very spirit of the Constitution itself determines that Public Service is what encourages the good for all...This is why the "leaders" violate it, because the enforcement of the Constitution is dangerous to them & can prevent them from dominating.

Originally posted by birchtree
..he actually had to be decalred an enemy combatant by the president...

Which is, by Constitutionally-granted authority in the Executive Branch, completely counter to the "Due Process of Law," which is the Right of the Accused...However, I must point out that, since the accused is not a full Citizen by birth or by Naturalization, then he's not entitled to full Rights as a Citizen must be.

But for a Citizen, "Due Process" is the legal method to "declare" anyone as a criminal of any type. They should have used Due Process to gather the evidence & bring him to trial to face that evidence...Not depend on the "declaration" of any one man (in this case, Bush) to side-step the Right of Due Process. In this particular case, there are a lot of points that must come under "Due Process," such as: Even though it was mentioned that they had warrants to "pick him up," were there any court-justified warrants to gather substantive evidence (ie: tap his phone & search his computer files)? If not, then the Right to Due Process has been violated by Bush's "declaration."

Originally posted by birchtree
As far as rounding up the civilian population, if the government wanted to do that there are plenty of laws supporting George Bush, or for that fact any future President and past president since at least Regan, to use any incident to invoke the powers of martial law as they see fit.

Most of such laws are not "Natural Laws" (defined as being derived from the Constitution) & therefore are in violation of the Constitution: Any such legislation that violates any terms of the Constitution are also Felony Offenses in violation of their legally-binding Oaths to "act in pursuance of" the Constitution. As the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, any act of the government (other than Amendment by due process, which is only a "clarification" of the Constitution) can be considered only as "Lesser than the Supreme Law" & therefore is not legal, unless legislation also acts "in pursuance of" the Supreme Law.

Originally posted by PimpyMcgibbins
No true soldier would betray the people they are fighting for...

As I know from first-hand experience, all military personnel are required to swear an Oath to "defend the Constitution" & "protect his country from all enemies, foreign & domestic." Notice that the Oath contains nothing about obeying a rogue government that has become an enemy of the country & the People.
However, that's not to say that I'm unaware of the fact that there's likely some soldiers that'll turn against their Oaths...But unless I'm greatly mistaken, that should be a small minority.

Originally posted by PimpyMcgibbins
This may be trying to happen but the fact is there are too many of us and too little of them. If they cant even stop some soldiers who are against the war to go out to iraq, how will they get soldiers to go for something like this?

And this is precisely the basis on which stands the "Power of the People as Sovereign over the Government." No matter what crimes the government tries to get away with, the People always have the power to stop them, Constitution or not...This is a fact of history.

Originally posted by mybigunit
But what I also see is when you give a small group the power to control the world it will be abused just like it is here in the states. Frankly Im a slave now and I dont want to be even more under some NWO policy.

And this is precisely what humanity has been living under since the dawn of civilization...And humanity has been suffering under one form of slavery/oppression or another because of that. "Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it," INDEED! The institution of the Constitutional Republic of America was to free People from those shackles...And in doing so, became the true New World Order & a threat to the historically-established Old World Order. And The USA was succeeding until a combination of Merchants & Elite Nobility infiltrated the government & chipped away at the meaning & intent of the Constitution while hiding from the People under secrecy & deception. Thus, the New World Order is nearly extinct, suppressed by the Old World Order.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

The government isnt elected to protect us from ourselves you are not right.

Actually. Yeah it is. Who is congress? Who is the president? What are they sworn to uphold?

They are sworn to uphold the Constitution. No more, no less (especially no less). It's a legally-binding Oath. Check out Article 2, Section 1, Clause 9 & Article 6, Clause 3 if you don't believe me.

You write posts like you don't really know the Constitution at all. The government is not given any authorization to reduce, restrict or limit Citizen Rights in any way, means, shape or form whatsoever. They are legally bound to abide by specified authority vested by the Constitution itself & restricted by all of the limitations therein. If the Constitution itself is not good enough for you, you may check out some of these sites to help your studies:
We The People Foundation
USA the Republic
Prevent Tyranny
First Amendment Center
USA vs. US
Supreme Law Firm
Freedom Law School: This one is just to show Americans how much of a slave they already are.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
But the IRS isn't an apparition of the Bush regime! It's been around since the 1862 created by Lincoln and the congress at the time!

You really don't know history, do you?

Source: Wikipedia: Income Tax
The U.S. income tax was first proposed during the War of 1812, but was defeated.[4] In July 1861, the Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about USD 10,000 today). Income taxes were enacted at various times until 1894, but were not imposed after 1895 when an 1894 tax act was found to be unconstitutional.

That's quite a bit after Lincoln's time, don't you think?
Also, at some of the links just above this paragraph, there exists a substantial body of evidence that the IRS was not established by a function of Natural (ie: Constitutional) Law & has no legal enforcement power over a direct tax on the earned income (as opposed to commercial/merchant profit gained) of Citizens that live & work within the boundaries of the 50 States, except as it goes for officially sanctioned Federal Zones.

---------Concluded Below----------

-----Concluded from Above--------

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Frankly Im a slave now and I dont want to be even more under some NWO policy.

I don't believe that's the way it would be. If anything your freedoms would be greater and the hassle to travel to and fro would be lessened. A one world government can only lead to improvement and an eventual unison of citizens.

That's actually the way it is & the way it will be under a one-world government...A complete loss of individual Rights & liberties. A one-world humanity is distinctly different from a one-world government. It's not the Constitution that's worthless...It's the majority of people who've sworn their Oaths to it are what's worthless.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
But I hardly think we could consider any of this factual without solid evidence. And this certainly is not evidence, these are accusations.

I agree...I've heard (& replied to) a lot of points from people that have no solid "source" to provide any validity to their arguments: And all this while, I've actually provided links & sources. Debating with anyone who has no information sources beyond empty retorts is pointless...There's no actual "debate," only empty arguments.

Since the government's only service to the Constitution has been "lip service" instead of true service, we are (as the old Chinese curse indicates), "living in interesting times".

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
I fought for my country. I vote. I took my civics classes, and I volunteer. I am not special, I am an American. My constitution is special...
...I say that it is our job to defend liberty, and our country.

And this is the mark of a real patriot, not a brainwashed flag-waver who believes that his government is "always right" just because it's the government.

All this & it's only mentioned now that this whole War on Terrorism has never been officially declared as a legal war by Congress & is thus not even truly "wartime."

"The People...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberties."--Thomas Jefferson
For now, 'Nuff said!

[edit on 26-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What do you think your money is? The constitution must be changed so that we can keep the world a somewhat peaceful place. As stated earlier. The Earth does not only consist of America. Don't be such a nationalistic egoist. Open your eyes to the whole picture and the betterment of the world and all of its citizens.

Just curious - what do you mean, "The constitution must be changed so that we can keep the world a somewhat peaceful place"?

I am curious because I have never heard that particular sentiment echoed here before.

What type of changes do you propose, and how does the Constitution apply beyond our borders?

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

It can happen to us, sure. I'll agree to that. My statement was inferring that they're not out to "get" you.

Maybe not this second buy anyone who opposes the government agenda can easily be thrown on the list.

Actually. Yeah it is. Who is congress? Who is the president? What are they sworn to uphold?

The constitution but the constitution wasnt written to limit peoples rights it was to limit government control...big difference.

The government is also elected to protect the people from theirselves. Enemies whether foreign or domestic.

Correct but without the citizens giving up their freedoms. Like Due Process.

Agreed! But the IRS isn't an apparition of the Bush regime! It's been around since the 1862 created by Lincoln and the congress at the time!

When did I say anything about the bush regime this is all the government since the early 1900s that have been hell bent on slowly making us all slaves. Its just Bush makes it so damn obvious where other presidents hid it better. The small income tax was for the civil war then abolished after the war if Im not mistaken and then brought back in 1913.

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Star for you sir excellent 3 part post to counter. You had the initiative to do it I didnt glad someone did though

To jackinthebox,
the nonly freedom ANY of us have that cannot be taken away is the freedom of thought.
Everything else is inconsequential.
We are all brainwashed by "slides" the gubment uses on us from the time we are born. If you want to "step out of line", the gubment will insert a "slide" saying, "You are either with us or against us". Then they make you feel unpatriotic for not agreeing with the war.
What a useless species we have turned out to be. We have some sort of unhealthy fantasy with killing our fellow man over such things as different beliefs in god.
We are a total waste of DNA and deserve to be wiped out by an asteroid or some virus.
Shame on any military person that pulls the trigger to drop a bomb or shoot innocent men, women or children because the Bush clan has deemed it so. Before you get on your soapbox and bash me, I used to be a Marine. I am ashamed of the title now. We were all brainwashed without knowing it.
Piss on this country. We are the laughing stock of the world, being led by a madman that makes Hitler look like Jesus. This dip$%^^ tells the other world leaders that GOD is telling him to do this. This puts him in the same league as the enemy he is going against.
Wake up Amerika.
I only did this anonymous cause my comp. kept crashing trying to log in.

So this article finally ended up in the L.A. times. I read a quote in their, that i didn't see in this article. Administration lawyers were saying that, and I paraphrase, the president has the right to bring the military into ANY neighborhood, and detain, without charge or warrant, any person deemed a threat to national security.
This is what they are actually telling us. What are they not telling us? Read some of DimensionalDetectives work. Only today, he has a new article out about the train cars being prepared to help move people out of troubled areas.. Are You KIDDING Me??!!
I think I am still in shock. I never thought the kinds of laws that are being passed would be passed. Tighten my borders and GET OFF MY LAWN!

I assure you I will find the time and energy to reply to EVERYONE. And your 3 page reply has a lot of errors, especially a flaw in one major history proponent.

I feel like I'm swimming in an ocean of sharks; no one's out to get the truth, just pat each other's backs and wave that flag (oh and call names, how intellectual).

My replies will arrive within the next few days.

This is precicesly the reason that I detest politics, but I think for this reason it is why I shall conquer it. The monkeys running this thing are nothing but commercial jest to me. I really can't believe how fanatical and ignorant people are in this world, but I leave one forum and come to another and you're all the same, whether it be religion or politics; mote no one question thy God! Right?

Burn the dissenting free thinker at the stake!

[edit on 26-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
That's what I'm telling you.

Doesn't sound too convincing to me. Here's a blue sheet of paper, here's a red sheet of paper. The blue sheet is more important because I say so. That's what this is. You know what pays for that worthless constitution to be upheld? That worthless piece of paper that is somehow diminutive in value.

Are you a flag burner too?

No sir, but it wouldn't bother me, it's just a silly flag. I'm an intellect sir. Everything that I value is in my mind and my body and in other's minds and bodies.

I have seen no evidence that you are a terrorist, only that your argument is TERRible.

I've seen no evidence that you are amiable, only that you are agressive and in a non-intellectual way. I'm sure you deserved the beating by the cops with the type of attitude that you flaunt around. I have seen no evidence to the contraire.

As far as being a filthy Commie, well, I'll leave it to everyone else to decide if that duck quacks.

No, you will leave it up to me. I have told you before that I do not support communism, though I do not dislike it either.

I didn't sell # and you don't know JACK.

Yes. At your birth when your Mother or Father signed your birth certificate you sold your soul to corporate America. Do some research, and Jack lives down the street from me. I'd hope that you don't sell fecies.

In point of fact, I paid no money for my car in the overall scheme of things. I also did at one time build my own vehicle.

So you stole it or someone gave it to you as a gift or payed for it for you? If it's not one of those three options then you're running yourself up a short tree and I'm gunna grab you right back down and place you on the ground in front of me again and interrogation will persue.

So tell me about this vehicle that you built. What happened?

Subduance? Making up words now?

Whenever I so choose, yes. The prefix and the suffix do converge to form an understandable word. I don't memorize words. I know suffixes and prefixes.

Goddamned flagburner.

False assumption: how intelligent of you. Little baby child name calling again, time for a diaper change?

You get what you give, sir. Unfortunately that happens to be yourself. Just remember that next time before you make a retarded foundationless and presumptuous insult.

I just wanted to add, to anyone who may have skipped over it, that 'destroyer's posts above are an argument with merit, based in facts, citations, and logic. Stop reading this, and really go read what he has to say. I can offer nothing more than stars.

Oh, and that thumb-thingy that looks like a turkey.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]

[edit on 26-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
But that's not what their jobs are supposed to be. This kind of attitude in government positions is what drives them to violate their Oaths to the Constitution.

Well, perhaps they are in contempt of treason. Why are they changing the constitution? For your own good or for their own good? And how can you provide evidence for either case?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."--Benjamin Franklin

I don't think is is completely true. I think if you temporarily give up some of the essential liberties of your consitution for temporary safety, that it is perfectly okay.

they would not have gone through the trouble of enumerating what powers they did have...

So I take it you like the constitution statically the way that it is and your opinion is that it requires no change for future implications.

If it was wrong then, then it is wrong now.

I concur. We have to be very wary of what our congress and our elected officers are doing with our country.

The meaning of words has a tendency to change, over time,...

I agree.

Why do you think the Founding Fathers never wanted America to be a democracy?

Well, because to me it's an autocracy in disguise. I, personally, do not like democracy. I appreciate it for what it has given to me and I to it, but I think there is a better form of government that is not yet discovered.

That's democracy at work!

When it's stated in the articles that they are responsible for protecting us both foreignly and domestically, then it's quite of easy to murk the waters and distort what's really going on.

If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions
or disturbing the public tranquility.

This is vague. "they" should be changed to "People" if that is what it is implying. Otherwise it can arguably go either way.

Join the very same system that's already corrupted & rotten to the core?

It is one of your duties and rights. Why not? You have options, violence is not the limit of those options.

The same system that's already "legislated," "over-ruled" & "Executive Ordered" against the very same Constitution that they've sworn/affirmed a legally-binding Oath to obey?

Sometimes the best way to beat a corrupt (any) system is from the inside.

When hell freezes over, pal...Much better that the People start enforcing the Supreme Law than to join the crimi

That's your choice. I have aspirations to exalt and rights to excercise.

USA--RIGHT NOW!
It's better to take a look at the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (bold & italics emphasis is mine):

I reckon what is transpiring. It is a military dominance. I won't sit around and do nothing, though.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That's what I'm publicizing. The PEOPLE. ALL the PEOPLE.

Our money was fine until the Federal Reserve Act was legislated in violation of the Constitution, the gold & silver standard we had was illegally replaced

The gold and silver are just as valuable as the paper. Worthless.

If you've forgotten this much of American history, then you've already forgotten why America was the first-of-its-kind as a nation.

I haven't forgotten, sir. I understand what's wrong.

Our liberties & Rights are limited only by our personal responsibility to avoid violating the very same Rights of other people: Once we have violated the Rights of others then we're to be held accountable. But not the government, oh no, they try to hold themselves above accountability for their crimes & that's in violation of the same Law we're subject to.

I agree. That's what I was injecting, simply in a varied manner and state of verbiage.

Look at the second quote in my signature below: The problem is that the government tries to place itself above the Code!

I know. I don't agree that it's right.

Otherwise, our Rights are not subject to limitation or restriction by the government itself...Or have you also "forgotten" that (in the First Amendment) "Congress shall make no law abridging..." our unalienable Rights.

No. I haven't forgotten.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

I'd love to see a one-world humanity too...But the so-called NWO seeks to dominate not unite... ...Thusly, a one-world humanity can only evolve through the People themselves, not through the efforts of a severely-limited number of "rulers" wishing to dominate the world.

I agree. This was my insistence. The PEOPLE.

We must socially evolve into it, not be dragged kicking & screaming...

It's difficult to socially evolve into it when you've got anyone that questions another's current methodology of government being echoingly called a flag burner or a commie. That has to definitely stop.

And yet it's through the efforts of these very "leaders" that humanity's social evolution is retarded & ceases to grow! Take a look at the current education system, for example...Our children are indoctrinated to rely on the group & the government instead of encouraging personal responsibility & personal development. Without individuals of superior capabilities, then the group cannot evolve either, because humans are (by nature) social creatures so when individual excellence is achieved, the group prospers as well.

I agree whole heartedly and all encompassing mindedly.

Our so-called "leaders" strive to do good only for themselves & dominate others to do the work for them...

As I suggested: Become a leader yourself. I plan on it.

People like this are a very small minority in the human population & tend towards positions... ...This is why the "leaders" violate it, because the enforcement of the Constitution is dangerous to them & can prevent them from dominating.

Well, I agree. There is also a psychological stigma associated with those governed within a nation or country border, this stigma is also one of dominance and ego, a higher standing, a fanatical patriotism. This also has to stop. It is primitive and unevolved.

You write posts like you don't really know the Constitution at all. The government is not given any authorization to reduce, restrict or limit Citizen Rights in any way, means, shape or form whatsoever.

I never said that it was authorized to do such under normal non-wartime and non-martial law status.

You really don't know history, do you?

Yes. I do. The C.I.R. was introduced in 1862 taking place during the Civil war and created by Congress and Lincoln. In 1918 the name change began to take place and the C.I.R. became known as the I.R.S. by 1953.

Income taxes were enacted at various times until 1894, but were not imposed after 1895 when an 1894 tax act was found to be unconstitutional.

That's quite a bit after Lincoln's time, don't you think?

President Lincoln passed in 1865. The eventual unimposement of the taxes was not until after 1895. Lincoln was born in 1809. That means Lincoln was alive for roughly 3 years while the tax act was in its early commision. (and assumably more if he wouldn't have been assassinated)

Also, at some of the links just above this paragraph, there exists a substantial body of evidence that the IRS was not established by a function of Natural (ie: Constitutional) Law & has no legal enforcement power over a direct tax on the earned income

I know this. The I.R.S. Is illegal and unconstitutional. That's why it was objected in 1894.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Just curious - what do you mean, "The constitution must be changed so that we can keep the world a somewhat peaceful place"?

As of right now it needs to be re-instituted. That's one way it can change.

What type of changes do you propose, and how does the Constitution apply beyond our borders?

I propose an eradication of the constitution and a complete overhaul of government factions.

A new voting system, a new voting apparatus, a new voting scheme, and no voting parties, to begin with.

Originally posted by mybigunit
The small income tax was for the civil war then abolished after the war if Im not mistaken and then brought back in 1913.

Well, there need be a war to justify income tax, don't there?

Do away with the I.R.S. and stop wars.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal Ahh ! You Have Just Shown Your True Face To All Of Us Here On ATS ! You Are Nothing More Than An Agent For Your Masters That Are Ruining Our Great Country ! Take Your Stinking Commie Comments Some Where else ! And By The Way Tell Your N.W.O. Boss's That We Are Not Giving Up Peaceably ! GET IT !