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.

 

POLITICS: New Bill Seeks to Nullify Constitution

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:00 AM
link   



(...snip)

1. Is the Birth Certificate itself a commercial instrument, a
Promissory Note or other negotiable instrument of value?

The answer is an emphatic NO! However, the authorization to prepare
a Certificate of Live Birth is given in the form of an application
signed by the parents and/or the doctor that is in form and
substance a commercial contract. A local or state birth certificate
is simply evidence that a commercial contact has been entered into
making the newborn a ward of the "state." Within two weeks and three
days the Certificate of Live Birth based on that application is
delivered and filed in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, it is a bonded
instrument. On the back of the document is a letter (A-N) followed
by eight numbers. More recently issued Social Security Cards have a
similar bond serial number stamped on the back.

Is the Birth Certificate itself, originally prepared in the county
of birth, a contract giving the state control over all aspects of
the individual represented thereon?

Again the answer is NO. A birth certificate is not a contract and
has no value in and of itself except as evidence that a Certificate
of Live Birth does exist. That Certificate is on file in the
official records in Washington, D.C. and stands as incontrovertible
evidence that there is a living, breathing man or woman whose
existence has been registered with the state and with certain
federal agencies. Records of foreign born are on file with a
Certificate of Naturalization, Citizenship or other document
authorizing their residence here. Public agencies designate the name
on the document as a "person." The value placed on the Certificate
of Live Birth is based on the ability of the "state" to tax the
future assets of that "Debtor." A bond is taken out by the
Department of the Treasury and a bond # is stamped on the back of
the Certificate of Live Birth. Printouts of some Individual Master
Files (IMF) reveal that bond to be about $650,000. One IRS Master
File I saw lists an IRS Treasury Bond in the amount of $742,500 that
the individual requester knew nothing about. However, all the profit
generated by this investment between the birth and the death of the
living, breathing man or woman is kept by the "state."

Birth Certificates


The research of this flesh and blood man indicates everyone who's been certified by the state at birth has been transformed into a bonded debtor/indentured servant to collatoralize credit extentions from international bankers headquartered at the International Bank of Settlements in Switzerland. (This would also help to explain how and why Switzerland was designated "neutral" territory during WWII. That's where the global slave masters took up refuge while their orchastrated war was being fought all around them.)

So, the question then becomes, "What inalienable Rights does a state, birth certified "person" (not freeman, flesh and blood man or woman) have in the eyes of the US Constitution.

That depends on how you're viewed in the eyes of Admiralty Law. Are you a "natural person" or an bonded debtor/surety for an artificial construct?




The TRADE NAME is a "person," a "mask" for the sentient, living being who uses it. The TRADE NAME is a fictitious person whose name is written in "legalese," i.e. a language foreign constructed outside the bounds of English grammer. The true names of men and women, written properly, i.e. initial letters only capitalized, are sometimes called "natural persons". However, it is just as impossible for a "person" to be "natural" as it is for a man to be artificial. "Person" is a moniker hatched by lawyers, introduced for generating confusion in the mind of non-esquire victims between the actual and the artificial."

-- Cracking the Code Third Edition


Now, take a gander at how the police state renders "your NAME" on "your" drivers license. Is it rendered in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS or in a grammatically correct format with the initial characters only capitalized?

To the uninitiated, indoctrinated, and slumbering among us...may I welcome you to "The Matrix".










[edit on 14-7-2004 by neomoniker]




posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Here's a list of the sponsers of this bill, as near as I can tell...

Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. CARTER, and Mr. SOUDER
thomas.loc.gov...:5:./temp/~r1086HXzMK::

Mr. BILIRAKIS
thomas.loc.gov...:4:./temp/~r108sna8jb::

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. HERGER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. MANZULLO, and Mr. JONES of North Carolina.
thomas.loc.gov...:3:./temp/~r108OVyuIn::

Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. BALLENGER
thomas.loc.gov...:2:./temp/~r108U5vxay::

And,
By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. KINGSTON):

I guess they're the original sponsors.....


If you recognize any of these names....you know who not to vote for next time around...
and, ummm...the thomas database sometimes has a problem finding bills unless there is no space in between the HR and bill number...that's why some can't find it.

anyone know if a similar bill is in the senate, and what the bill number would be there? I like to look and see if I recognize any of the sponsers for these stupid bills too...



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
First, to deal with the actual topic: doesn't it take 2/3s to ammend the constitution? This law is just a simplification. If 2/3s want to overturn a ruling of unconstitutional, they can just introduce an ammendment anyway. It's just a smoke screen to defeat the resistance to change that makes ammendments so difficult- it still sits on the idea that 2/3s of congress can decide what is and is not constitutional. So what am I missing?


Congress can not pass a constitutional ammendment. They can just allow it to be voted on for ratification by 2/3s of the states. States can only vote for ratification of a constitutional ammendment if the congress "passes" it on to them. So states can't vote to ratify a change to the constitution that the congress has not previously OK'd and the congress can't do it on its own. A generally safe check/balance system.

I believe this bill if it is actually as has been described in this thread, is intended to allow the congress with a decent majority to override the Supreme Court's increasing tendency to "make" laws through their intentional misinterpretation and biased application of what the congress creates. If the Supreme Court only did what it was supposed to do according to the constitution, this bill would never have appeared.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   

The Enabling Act (in German: Ermchtigungsgesetz) was passed by the Reichstag on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis legally established Nazi Germany by giving the Chancellor (then Adolf Hitler) dictatorial powers over Germany.
...

While there had been previous enabling acts in the history of the Weimar Republic, this one was far more reaching since Article 2 allowed for changing the constitution as well. The law therefore formally required a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag.


en.wikipedia.org...


SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.


This has happened before at great cost to global freedom and liberty.
They are even the same section of the bill, section/article 2.


"Those who know nothing about history are doomed forever to repeat it."
~ Will Durant


[edit on 12-7-2004 by shanti23]



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This bill is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation that should never be allowed to pass. The ramifications could destroy American democracy. They could potentially overturn every major supreme court decision in our history. Minorities could potentially lose nearly everything gained during the struggle for civil rights. No more Roe vs Wade or Brown vs Board of Education. We could lose the miranda rights. Kids could once again be forced to pray in public schools. Among others the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first gov. attack on the Constitution, could be reinstated. The republican controlled congress could vote to keep Bush in office indefinately and grant him dictorial powers, and the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to do crap about it.

We need to stop giving more power to the federal government, because this is what they do with that power. The power needs to be granted to the only group that can really give the people what they want; the people thamselves.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by leiphasw
Congress can not pass a constitutional ammendment. They can just allow it to be voted on for ratification by 2/3s of the states. States can only vote for ratification of a constitutional ammendment if the congress "passes" it on to them. So states can't vote to ratify a change to the constitution that the congress has not previously OK'd and the congress can't do it on its own. A generally safe check/balance system.


Thanks for the refresher- it's been a while since government class, and I was probably playing TDGs, reading, or just daydreaming when that lesson was given anyway.

As for the supreme court- the entire American legal system is flawed and may not be fixable. If they were too accountable they couldn't be impartial. If they are immune they can do whatever they want.
The supreme court does not represent a wide enough section of America, and does not change with the times as quickly as it ought to. It is also an extremely partisan organization- presidents make the best pick they can as to who will enforce that president's beliefs on future administrations.

It seems to me that you need a Supreme Court that the people have a say in, that has nothing to lose, and nothing to gain.
My suggestion would be that justices be elected every 4 years with a 1 term limit, and perhaps that districts be used to ensure that a broader section of the population was represented.
Politicians appoint their justices on idealism and politics- abortion, gay rights, gun control. The people have strong opinions about these things, but what really matters is what costs us money and opportunity and inconvenience- like english as an official language, welfare, pollution controls, electoral re-districting, and corporate corruption.
If we elected our justices, the issues would change and become more relevant.
We could vote in justices who will intevene against big government and intrusions against our personal freedom (which have progressed so remarkably far under the current judicial system). On the other hand, if you don't agree with me, you could vote in justices who will review and shoot down restrictions and cuts which you feel are depriving people of their entitlement. Either way, we could make the judicial branch actually take part in government again, instead of sitting on the sidelines half-ruling on moral conundrums that have been around since 1960.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Neomoniker: I have to ask...Do you get a commission everytime someone links to the Thompson site? I have yet to see you post to a thread where you didn't include the link.

Just curious....



[edit on 16-7-2004 by Bleys]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Neomoniker: I have to ask...Do you get a commission everytime someone links to the Thompson site? I have yet to see you post to a thread where you didn't include the link.

Just curious....

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Bleys]


BS, Bleys, you're just being a bitch




[edit on 16-7-2004 by neomoniker]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neomoniker


Originally posted by Bleys
Neomoniker: I have to ask...Do you get a commission everytime someone links to the Thompson site? I have yet to see you post to a thread where you didn't include the link.

Just curious....

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Bleys]


BS, Bleys, you're just being a bitch




[edit on 16-7-2004 by neomoniker]



Neomoniker-

Methinks I've touched a nerve. Care to elaborate further?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
No, Bleys, you've got it backwards. Apparently, I'm the one who touched a nerve which elicited a snide remark from you.

I just called a spade a spade, that's all



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
That's QUITE ENOUGH of the name calling.

Stop it.
Now.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I cannot even fathom why they want to take away checks and balances. This is ridiculous. I don't know what to say, this has left me speechless and in awe at the blatant usurpation of power by a more centralized few.



why they want to take away checks and balances??
Umm patriot 1 and 2, take away checks and balances, it's clear as day they want to tighten that noose around our necks and make us jenuflect to show some respect like they were #ing royalty or some #.......

What aholes... We gotta get em outta there........



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join