Obama Team Rewriting Constitution by 2012

I think this article is full of BS. Rewriting the constitution would have to have the approval of congress and I doubt any changes to it would be met with rejection. However, Bush was able to implement the Patriot Act which stepped on a lot of our constitutional rights, and was approved by our congress. I don't trust any of these self serving officials republican or democrats.

reply to post by ohioriver


Exactly. This is Agenda 21 presented a la 1984 doublespeak. Wanna see how this works? Look at the Clean Air Act passed during the Bush Administration. Sounded good but what it actually did was let them pollute more and longer without meeting the standards set down by law. There was another one about forestation which allowed the corporations to begin to clear cut.

These days if the legislation says one thing and sounds good, you can almost bet it's effects will be the opposite. This is not paranoia, it is how things work today. Most people in the US will digest a news sound bite for the nano-seconds it runs only to have it bumped out of their brain by the end of the next one. By the time the commercial appears they cannot remember what it was they meant to check up on later. The sound bite quality of the news, the flicker rate of the TV they are watching, the flash of the news graphics, the flash of the commercials, the new season of American Idol or Dancing With The Stars which is set to start in about a half hour, the beer next to them on the end table, the miniature pharmacy in the bathroom that is always available, not to mention the dumbing down of the American education system for over 100 years now. All these things are cumulative and complimentary to each other.

The cost of freedom is a vigilant and informed... Forget that! Everyone outside of the US and some of us inside wonder why there has not been rioting here. Really? You wonder? I don't. I do know though that this is their biggest fear, that a whole gaggle of us will lock and load and come after them. Why? Because they know they deserve it.

So they have taken steps to prevent this from happening. They have taken lots of steps for many years, and honestly I think they are surprised how well it is working, these damage control measures.

And I think they are worried that it still will unravel. They worry about the veterans and they hate the Oath Keepers - just in case that ends up working. And before anyone starts to pick on the Oath Keepers, yes I know their showmanship and production quality is lacking, but they have and are exercising their honor, to nothing but our benefit. And anyway these guys have been cops, not in show business. My Father was a Drill Sergeant in the USMC, and a Sergeant with the Illinois State Troopers afterward, he was not smooth either but he was honorable. He taught me that if you don't have your honor you have nothing. And isn't that the very reason most of us are here?

The constitution, specifically the bill of rights, lay out what the government allows you to have. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that God, himself, came down and laid before the 1st congress inalienable rights as he did with Moses and the rules of the Lord.

If you believe that you're a fool. You are a threat to the American way of life with your insanity and demand for theocracy. You'd have me killed for demanding my taxes go up so that my neighbor can see a doctor and not go homeless because of it.

Rights do not come in a 'natural' sense. Rights are whatever society deems themselves deserving.

Everyone has the right to a home.
Everyone has the right to a doctor.
Everyone has the right to clean water and air.

Stop looking at it as government providing everything for you and start seeing it for Americans providing for Americans. Have some sense of social responsibility before you have a gut reaction.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

There are only 2 ways to change the constitution, and it is very carefully spelled out. Any way other than these 2 ways would make it invalid and pretty much be killed real quick.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was never ratified by two thirds of the States. Secretary of State Knox, for the Wilson Administration, lied. This is a matter of record. This makes it invalid, it is nothing. The sixteenth amendment;

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This legislation could not pass the Senate. Income Tax? Senate had said no time and again, but this had to be put in to place because the body of the Constitution mandated that all income taxes must be apportioned. Which of course means we all pay equal amounts. A couple seconds of consideration and its easy to see that this was a limiting strategy and nothing more. On the 23rd of December after adjourning, but not sine di, the Senate passed the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution with only three Senators present. It passed unanimously this time.

Additionally the US Supreme Court has ruled eight separate times against the Sixteenth Amendment's power to levy new taxes. A farmer in Illinois won his case from not filing by having a jury trial and insisting that he would be happy to comply if they would only show him the law or the statute that required him to do so. There is no law on the books. There is a Tax Code but there was never a law passed authorizing it.

It can't happen? It already has. Shoot, just open the constitution to the first page and read Article 1;

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sounds to me like that would exclude Executive Orders, wouldn't it? Yet we have them, and a whole lot of them. We could look into what the Constitution says about declaring war if you want to, that would be topical.

The Constitution is gone for all intents and purposes, and there are plenty more examples. Now they want to give it, it's official last waltz out the door.

reply to post by links234


EXCUSE ME??? Are you talking to me?? Why do people like you have to assume that you know someone? YOU DO NOT KNOW ME....so DO NOT ACT LIKE YOU DO!!!

Your Hateful one sided words are what makes you sound like an idiot my friend and to suggest that i would have a fellow American killed over themselves wanting to pay more taxes to help out a fellow American is the DUMBEST thing that i have ever heard and I am completely and utterly insulted by you suggesting that!!!!! Not Questioning the government on their intents with their policies and etc. Is a what got us into this mess you idiot...oh lets just sit back and do nothing and hope it changes

Don't even bother trying to talk to me...i don't talk to ignorant people so you won't get a reply next time!

reply to post by dizzie_lizzie79


I wasn't talking to you specifically...I was sort of addressing someone on page two or three, but not you in particular.

I'll be less(?) specific next time.

this sickens me it really does, the constitution was good at the start of this fine country and it is still good now! it dosent need fixing, what needs fixing is the office of president we need someone in that position who isnt afraid to do what needs to be done and strives to keep america at its roots God Guns and American pride

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by dizzie_lizzie79

 

I wasn't talking to you specifically...I was sort of addressing someone on page two or three, but not you in particular.

I'll be less(?) specific next time.

Sorry i just figured it was toward me seeing as you didn't reply-post to anyone specific. Like i said before i like to gather every ones views for my brain to absorb....and i just took it as a complete insult to my kind and loving character being suggested that i would kill a fellow American...or anyone for that matter, specially over something like their tax views. So sorry for calling you an idiot...i don't do things like that unless things like that are being said to me by someone who doesn't know the type of person i am.

reply to post by Ittabena

Having read your posting, there are a few things that can be stated:
The amendments have to be approved by the people in the long run. Could you please cite source on the 16’th amendment so it can be looked at and reviewed, as this is news to me and it should be looked at. From all sources that I have looked at, en.wikipedia.org... there is citing of 42 out of 48 states ratified it.
Executive Orders are not law, they have no bearing on the law and in short, the reality is, do not affect directly the citizens of the country, it affects us indirectly. They are orders to the different departments under the direct control of the President of the United States of America. So if the President wanted to say clean up landfills, then he would issue an executive order stating such, that would go to the Department of the Interior and then it would get passed along to the EPA, who would then make new regulations to such.
Now you mention war, well looking at what all is going on, the last war declared was in 1941, with the declaration of war against the empire of Japan. That is it, everything else is just an armed conflict.
We never want a declaration of war, ever. While though it would pretty much speed up the fighting in any conflict, it would be a double edge sword that would cut both ways. That means while the gloves would be off for the military to fight as they see fit, at the same time, it opens up a series of laws in the United States of America that none of us would want.
But regardless, any changes or amendments to the constitution would still require the popular vote, of over ¾ of the population voting for any and all changes, or it would not fly.

Originally posted by links234
The constitution, specifically the bill of rights, lay out what the government allows you to have. Tell me I'm wrong...

You're wrong. Big Time. In fact, you're so wrong I doubt you've ever read it at all.

...You'd have me killed for demanding my taxes go up so that my neighbor can see a doctor and not go homeless because of it.

I don't think it was too long ago that YOU would help your neighbor instead of DEMANDING the government take more of MY money to help your neighbor...at this point my stomach is rolling at your utter uselessness.

Rights do not come in a 'natural' sense. Rights are whatever society deems themselves deserving.

Everyone has the right to a home.
Everyone has the right to a doctor.
Everyone has the right to clean water and air.

That's it. You're outta your friggin mind. You were born with rights. Rights deliverable even if you were alone on an island. You need an education. You're consistently so far off base that it's dangerous that people like you are out there driving...

Stop looking at it as government providing everything for you and start seeing it for Americans providing for Americans. Have some sense of social responsibility before you have a gut reaction.

Stop "looking" at it at all and get your hands dirty neighbor...God I hope you're not really my neighbor.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

The amendments have to be approved by the people in the long run. Could you please cite source on the 16’th amendment so it can be looked at and reviewed, as this is news to me and it should be looked at.

Found it;

“If you… examined [the 16th amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.” -U.S. District Court Judge, James C. Fox, 2003”

This has been featured in a couple of movies (Zeitgeist, Freedom to Fascism, and I believe cited by Jim Marrs in Rule By Secrecy, though I haven't looked through it again this morning.) Probably not the best reference, but then neither is wikipedia.

Here is another fuller quote from Judge Foxhim which tends to prove my point about the Constitution getting "changed" improperly;

(Fox) … I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the constitution, and I can think of one instance. I believe I'm correct on this. I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal Revenue, Income Tax. I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment. … And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the constitution of the United States and I don't think any court would ever … set it aside. Well, I've seen that — I've seen somewhere a treatise on that. And I think it was — I think I'm correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred… Yet nonetheless, I'm sure no court's going to say that the 16th amendment permitting income is void for any reason, although I wouldn't mind filing for a rebate myself.

It is part of the Constitution because the Govt. printing office included it? Is that what he just said?

In fact, I found both of these on a website which was using these quotes to show the Income Tax was legal because of interpretations which had been made and accepted to the mandate originally laid down in the body of the Constitution. Here is the link;

webskeptic.wikidot.com...

But here we are discussing the overture, the Amendment allowing them to pass a law levying taxes on those who are "employed" without it being apportioned. Now that the orchestra has tuned up, let's see what they did with it; what law they did indeed pass. The jury in the acquitted Illinois farmers case couldn't find it - there is an interview in Aaron Russo's; Freedom to Fascism with the jury foreman. In that case the State of Illinois took the farmer to court on not filing and Illinois return for three years. The jury foreman pointed out that under the Illinois Tax law your were required to file a State income tax return if you were required to file a federal return. Therefore the jury asked repeatedly to see the federal law that required the the farmer to file a federal return. The response at first was that the law would be included in the packet the Jury recieved when they deliberated. It was not. When they asked again the Judge simply responded; You have everything you need to decide the case." So the Jury acquitted. To me this is a precedent, albeit a left handed one.

Whitey Harrel and here is a link - first one I came across, and look there is a reference to another movie they both appeared in. (I'm playin' the lottery today!)

yannone.blogspot.com...

On July 7 of 2000 a group named We The People ran a full page ad (I like to save the best for last - and oh look, there is that pesky non-ratified 16th Amendment issue again!)

THE MAIN PROPOSITIONS OF THE REMONSTRANCE ARE:

1) The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "income tax amendment") was fraudulently and illegally proclaimed to be ratified in 1913. Exhaustive legal research from both state and national archives documented conclusively that the amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states.

The Courts have refused to hear this issue.

"[Defendant] Stahl's claim that ratification of the 16th Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question because we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government...." U.S. v Stahl (1986), 792 F2d 1438

;

Her is the full ad;
www.givemeliberty.org...

No one to date has collected the reward, to my knowledge no one has even attempted to collect it. Several IRS investigators did try to find the information though. They quit their jobs in disgust and became activists.

Can you find it? I cannot. Want $50,000? Do a little research.

As to Executive Orders, I think you should look a little closer at some of them. Kennedy abolished the Federal Reserve with one. Bush, and Obama have both signed EOs into effect which expanded what can be considered a national emergency, and takes command of all roads, communication, transportation (Not our SUVs?!), and food stuffs in case of these wide wide sets of circumstances. These EOs are on the books and still standing, even Kennedy's - though his has been simply ignored by the Govt. This power was not given to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, therefore the Executive Branch does not have it.

War? C'mon this is the lamest of lame excuses. It is not a declared war. That is a dodge and you know it. Dodges are committed by what type of people? The dishonest - those with no honor.

Can the Constitution be changed without our consent? As Patty in Memphis liked to say - You damn skippy! I don't know, she said it, not me.

Hope this helps.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

Now you mention war, well looking at what all is going on, the last war declared was in 1941, with the declaration of war against the empire of Japan. That is it, everything else is just an armed conflict. We never want a declaration of war, ever. While though it would pretty much speed up the fighting in any conflict, it would be a double edge sword that would cut both ways. That means while the gloves would be off for the military to fight as they see fit

Are you kidding? I have it first hand from returning Vets that we are over there killing women and children for no apparent reason. They were not armed, they were not running, they were not a threat, they were just there, now they are dead. The look in these men's eyes as they told me these tales was unmistakably sincere. These guys felt horrible for what they had seen.

One Vet told me how guys in his group had purchased a Play Station 2 from a local shop, played it a few days and returned it, claiming it was broken. The merchant did not want to return their money because it did work. They locked the door to his shop and trashed the place, then had a big laugh about it. You underestimate the effect that video games has had on our soldiers.

Originally posted by dizzie_lizzie79

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Mr Obama and team can write and rewrite anything they want... it has to pass Congress and the states. That is not going to happen.

Further, there are too many people that would oppose such a move... including military, and a Civil War would ensue.

The very laws and rules that empower Mr Obama also prohibit Mr Obama... rest easy for now.

Just seems like Government is doing soo much thats been Unconstitutional and they get away with it

True Lizzie

You also need to take into account that grabbing you by the emotional hair is a way to get you to
acquiesce to other solutions brought to you by the same government. Think the Obama effect, with a Rick Perry
agenda.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

Now you mention war, well looking at what all is going on, the last war declared was in 1941, with the declaration of war against the empire of Japan. That is it, everything else is just an armed conflict. We never want a declaration of war, ever. While though it would pretty much speed up the fighting in any conflict, it would be a double edge sword that would cut both ways. That means while the gloves would be off for the military to fight as they see fit

Are you kidding? I have it first hand from returning Vets that we are over there killing women and children for no apparent reason. They were not armed, they were not running, they were not a threat, they were just there, now they are dead. The look in these men's eyes as they told me these tales was unmistakably sincere. These guys felt horrible for what they had seen.

One Vet told me how guys in his group had purchased a Play Station 2 from a local shop, played it a few days and returned it, claiming it was broken. The merchant did not want to return their money because it did work. They locked the door to his shop and trashed the place, then had a big laugh about it. You underestimate the effect that video games has had on our soldiers.

I have never heard such things. But, as ATS goes, without proof it did not happen.
And GI's taking back a PS2?? Yeah, that is where I call BS. Not gonna happen.

reply to post by TreadUpon


You've offered me nothing to indicate that society allows itself the rights it deems necessary. The 9th amendment seems to spell that out pretty specifically.

The enumeration...of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If the people demand that clean water is a right, it's done. Simple as that. Why? Because a government of, by and for the people deem it so. Let me say it again, a government deems it so. A government, our government, grants you those rights.

Can I also ask, in your opinion (or anyone elses), what are the rights of an illegal alien? The right to bear arms? The right to a public defender? Protection from unreasonable search and seizure?

By some defintions the rights spelled out in our constitution are 'natural' rights to everyone. Do we allow this for non-citizens? Should we?

reply to post by dizzie_lizzie79


the government can do any thing it wants because nothing oversees what they do so they can kill anyone or make them dissapear from existence

reply to post by macman

I have never heard such things. But, as ATS goes, without proof it did not happen. And GI's taking back a PS2?? Yeah, that is where I call BS. Not gonna happen.

So let me get this straight, You're line of argument is "Nuh uh!" Did I hear you correctly? Because if so, I am beaten, I admit it! I am shut down. I mean who can argue with that? What a debater!

Originally posted by links234
You've offered me nothing to indicate that society allows itself the rights it deems necessary...

Yeah. The constitution guarantees our natural rights.

The 9th amendment seems to spell that out pretty specifically.

The enumeration...of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That means that everything not specified by the constitution to be the business of the federal government is to be considered the domain of the people and the states, not the Feds.

If the people demand that clean water is a right, it's done. Simple as that. Why?

Because we demand that SERVICE from our local utilities.

Can I also ask, in your opinion (or anyone elses), what are the rights of an illegal alien? The right to bear arms? The right to a public defender? Protection from unreasonable search and seizure?

The natural rights enumerated under the constitution may be deemed for all men. But the protection of those rights as a responsibility of the Federal Gov't are reserved exclusively for citizens of this country.

I hope that helps?

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by macman

 

I have never heard such things. But, as ATS goes, without proof it did not happen. And GI's taking back a PS2?? Yeah, that is where I call BS. Not gonna happen.

So let me get this straight, You're line of argument is "Nuh uh!" Did I hear you correctly? Because if so, I am beaten, I admit it! I am shut down. I mean who can argue with that? What a debater!

Proof, video, article, confession or it didn't happen.

You know, I had some guys tell me once that they saw a UFO. True story. Of course, they have no proof, I can't get a hold of them anymore, it was 5 years ago, but it is the truth.


See.

Originally posted by macman
I have never heard such things.

Never?

Originally posted by macman
Proof, video, article, confession or it didn't happen.