United States Constitution
I will not bear the reproaches of my children. I will tell them that I studied and labored to procure a free Constitution of Government for them to solace them under, and if they do not prefer this to ample fortune, to ease, to elegance, they are not my children and I care not what becomes of them.
In these days of abuse of power by certain departments of government, it is important to know that the three branches of government are not co-equal.
The Continental Congress created the Executive and Judicial branches and Congress never intended them to be coequal. Congress has superior powers, especially through its control of the purse strings. Technically, Congress could close down the Executive and the Judiciary by simply refusing to fund both branches.
The president does not assume the title of commander in chief of the armed forces simply by being elected to the office. [...] Article 11, Section 2, part 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the only duties the president has are military duties, when called into actual service; and even then he has no role in planning or choosing reasons for taking America to war, or in ordering the mission of the troops. [...] The declaration of war involves a five-step process and is probably the most complicated part of the Constitution. [...] For a president to say he is the commander in chief, and for this absurdity to be echoed by the news media and most members of the legislature, is a horrible error, which is perpetuated to fool the American people.
There is no such provision in the Constitution that would oblige the States to pay for legislation passed by star-gazing liberals and I could cite hundreds of examples of such pieces of legislation. The States are not obliged to fund any Federal laws. Yet here we have the State of California stuck with an annual bill of $3.6 billion dollars [...]
In law one cannot use cognates or synonyms, but the anti-constitutionalists in Congress are good at a play on words they learned from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, and they use the technique all the time, making many flexible, ordinary words, inflexible, which places an entirely different construction on them. [...] We cannot use synonyms or cognates. A law has to be clearly written with no ambiguity attached to it.
I content that this so-called fifteenth amendment is not constitutional and legally a part of the Constitution of the United States anymore than the 13th and 14th are part of the Constitution:
FIRST: Because no amendment to the Constitution can be legitimately proposed and adopted unless all of the States shall at the time exercise the right to be represented in both Houses of Congress.
SECONDLY: That no amendment can be ratified unless all of the States ratifying them shall have a right to adopt or reject them without being subject to any condition but must be free and untrammeled.
THIRDLY: That no amendment can be valid unless all of the States that vote on it at the time of voting are equal in right, dignity, and honor.
FOURTHLY: That the fifteenth amendment received only 27 votes exclusive of New York and Indiana, 28 being necessary for ratification; New York having revoked her ratification and Indiana having ratified without a constitutional quorum of her legislature being present, and in open violation of her constitutional provision.
Judges are constantly trying to isolate amendments and clauses of the Constitution, but every part of the Constitution has to be read and interpreted in the light of the whole. It cannot be fragmented; otherwise the perfect equipoise of the Constitution is lost.
One of the most dangerous developments of modern times is the presumption by the judiciary that somehow, along the way it acquired a power to legislate, even though the Constitution expressly forbids to the judiciary to make laws, their only function being to interpret laws made by the Congress.
There is no such thing as "Federal Courts" or "Federal Judges" expressed in the Constitution. [...] Washington D.C. and the U.S. territories are the only locations where Federal Courts can operate if we obey the Constitution.
A treaty is only a law. It is a temporary law at best and is subject to being constitutional and if it is not in pursuance of and in consonance with the Constitution, it must be rejected by the Congress. In reality, all treaties are no more than games, confidence tricks, to gain the ascendancy in one way or another and the history of the U.S. proves that it has been fooled and taken in by more treaties than any other country in the world.
The U.S. Constitution is superior to all treaties, which are like any other law and can be abrogated by a variety of means, whereas the Constitution cannot be abrogated.
Clearly the Founding Fathers intended the States to be in full control of health, education, and police protection and not subject to Federal Government interference. In the clear and unmistakable language of the 10th amendment there is no such thing as a grant that would permit a "federal" police force interfering with law enforcement in the States. No Federal Health Department and Education Department can operate in the States. These "police powers" belong with the States and were never relinquished to the Central Government at the time of the Union.
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the general principle of the Constitution; I mean an additional article taking from the federal government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender.
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved tot he States respectively, or to the people." [...] if any power to issue fiat money legally exists at all, it is reserved for the people. In other words, individuals and private institutions, such as banks, have the right to issue IOUs and hope that the public will use them as money, but government, at any level, is clearly prohibited by the Constitution from doing so.
What was prohibited was to "emit bills of credit" which, according to the speeches and writings of those who drafted the document, meant the printing of paper IOUs which were intended to be circulated as money - in other words, the printing of fiat money not backed by gold or silver. [...] The crux of the problem is that, while the Constitution clearly prohibits the states from issuing fiat money, it does not specifically prevent the federal government from doing so. [...] they [the founding fathers] were adamant that it should never be tolerated again in America - at either the state or federal level.
These State powers are health, education, welfare, family affairs and police protection. They are always collectively referred to as "the police powers of the States."
The Constitution itself never yields to a treaty or enactment. It neither changes with time nor does it in theory bend to the force of circumstances.
Also, few of our current members of the House know how to draw up a constitutional declaration of war, which is a deliberately complicated procedure; a secretive procedure designed to curb hothead presidents like Bush from rushing the U.S. to war.
In their final and deliberate judgment one of the most important features of the covenant (the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights) was that our country should be distinguished from other nations in its refusal to concentrate in one man exclusive power over foreign relations of the Government and especially over the issues of peace and war.
What does the Constitution say about "instant citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens? As alwasy, scholars and students have to search and diligently study the Annals of Congress the Congressional Globe and the Congressional Record on the subject:
"The child follows the condition of the parents."
Persons who are citizens of other countries and who cross into the U.S. illegally are outside of U.S. law.
Through Article I, Section 2, Part 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the House and the Senate has the power to reverse any U.S. Supreme Court decision by a simple majority vote of both Houses.
When the U.S. Constitution is silent on a power, then the power sought cannot be taken.
[...] the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are not part of the Constitution and that all laws based upon them and are fraudulent.
I have read thousands of debates in the Annals of Congress, the Congressional Globe and Congressional Record. I found, over and over again, the unwarranted assumption that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were constitutionally ratified by the States, when this is entirely wrong. I also found proof in these records showing that the 13th, 14th and 15th are fraudulent, as is the Reconstruction legislation that went with them. As the debates at the time show, States rights and State sovereignty were trampled by these amendments.
We, the People, are the only people on the face of the Earth who have a document that says we can get rid of government when it violates the Constitution which was written to protect the sovereignty of the people.
In the case of the American people and their Constitution and the Bill of Rights, ignorance of it will eventually lead to their enslavement. What is most remarkable is that anyone can run for office at any level of government without knowing the first thing about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. [...] How is it that we elect people to the House and Senate who are constitutionally unqualified to make laws?
Before 1937 the Supreme Court rejected all of Roosevelt's New Deal statutes, but after 1937, every single "New Deal" statute was ruled constitutional. Benjamin Wright, a noted authority on the Supreme Court, wrote in 1942:
No event or series of events has ever produced so many changes in constitutional doctrine within so short a time. In the four subsequent terms of the Court the reversals and distinctions have been so numerous and so sweeping that today much of the constitutional law of 1936 appears to belong in a different constitution.
[...] Bruce Ackerman held that, the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 fundamentally altered the character of the Court's business, the nature of its decisions and the alignment of its friends and foes.
By now it is fairly common knowledge that the Federal Reserve Act; the Income Tax Act; the United Nations treaty/agreement, sending American troops to participate in wars outside of our national geographical boundaries; breaking down of morality and family values; opposition to Christianity; the introduction of homosexuality and lesbianism and their advent into the open public life of the nation are all unconstitutional.
Other notable examples of many unconstitutional "laws" are gun control, membership of the UN, NAFTA, GATT, the World Trade Agreement [...]
Man has always sought to enslave and dominate his fellow men. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent such a calamity.
The judiciary is not co-equal with the Congress, which can, if it wishes, refuse to fund either the executive or the judiciary. Congress can overturn any acts of the judiciary and the Constitution has made certain that the limited powers of granted the executive would never allow a president to "stand where kings stood."
We should realize from this that the Constitution was not written for government, but for the people as a means of preserving their sovereign integrity.
[...] when the state delegates assembled to draft the Constitution, the effects of fiat money were so fresh in their minds they decided to put an end to it once and for all.
There is also a legal point to made that if these amendments [13th, 14th, 15th] were and are illegal, having been enacted under martial law, all of the subsequent amendments to the Constitution are also invalid, since they not only are not numbered correctly, but they also must be considered as having been enacted according to the provisions of these three amendments, which changed the requirements for citizenship and voting rights.
The Constitution of North Carolina, 1776, required, "That no person who shall deny the Being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion...shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust for profit." This provision remained in force until 1830. The Constitution of Delaware, 1776, required that "Every officeholder had to declare faith in Jesus Christ."
The primary purpose of the Constitution of the United States was to protect the free citizens from any intrusion by an arbitrary, tyrannical, Canaanite government agency. The subsequent gradual erosion of these provisions of the Constitution and its subtle alteration to permit and encourage attacks on the free citizens of the United States by a demoniacal Canaanite centralized government, constitutes a most grievous racial and religious assault against the people of Shem.