This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Constitution's Big Lie
Submitted by Antonius Aquinas via AntoniasAquinas.com,
One of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon Americans at the time of its telling and which is still trumpeted to this very day is the notion that the U.S. Constitution contains within its framework mechanisms which limit its power. The “separation of powers,” where power is distributed among the three branches – legislative, executive, judicial – is supposedly the primary check on the federal government’s aggrandizement.
This sacred held tenet of American political history has once again been disproved.
Last Friday (October 23), the Attorney General’s office announced that it was “closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges” against former Internal Revenue Service’s director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, anyone else from the agency over whether they improperly targeted Tea Party members, populists, or any other groups, which voiced anti-government sentiments or views.
The Department of Justice statement read:
The probe found ‘substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime.’ (My emphasis)
Incredibly, it added:
That the DOJ will take no action against one of its rogue departments demonstrates the utter lawlessness and totalitarian nature of the federal government. The DOJ’s refusal to punish documented wrongdoing by the nation’s tax collection agency shows the blatant hypocrisy of Obummer, who promised that his presidency would be one of “transparency.”
It can be safely assumed that Congress will not follow up on the matter, as Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), who chaired a committee to investigate the bureau’s wrong doings, admitted that its crimes may never be known. The DOJ and Issa’s responses are quite predictable once the nature of the federal government and, for that matter, all governments are understood.
Basic political theory has shown that any state is extremely reluctant to police itself or reform unless threatened with destruction, take over, or dismemberment (secession). The Constitution has given to the federal government monopoly power where its taxing and judicial authority are supreme. It will not relinquish such a hold nor will it seek to minimize such power until it is faced with one of these threats.
While it was called a federated system at the time of its enactment and ever since by its apologists, the reality of the matter is quite different. As the Constitution explicitly states in Art. VI, Sect. 2, the central government is “the supreme law of the land.” The individual states are inferior and mere appendages to the national government – ultimate control rests in Washington.
In fact, it was the Constitution’s opponents, the much derided Antifederalists, who were the true champions of a decentralized system of government while their more celebrated opponents such as Madison, Hamilton and Jay wanted an omnipotent national state.
Thus, in the American context, the only method for those oppressed by the federal government is to either threaten or actually go through with secession. Attempts to alter its dictatorial rule through the ballot box or public protests are futile. While there will naturally be outrage at letting the IRS off the hook, focus and anger must be redirected away from participation within the current political system to that of fundamental change.
Congress’ refusal to prosecute an executive bureau that has deliberately used (and is still using) state power to oppress and harass opponents of the Obama regime demonstrates the bankruptcy of the idea that separation of power limits tyranny. Federal power and the corresponding tyranny and corruption which it has bred has never been countered by the checks and balances and separation of powers of the supposed “federal republic” created a little over two centuries ago.
Until the “big lie” of the Constitution is realized, agencies like the IRS will continue to target and tyrannize anti-government organizations, groups, and individuals. The Constitution provides no real mechanism for the redress of grievances from the subjects which it rules. Only when the breakup of the federal Union has taken place, will American liberties and freedoms be secured.
»
- 31289 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
To paraphrase Ben Franklin as he walked out of the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution has faults, it will work for a bit of time, but end in Despotism, as all forms of government have ended previously. Why, because the people will become corrupt.
"...Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults...and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
-Benjamin Franklin, Monday, September 17, 1787
Interestingly, in the same year:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
-Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, 1787
The founders were clear that this was NOT to be a Democracy....but a Republic with representation
Right, but what they knew, as Ben stated, was no matter what you start out with on paper, human nature through the abuse of power will always worm its way in, and grow in scope over time:
King: Shi*. You gotta be rich in the first place to think like that. Everybody know the poor are always being fu***d over by the rich. Always have, always will.-Platoon, circa 1986
The seventeenth amendment ended the States representation and the US turned from a Republic into the worst and cancerous form of government known as a Democracy.
The first example that the separation of powers does not work is about the justice department and Lois Lerner of the IRS. Those are both part of the executive branch of Government. The dept of Justice is part of the executive branch not part of the Judicial branch. Articles that start with lies are not worth reading even if they are meant to promote a good idea. I didn't read any more of this piece of crap.
I am very sympathetic to the argument that the DOJ and law enforcement should be a fully independent branch of government and separated from the executive branch. One cannot expect one to investigate oneself. Of course then we have the problem of who investigates this new branch of government. The other three? I think it is still the best solution to conflict of interest
To the US Military – Regarding your oath:
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
When we mistake our oath to the constitution as an oath to Dear Leader instead that is when tyranny begins. We are supposed to be a nation of laws.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
Us lowly enlisted men, Legislators, lawyers, gove dept heads, and policemen take the same oath.
Indeed... the South was right!
It seems our founders were pretty good but not perfect. They never realized the Elastic Clause and General Welfare Clause would be used to expand government control and regulation to incomprehensible levels.
The general welfare clause was specifically and intentionally avoided in the Confederate Constitution for that very reason. It is just a piece of paper after all even the best paper can't protect you. Our founders knew that but pointed out this piece of paper could serve as a rallying point for the people if government chose to ignore it.
Even the oligarchs who created the Constitution knew it contained the seeds of its own destruction. At the end of the day, unless
the elected are held accountable by the Citizens, the Constitution is but a piece of paper.
This article actually doesn't go far enough down the rabbit hole. For that one simply must read the great work by Lysander Spooner titled "No Treason" from just after the War Between The States. You can read this relatively short document free at
http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm
If you read it elsewhere, be sure to include the published works, No Treason No. 2, 3 and 6 in sequence. While reading this, remember that Spooner was a lawyer and is effectively presenting his case in probably as readable of a format as can be accomplished while doing so. With that in mind, its a brilliant read.
Keep in mind that Spooner's argument applies to all constitutions by those who call themselves central government, at any level, beyond possibly the most local level where such a contract might be possible in some cases. Only after reading No Treason can anyone actually understand any government constitution.
The Hoax is this...
The SCOTUS, a branch of the Federal Government, decides the powers of the Federal Government
Despite Hamilton's guarantees in his Federalists 80-84, the arrangement is incestuous
Spot on! The fox guarding the hen house... a natural conflict of interest.
BS. It's not a hoax. It's triumph of evil over good.
The SCOTUS is usurping the powers of our mostly eunuch legislative branch in collusion with the executive branch, for lucre.
The Articles of Confederation must be restored to limit power of the centrialized laviathan. The secretive and rogue Constitutional convention was a fraund as were most of the ratifying state coventions. As shown via the liar Hamilton and Marshall (Marbury v. Madison, et al).
As the convention had come to a close...
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Franklin was being sardonic, as it was up to the States, to which later had failed, by approving this very flaud document. The answer is now neither, it is an oligarchy.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson
A constitutional republic is still just a ruling class. All "government", no matter how big or small, is illegitimate because it claims the right to rule (violently control everyone else). In reality, NO ONE has the right to rule. If you want a solution, stop believing in "authority". You own yourself!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVEzdh4PMDI
... stop believing in "authority
Here are actual Step by step instructions: Here or Here
You're welcome.
Yeah, I've read that. I prefer Rothbard's 'Ethics of Liberty' and 'For a New Liberty' over it. But my favorite is Larken Rose's 'The Most Dangerous Superstition' because it exposes the belief in "authority" in such simple terms.
BS!
There never has been a government more amicable to civil ization than our Constitutional Republic.
Does a constitutional republic still take property by threat of violence ("taxation")? Yes, it does. Does it give commands and hurt you if you disobey ("law")? Yes, it does. Then its still a ruling class.
The US constitution was a historical step in the progress of human freedom, but it was an ultimate failure because it still contained the seed of authoritarianism. That seed has grown.
No one has the right to rule and such a right can't be delegated to some mythical entity called "government". Keep thinking...
Article X: All public spending shall not exceed 10% of the GNP .
The constitution is limiting. It was born out of the common law, and there are many, many things that the constitution did not and could not do. The 10th amendment is a confirmation of this truth. In common law, only a owner of property or owner of a right can effect that right (by his own actions, tort or crime). Still true today.
U.S. Constitution meet the best 'safe cracker" in the business...
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
And unlike building the ultimate sophisticated technology to protect it from this kind of thief all you'll ever need is your honor and integrity to protect it for life unlike a bank safe!
Art. VI, Sect. 2, the central government is “the supreme law of the land.” Really? Go read it again. There are no such words as those there.
What a insipid crock from a anonymous quack.
Our constitution is as exceptional as can be written and instituted by honest man.
QUOTATION:“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” Dr. Ben Franklin, a great American
Is a apt fortelling of our current dilema.
Evil people are always trying to destroy good.
America is exceptionally good.
Antonius,
Please wake up and smell the anachronism.
The balance of powers worked until we had generally overthrown the central tenets of the Constitution - ergo that the government could not overthrow the laws passed by 75% popular referendum which created it and still retain legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. It did exactly that by framing the issue as a regional and human rights one.
Yes I am talking about the civil war. In going about it the way they did...and the political power brokers of the day understood this by the way... they were explicitly overthrowing the foundational concept of the Republic (Popular Rule based upon legislative representation), such that in claiming to free *some* slaves, they were in fact freeing no one, but were creating many new slaves...who would work on believing themselves to be free.
The legal system cannot judge any issue relating to any government office because it is a conflict of interest. The judicial branch of government as existed at the founding and for centuries before was overthrown in 1878 by the creation of the American Bar Association - an artifact of "Progressive" (oligarchical Socialist/Communist Collectivist) thought. This association used their legal expertise to press the government, and state governments into scrapping the entire legal profession as it had existed previously and remake it into a government-enforced cartel...as it remains today.
As the ABA, and the entire legal profession in the US is a cartel enforced by the government, it cannot render unprejudiced decisions about that same government.
Similarly, the medical profession flourished with a range of inexpensive treatment options and competing schools of medical thought until it was centralized into a cartel under the 'Flexner Report'.
To claim the Constitution failed us is for active living beings to reassign responsibility for their inactivity to an inanimate object.
The Constitution only has animus if its ideas are understood and acted upon.
You don' t hear people saying "My car is a piece of crap. They said it steered well, and it is total bulls__t. I was busy texting and it steered right into a tree."
No. The document was not inactive. It sat around being a document as well as any in history, and considerably better than most.
We were, or more accurately our ancestors were the INEXCUSABLY inactive ones. It is their legacy that we have labored under the illusion of Freedom, while in fact living in bondage to a tiny elite.
Did you think it a coincidence that those empowered during that era also:
- Created Legal Tender Laws demanding use of paper money (explicitly forbidden by the Constitution)
- Cartelized the Medical Profession
- Centralized the banking system such that Fractional Reserve banks could legally claim that both depositor and lender had simultaneous 100% access to the same money at the same time.
- Created a Federal Reserve Central Bank for the explicit purpose of transferring the liabilities fundamental to said fractional reserve system from the banks to the general populace using the currency as a transmission mechanism.
- Created various and several transportation cartels in the form of RailRoad regulation.
- Created various Farming Cartels in the form of the United Fruit Company that ravaged much of South and Central America.
No. The Constitution was not to blame. It is a specific set of people from a specific region who are to blame.
Damn right.
Fuck all you pinkos!!
See yall from the trench on the bank of the Neches.
No need to even read all the comments. A brief scan shows I likely side with the majority opinion in my vote to shoot down this article. YES! The Constitution is a mess, But this is a direct result of 200 years of progressive abuse and outright nullification of its foundatonal principles. The Contituion's entire constitution is about the limit of central, federal power. From what I know, US laws schools have basically stopped even teaching the 10th Amendment to student majoring Consitutional Law .
Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite. Every nation gets the government it deserves.
... in favor of what? Here's something very important to keep in mind. The "Esteemed Leaders" of the United States have come and gone. Some of them were idiots and assholes and corrupt sons of bitches. BUT Some of them were some of the best brightest and greatest men to ever walk on this planet. Unfortunately, it is sometimes not given to us to Separate The Wheat From The Chaff. One thing is certain, the United States system of government, even now, in what is likely it's most corrupt form, is STILL the very best FORM of government on the planet. BAR NONE.
Tyler, I suggest you stick to matters financial. The Constitution is fine, as mentioned many times in the comments-It is the people who are gradually warping it one step at a time. The best thing we could do is rein in the Judicial branch but as it is in the vested interest of our legal fraternity to not have that happen and as they happen to comprise our congress it is not likely to happen. As to our Constitution and form of government, it will not be long before we need to use guns and bullets and faith as did the folks in the 1700's to keep them. bluebear1914
I may be wrong in this interpretation but I believe that for any Federal law to be able to supercede state law, the Federal law must first be Constitutional.
Anyone who can read can see the original constitution sets forth clear limits on the power of government. If anything is to blame for us not following it, it is the will of the people. Democracy, which was also supposed to be limited in its power. But, all you have to do is scare people enough and lie to them enough and you can get them to amend or ignore the constitution. That is the lie. That democracy is somehow this great form of government that is synonymous with freedom.
NO government should betray it's people. NONE! The current regime has, and in the kindest terms should be tar and feathered. The vast lot of them are sell out bastards!
You can beat up on the Constitution of the United States of America all you want but I'm not buying your bullshit. That, and the Declaration of Independence define this country as a free nation and all of you doubters can kiss off! It's a real shame that our a lot govenrment are traitorous ass suckers. However when the SHTF there will likely be no one lending them a hand. Starve you bastards!
Once the 16th and 17th amendment were implemented and there was no revolt by the citizenry, there was no stopping the destruction of our sovereignty by the globalists and the "money changers".
Can't believe I forgot to add the Federal Reserve Act, I must be slippin'
OK, let's see. In 1871 in the midst of the chaos after the civil war...
The Act of 1871: The “United States” Is a Corporation – There are Two Constitutions
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm
http://www.federaljack.com/slavery-by-consent-the-united-states-corporat...
and this possible "disappearance"...the same year... http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2015/01/07/the-missing-13th-amendment/
And since (perhaps beginning in 1845) all courts have become Admiralty Courts. http://expose1933.weebly.com/3-gold-fringe-flag.html
Seems like Teddy Roosevelt really didn't bust the TRUSTS, they became Corporations!
You see it everywhere today, most of our our towns are incorporated, our churches are, businesses are, contract law everywhere.
Is this the best way to govern? Or to Live for that matter?
Contract law has it's place, admiralty law as well, but it has come to dominate everything by OUR CONSENT.
Does that mean everything after 1871 only pertains to the corporate entity or did we "consent" to add them to both?
Then there is the issue of the bankruptcy of the corporation in 1933.
http://expose1933.weebly.com/1-us-1933-bankruptcy.html
Looks murkey to me.
If true, I would say we have a constitutional crisis.
Full Article: http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html
Exerpt:
The Constitution was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our fore-fathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th Amendment...
The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose. The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..
A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:
The much vaunted "US Constitution" was just an early EU ploy to subjugate the sovereign States. The only President that ever applied "Checks and Balances" was Andrew Jackson, you know, that old White guy they want to replace on the twenty dollar bill with a Negress of some sort.
Anyway, Jackson refused to enforce US Supreme Court decisions prohibiting the movement of White;s into the deep southern states, which was Cherokee territory at the time. Since A. Lincoln, the Federal government and it's courts rule supreme, unchecked and unchallenged, defining the limits of its power. Eisenhower cemented the total power of Federal Courts by enforcing the Brown decision and since then the political parrots squawk "Law of the Land, Law of the Land". Total BS, The States originally exercised the right to nullify unjust laws or court decisions - no more.
The Founding Fuckups were plotters, successful plotters, who conned the States into surrending their independence - remember - before the US there was a Confederacy - a Continental Congress that could not compel any State to do a damn thing they didn't want to.
The Declaration Independence is full of Englighment hogwash - as has been pointed out the " right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness" is a basic fact, it may as well have said there is a right to eat, sleep, fornicate and whatever else your desires indicated.