We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The original John Locke documents upon which our government was based said:
Life, Liberty and Property
What the fuck is "Pursuit of Happiness" anyways? I mean, its flowery language. it has NO PURPOSE in a legal document. Saying "Property" on the other hand is very specific. Only a sovereign can own property. By not including that word, it allowed for us to not be seen as sovereign, even though it was intended that we were proclaiming exactly that.
The constitution amendment 5 from the bill of rights says:
nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So here we go back to Life, liberty and property, but it adds in the most important addendum from which all future fuckery stems.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This addition says, exactly and precisely this: "The government is a higher sovereign than any person."
The government was supposed to be an equal sovereign. There is no such things as a "Hierarchy of Sovereigns". Either a group of sovereigns are equal, i.e. they are all kings and queens, or they are not all sovereign.
In this case the design was all people are kings and queens of their own life, liberty, and property (and all other rights given to sovereigns). All equal, and all equal to the government. Not subordinate. A system where one sovereign is above the others is the same exact thing as saying there is only one sovereign, and everyone else is a vassel.
There can be no eminent domain laws in a group of equals. One sovereign can not legally go to another and demand their property. That is an act of war.
The Constitution is a document for the Federal Government to obey to prevent it from infringing on our GOD GIVEN rights.
I have no idea why you are saying this like I said something contrary to this.
Inalienable means Not Alien, as in, it can't be separated from us. Inalienable rights are with us from birth to death. We can willingly not use them, but they can never be taken away.
What government did the founding fathers have before they dreamed up the Federal Government?
They didn't dream up this Federal Government. This was far beyond what they imagined. It was exactly because this deviated from their intent that I posted what I did. It was an error in wording in the DoI that opened up the door for us to be less than Sovereign in the fifth amendment (which was not a part of the original Constitution i.e., not a part of the government as "dreamed up".)
As for your question, the first government was defined by the Articles of Confederation, which was a confederation of Sovereign States. It really still is.
What is wrong with our constitution?
The DoI says this:
The original John Locke documents upon which our government was based said:
What the fuck is "Pursuit of Happiness" anyways? I mean, its flowery language. it has NO PURPOSE in a legal document. Saying "Property" on the other hand is very specific. Only a sovereign can own property. By not including that word, it allowed for us to not be seen as sovereign, even though it was intended that we were proclaiming exactly that.
The constitution amendment 5 from the bill of rights says:
So here we go back to Life, liberty and property, but it adds in the most important addendum from which all future fuckery stems.
This addition says, exactly and precisely this: "The government is a higher sovereign than any person."
The government was supposed to be an equal sovereign. There is no such things as a "Hierarchy of Sovereigns". Either a group of sovereigns are equal, i.e. they are all kings and queens, or they are not all sovereign.
In this case the design was all people are kings and queens of their own life, liberty, and property (and all other rights given to sovereigns). All equal, and all equal to the government. Not subordinate. A system where one sovereign is above the others is the same exact thing as saying there is only one sovereign, and everyone else is a vassel.
There can be no eminent domain laws in a group of equals. One sovereign can not legally go to another and demand their property. That is an act of war.
I see what you are saying.
The Constitution is a document for the Federal Government to obey to prevent it from infringing on our GOD GIVEN rights.
It is not to GIVE us our rights. Our rights are un-a-lien-able meaning they cannot have a lien placed against them to prevent our having them.
What government did the founding fathers have before they dreamed up the Federal Government?
I can tell you, but I want to see if you know.
I have no idea why you are saying this like I said something contrary to this.
Inalienable means Not Alien, as in, it can't be separated from us. Inalienable rights are with us from birth to death. We can willingly not use them, but they can never be taken away.
They didn't dream up this Federal Government. This was far beyond what they imagined. It was exactly because this deviated from their intent that I posted what I did. It was an error in wording in the DoI that opened up the door for us to be less than Sovereign in the fifth amendment (which was not a part of the original Constitution i.e., not a part of the government as "dreamed up".)
As for your question, the first government was defined by the Articles of Confederation, which was a confederation of Sovereign States. It really still is.
The American States Assembly, i.e. America Unincorporated:
https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org/
https://recorder.americaunincorporated.org/home
Yes, it really still is the government the founding fathers had.