In this thread I said:
Even the Constitution and DoI were inherently flawed. They have loopholes put in, I think by Banker influences (Hamilton e.g.), that allowed for future fuckery. We need a new country, or perhaps I should say, a new Government (which means a new Constitution). There is no other way.
Someone asked me:
What is wrong with the constitution.
Here is my response.
The DoI says this:
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 which are the philosophical basis for our government 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 (hint, you don't own your property, the bank does, even if your mortgage is paid off). 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 that time, 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 or inalienable). 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 when it is among sovereigns, but is an act of sovereign right, when proclaimed on a vassal.
The constitution allowed for this sovereign right in only one direction. We are vassals to the government. That is the root of all removal of rights that has occurred since (and there have been many).
I have studied this issue, too. I am not sure if they oaths people take to the Constitution extend to the DoI. They probably do, but it is ignored. The Constitution is also ignored for the most part and they follow statutory law implemented by the British Accredited Registry (BAR).
I am probably preaching to the choir here, but...
The DoI also says we are endowed with Natural Law rights. To me, this is critical.
I've been meaning to delve into the position of Clarence Thomas and Natural Law. It seems he is a big proponent of it.
Search "clarence thomas natural law".
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/when-judges-believe-in-natural-law/283311/
https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v12n2/12RegentULRev471.pdf
Mark Passio explains Natural Law very well in his eight hour seminar of the same name.
I will argue that certain groups and people do not honor Natural Law, so they forfeit their Constitutional protections. For example, satanists, pagans, people who practice witchcraft and wicca, etc. all honor unnatural law, so they forfeit their Constitutional rights. I have not seen any BAR attorney make this argument for some reason.
I'm a lawfag, and I do know that people in the legal profession are not keen on Natural Law or Common Law. The want the statutory law of the Crown instead.
That's because it is not taught in law schools (anymore).
They are exactly the same as doctors. Both professions are taught a bastardized verison of the real thing, and then after a few generations, it is the blind leading the blind.
Both professions are made up mostly of people who can memorize facts to pass a test, but have no intellectual curiosity, and do not care about learning truth beyond what they are spoon-fed by others in their "profession." That needs to change. For both of these groups.
I was always taught in school that the discrepancy between Locke and the DoI has to do with the fact that many Anglo gentlemen equated property with happiness because owning property was a status symbol which would attract suitable women and thus bring happiness through marriage. This was written into the Virginian Constitution which makes up most of the life blood of the DoI and the Constitution.
Later I found that this desire for land land rights is not so much Greco-Roman in origin but Celtic, Germanic and Norse. Many people in those northern lands were subsistence farmers and so the average man's measure was whether or not he could feed his people where as in the Mediterranean, because of their metropolitan lifestyle, land was more commonly divided out by the state and leading class for the benefit of people as a whole with the metropolitan elite taking precedent. In other words a kind of communism. This is the style that many barbarian (non-greco-roman) rulers would use to consolidate power in the middle ages. France and Poland are good examples of this. During the middle ages you can essentially say that most political issues were caused by the landed gentry defending their family lands against the power of a foreign king and the centralized state. Most kings were going after the Roman model of governorship which pissed off the local landed men who, in some cases, might have had that land for hundreds of years.
This is a huge reason why communism is in opposition to the American and capitalist model. It's designed to keep foreign rulers out by guaranteeing the local elites their property and means of resisting foreign encroachment. Communism is essentially the response from the aristocrat backed intellectuals. It's a way to get the "peasants" so to speak to rise up against the people that they chose to run them. The king went to his wise men and the wise man was a dumbass named Marx.
America expanded the concept and gave the people living and working for the local elites through popular sovereignty and natural law. I was taught that natural law is also inherent in the founding documents. A bear, when attacked will fight back. A frog, when provoked will attempt to save itself. This is natural. This was created by God and inherent in nature. It is unnatural to deny the reality of this. This is why the 2nd Amendment exists. Popular sovereignty is more complex. I think(I can't remember off the top of my head) that it was Thomas Hobbs who created the concept of popular sovereignty in his book "The Leviathan". In it he imagines a grotesque creature made up of the bodies of other people and which move according to their collective will. He then compares this monstrosity to a government. Governments only exist if enough people can summon this monster. To summon it you need to have enough people on the same line of thinking. We, in America expanded this concept by allowing more people to select who they want in positions. If you're in a small town you understand this. You might know the school board supervisor or the man on the chamber of commerce. You probably had a chance to pick many of the people in those positions.
You would be correct.
Wrong. The concepts were well-understood by the founders, and the specific language to be used was discussed and debated. "Pursuit of happiness" includes a number of things, with the right to property being among those things. Jefferson's first draft had "life, liberty, and property," if I remember correctly.
He borrowed this language from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason (the true intellectual founder of America). But the Declaration committee changed to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," which necessarily includes property rights.
The rest of your rant goes on to say that the Constitution specifically says "property." So, which is it? Pursuit of happiness is bad language but property is good language -- which the Constitution includes, but which has also been ignored.
The FUNDAMENTAL problem is that there are people in this world that do not believe in the concept of FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, that exist ABOVE government.
The Declaration was supporting the idea that fundamental rights exist ABOVE government, and the Constitution supports that idea. So, people like us "get it."
But there are those who actually think that ALL rights come FROM government edict. Those are the blood thirsty communists and collectivists of all stripes.
They are the problem, not America's founding documents.
It may have been intended to include property rights (though I do not believe that, but I will concede the possibility) but without it being explicitly stated, it allows for it to not be seen as such in future debate.
I don't disagree with this statement, but it is not relevant here. The purpose of a constitution (foundational lawful document) is to make clear the lawful powers and purposes of the body it incorporates. In this case, the document incorporates a sovereign entity that is made up of an equal group of sovereigns.
The rights that exist above government can only be clearly understood in future legislation (and as a power against future fuckery which will always happen) if it is clear in the documents founding the government that all members are sovereign. If it is less than clear, by putting in flowery language that can be ambiguous, like "pursuit of Happiness" (regardless of your protestations without evidence) than that leaves the door open for future fuckery, which is exactly what happened.
I am not arguing that was the intent. I am saying it failed to do so due to a flaw in the language. An ambiguity (which it IS) which allows for future misinterpretation of those ideas you are stating.
Agreed. That's the main reason for the problems we see today but...
Wrong. Both are the problem. One allows the other to happen, and it will always happen if there is a loophole that allows it to happen.
If pursuit of Happiness was replaced with Property in the DoI then the rights of sovereigns to own property would be explicitly stated. ONLY sovereigns can own property. Right or wrong, that is fundamental in all societies going back many millennia. Regardless of what Natural Law may say about it, Common Law makes that clear. Sovereigns can own property, vassals can be allowed to use it, and pass it on to their children, but they must pay a tax on it (to their sovereign), and they must give it back to the sovereign if the sovereign asks for it back at any time.
Exactly as the fifth amendment makes law.
Why don't you do some research? Find out for yourself, rather than leaving it a mystery. Do you want to know the TRUTH, or not?
Dude, you should read the Declaration of Independence all the way through. You seem to think it is something it is not.
It was a document to declare independence of the 13 colonies, declaring that they would henceforth be recognized as 13 nations in the world, on equal footing with the other nations of the world ("... the separate and equal station ..."). That purpose was stated in the first sentence. It then went on to explain the reasons for the separation. That's what it was. Nothing more, nothing less.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ... a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Everything that comes after that must be understood within the context of the first sentence.
The reason that things have gone off the rails is not because a different word or phrase would have prohibited tyrants from doing what tyrants do. It has gone off the rails because tyrants have done what they do, no matter what the language says. As the traitor George W. Bush said, "The Constitution is just a god damn piece of paper." That says it, in a nutshell.
The words themselves are not the issue. Undertand the words behind the ideas -- on both sides.
If you know something, or have evidence to support your claims, then present the evidence. I have done so much research its ridiculous. You have made a claim that I am incorrect. You are attempting to support your claim by telling me that I have not done research. That is not evidence, but a fallacy of argument (and in this case also a non-truth). If you would like to support your claim, it is incumbent upon you to present evidence. I assert I am correct until such evidence is presented and can be debated.
False. It was ALSO a declaration of sovereignty of citizens. If YOU would like to do some research, you should look to John Locke, who was the primary philosophical inspiration for both documents where, with the exception of the two places I have pointed out, sovereignty of citizens was clearly stated. That is why those two points are so important, because they deviate so clearly from the idea of sovereignty.
I think its important that you look more at the fifth amendment than the DoI. I tried to make that clear, but perhaps I did not. The DoI does not make a statement of "not sovereign." it leaves the door open for future fuckery by not making an explicit statement of property ownership, where full ownership rights only belong to a sovereign. It is within the fifth amendment that the real fuckery happens, where it states clearly that citizens are not sovereign, but vassals to the sovereign government.
Declaring sovereignty IS in the same context. How could you possibly see it as otherwise?
True, all the way up until the end. Then, totally and completely wrong.
Whatever else they do illegally, the Luciferians do everything they can to use loopholes in the wording to do their evil. If you look at laws, every law is strictly defined by the words used. If you want to find their fuckery, look at the way they use words. Words are EVERYTHING to them.
For example, what is the Federal Reserve Bank? It is not Federal, it holds nothing in Reserve, and its not a Bank.
It's called the Federal Reserve Bank to Own the world by being exactly the opposite of what it says it is, and it pulls it all off because words matter. None of the masses understand that the Fed is not Federal at all, but a privately owned legal monopoly of the worlds economy. And how did it become a legal monopoly? By more word fuckery. How did the IRS become the tax arm of the Fed? By more word fuckery. It also is not a part of the government, nor a part of the Treasury, except as a legal agent of that institution. And how does it pull off that con? Because words fucking matter.
Words are spells. You cast spells by using words. You use specific words in a specific order with specific definitions and you create the entire world. That is how our system of laws is defined, and how the entirety of the structure of world is defined and runs.
Once you get to any other code of law other than Natural Law, words are everything. Definitions are everything. The choice of words are everything. Words are the world.