And suddenly demoncrats and leftists care about the CONSTITUTION!
Nice move in 5D-Chess!
(twitter.com)
🧠 STABLE GENIUS 🧠
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
No it is not a FOUNDING document in the same sense as The Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights or the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution is a replacement for the Articles of Confederation. Further the current name of the document is different from the original one.
The question then becomes: under what contract are you c.q under what contract do you want to be.
I think given the international "bankruptcies" of several U.S.A. Inc versions, meaning, restructurings, it is fair to say a new constituting of the USA is required.
With is in mind, it is interesting to contemplate the digitization push on the wings of your Social Security. This, in my view, pushes everyone into a different kind of contract, which, just like apple, google, and any online business does, is rather unilateral without "real" contracting going on. Before you know it, your will be sucked into a new trust-type arrangement where you are the trustee, and thus bearing the brunt of the fulfillment of their wishes while they are the executors and beneficiaries.
I would recommend everybody to review 2 items of daily use: computer devices and government services.
First step would be to get the computer devices under your control. This puts linux and FOSS/GPL to the forefront, the same as with LineageOS+dGoogled.
Second step would be to divorce yourself from the UCC-contract-system and learn howto resume your station as a sovereign.
Bill of Rights is PART OF the Constitution.
The Constitution is most definately ONE OF the "founding documents." Today, it is the #1 most important because IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, and not the other founding documents.
In law, the title is IRRELEVANT.
The "Bank Secrecy Act," for example, has a good-sounding title, but the title HAS NO LEGAL EFFECT. The actual words within are what matters, and those words are actually anti-secrecy in banking.
FUCK. NO.
That is the WORST idea anyone could come up with. Reality is that Soros and those types would get [their people] writing it, and it would DESTROY your rights.
We need to uphold the Constitution. Period.
If you really think that is a good way to go, then tell us your successes and how you did it.
Yes. The argument is not whether or not it is incorporated at a later time into the Constitution, or whether it is " the law of the land" or not, but whether the Constitution is of the same type of founding document. As I showed you, when you change the name, you change the contract. And in terms of time, 1776 vs 1791 is quite a stretch a time.
It is quite clear your emotion is strong.
Only if your owe allegiance to, or wish to owe allegiance to it. But it is basically besides the point. The point is: That contract is not in operation. Or have you forgotten that even a State of Texas did not have standing? Why is that? Think and leave your emotion for another issue.
Reconstitution is from the ground up. I did not say: rewrite the constitution. Reconstitution is geared towards to the STATE of the compact that SHOULD have been there to bring it into being once again. People -> County -> States -> Federal.
Apart from breaking the compact/ contract, There are other ways to make it void. By contract. The nucleus of this particular issue is not addressed in your response.
Now why would I waste pearls before swines? Or do you think of me as one of those who float balloons, instead of walking the walk according to the talk? Irrespective of that, I am free, you are not. Study and go for it.
Pro tip: A writer's opinion of his readers tells us all we need to know about whether to take him seriously. That decision couldn't have been made any easier, thanks
Cherry picking at best. How about context? But do not strain your brain, please. It all comes down to logical fallacies, anyway.
Your comments noted.
I don't like my SSN. Trying to minimize use of it.