$14.3 Quadrillion Lien Taken Against All U.S. Land, Real Estate and People on July 28, 2011 - Rubber Duck on Twitter
(twitter.com)
- CASTLE SALT -
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (78)
sorted by:
Our Republic is supposed to be a public entity. Known as a nation-state. Each state has powers under the Constitution, the Federal Government has designated powers under the Constitution. The Preamble states 'We The People' meaning the people, the public, is the government, and through republican mechanisms we elect people to represent us at the local, states and Federal level. It is all public.
When anything is incorporated it becomes private. So a city that incorporates is a private entity instead of a public entity. That is theft in my opinion. The government should be a public entity, meaning 'we the people' own it. The public as prescribed under the Constitution should be owned by the people.
So now our Republic at all levels is owned by private interests not the people.
Trump said during his 2017 inauguration speech he was giving the government back to the people. I hope all we've been through the last 6-7 years is the mechanism by which we are given back the Republic of 'We the People. We are the government in the end. Or we should be.
The question is under which statutes .... What is indeed thought off as public is actually nothing more than private. Just the fact that everybody is in on it, does not mean it has become public.
From a different perspective, a case can be made that public simply means: losing the turn, based on the root: pub.
I guess the statutes that allow incorporation. We the People are the public. The government we elect should serve us, but as you know they don't.
I've been researching this incorporation issue. I've gotten conflicting info. I just know what is going on know with the privatization of everything is just wrong at least at the government level.
If everything is in private hands, which I think includes the government, I believe that is Fascism.
Everything is contract. That is how I view it. Contracts may concern millions if not billions of people, but that does not make the contract public.
The rules governing contract may be based on on consensus relating to the protection of all the rights a man or woman retains under that contract, or not. In effect, it is still a contract.
The question who the contracting parties are ... is a more difficult question when it comes to more than one individual.
It would also presume a starting and end of a contract when a person is moving from one contract area to the next.
Then it becomes a question as to the nature of the contract, its contents. Can it be renegotiated? Or is it a matter of take it or leave it?
It seems like the Constitution as a contract is a nice piece of work, yet, who are the contracting parties? Especially given the fact that the framework has been altered.
Prudence, indeed, seem to dictate that making further adjustments and refinements to the contract, or pursuant to the contract, should be rare, especially when these have an enormous impact.
And, are then the voting system for representatives and the high burden of reaching a unconstitutional verdict at the supreme court sufficient means to protect the interest of those form whom the contract-scheme was set up to benefit?