Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!

Rally in Boise this week, Thursday, January 18, 2018, noon

Changing the US Constitution?

Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!

By Shari Dovale

The US Constitution is a masterful work. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote this document.

And, It IS the Supreme Law of the land!

However, there are many progressives that would like to see this document scrapped and changed to suit a more Socialist agenda.

That is where the Article V Convention comes into play.

Do not be fooled. This is exactly what the proposed Convention would do… change the Constitution to better suit the communist agenda.

The 6 proposed amendments are laid out in a book by Justice John Paul Stevens, titled “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

    1. The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
    2. Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.
    3. Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
    4. Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.
    5. Death Penalty– (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.
    6. The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

In future articles, we will explore more about these proposed amendments, and the Article V Convention that the progressive establishment is trying to force down the throats of Americans.

For now, let’s talk about a rally in Boise this week to protest this really bad idea.

On the steps of the Statehouse, citizens from both sides of the aisle will come together to protest the proposed convention. This is a non-partisan issue! People everywhere recognize the disaster in the making, and how it will only benefit the government elite, not the citizens.

We must stop this from happening! Tell your legislators that they represent YOU, and you do NOT want this convention!

Thursday, January 18, 2018, noon

Please be there if you can.

Anti-Convention of States Rally

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

31 Comments on Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!

  1. Shari, I concur with your assessment of an Article 5 Convention. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

    Sheriff Daryl Wheeler

  2. I have been a volunteer with the Convention of States in Texas for two years and I have never seen the abobe proposed amendments. Please visit Conventionofstates.com to learn more. An Article 5 Convention of States (COS) must be called by Congress upon the application of 3/4ths of the States. Because Congress refuses to aggregate applications that are dissimilar, it is clear that the States may apply for a convention for limited purposes, as Texas has done last year. Once a convention is called, the States have authority to limit their delegates to fulfilling the purposes for which the convention was called. Additionally, the people (or their representatives) will effectively hold the delegates accountable when voting on proposed amendments. I support a limited Convention of States to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, to impose fiscal restraints and to set term limits.

    • I must say, having been Tea Party since before it had a name… this is the first time Mark Levin has been lumped into a ‘progressive’ boat.
      For those that wonder of the connection, he’s very active on Article 5. Also for anyone who doesn’t know who Levin is, (in case you are a conservative that’s been under a rock), his knowledge of the founding fathers is amazing. But for sure, even during a few topics I don’t agree with him about, labeling him a in a boat of ‘progressives’ might be a little comical.

    • @ Diane Barnes, Then you are either ignorant, being lied to, or lying yourself.

      “Once a convention is called, the States have authority to limit their delegates to fulfilling the purposes for which the convention was called”

      No, they can suggest they do not do so under penalty of law, and then LOCK THEM UP once it has been changed. Or, want to strike some fear into their hearts, make it the death penalty for their treasonous actions.

      But, when they re-write it, the “state” that existed when those laws were made will no longer (lawfully) exist, so there really is NO WAY to hold them accountable for their actions.

      NO to a convention, particularly when the people who serve within our governments are so corrupt (at ALL levels), and there is no real way to hold them accountable because once re-written a new government will exist if they so want it to be.

      You want an honest government? It is time to start actually holding them accountable for their actions while serving. The traitors need to be charged with their crimes against the American people, the US Constitution and each state’s constitution. Prosecuted and then the sentencing carried out – and not that “luxury” prison.

      Lets test you to see how aware of what our legitimate government is? Be honest with yourself, as you will be the only one reading your answers, unless you want to post them here.

      Who is the Militia?
      Why is a Militia in each state constitutionally required?
      What are the duties of the Militia?
      What is a Grand Jury Investigation, and whose tool is it to use, call forth, etc?
      What is a Grand Jury, and whose tool is it? Who can call forth a Grand Jury?
      When is a US President the Commander in Chief? Is it only then?

      What is a Treaty and who must be involved in its creation? Can a Treaty go against the US Constitution? Can it then (treaty not in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution) be used to create un-constitutional binding agreements on the American people and this nation?

      Can a person become a US President if they do NOT meet the constitutionally REQUIRED requirements? Even if they get 100% of the vote?

      Can a person who is serving within our government give the authority that is assigned to the named office within a branch that they occupy give/sell/trade/etc that authority to another within the same branch or to one who serves within another branch or named office within a branch?

      What branch is the US military under? Can those of the highest rank make any decisions LAWFULLY that go beyond the US Constitution because they have control of soldiers with weapons, etc? Can a soldier follow an unconstitutional order? Should they? Does the Oath that the military takes that binds them to support and defend the US Constitution mean that they should KNOW the US Constitution?

      Who is responsible when we are in unlawful wars? Why is that/those offices within a branch responsible?

      Etc

      • The check that balances the government and the people (2 distinct divisions of the whole people) is the common law trial by jury due process system of holding each individual accountable for actions done by each individual; no matter which group, division, or part of the whole people the individual belongs. That means that anyone claiming to be above the law is someone confessing their position outside the law. That means that a “Federal Judiciary” placed above the common law is inculpatory evidence proving the fact that the criminals have taken over in America, replacing the common law, trial by the country, trial by jury, the law of the land, with a counterfeit, “summary” justice, presumption of guilt, “plea bargaining,” dictatorial, tyrannical, counterfeit, copy.

    • This is so sad. In place to this day are – at least – references (Bill of Rights) to the power commanded by the people as a whole (undivided) to check and balance anything imposed by a tyrannical government power: the (true) law of the land, which is trial by the country, which is trial by jury according to the common law. Why are people ignoring the tried and true solution to the problem known as tyranny? Why are people being led to false solutions that give all the power to the tyrants, as if it is a given that only the tyrants themselves have authority to judge themselves: judges, juries, and executioners of their own, exclusive, laws that are enforced upon their victims, and ignored by their own?

  3. I’m still trying to figure out how the 17th Amendment was passed despite the last clause of article 5. That was a structural protection, like federalism or separation of powers. The state must consent to be deprived of its equal suffrage so the states who didn’t consent are not bound by the amendment. The state is not synonymous with the people of the state otherwise, those various terms wouldn’t appear separately in such a well drafted document. God bless the Wheeler clan! God bless redoubtnews! God bless the United States of America! PS the parental rights . Org proposed amendment will give parental rights to the feds. Oppose that initiative as well.

  4. What they should do is hold a very serious but mock constitutional convention and come up with amendments to fix the holes. Nullifying or otherwise limiting the imperial judiciary. Clarifying the commerce clause, 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments at a minimum. Creating some actual nullificaiton process. Then let the process run its course.

  5. The Fed is in a madcap adventure of self aggrandizement, at war with every single check and balance in it’s original charter. It ignores or subverts every declaratory and restrictive clause in the Bill of Rights. If it is in headlong violation of every founding principle – and it is – why would it pay any attention to a new set of strictures or amendments, as proposed by this article 5 convention ? It won’t. As far as any disclaimer about limiting the scope of this convention, bon chance. Once convened, mission creep is sure to set in, pushed by the socialist/progressive/communist delegates from California, New Jersey etc. NO ! lets make up our minds to live and breathe original intent. Rather than any attempt to reform Mordor on the Potomac, the little recognized fourth check and balance must come into play – the States resolute assertion of their 10A perogatives.

  6. We only need to use and enforce the original document and all the aforementioned problems would be solved. A Convention of States would surely bring the electoral college up and if lost we would be under mob rule if lost ( communism). As for term limits it could be handled by a Ballot Initiative. Our constitution has all needed to take care of the problems if we demanded it.

  7. Where were you in 1789 when the criminal slave traders changed the federal constitution?

    The law of the land was, and is, the common law: NOT the National (which isn’t federal in any sense of the word) Constitution of 1787/89. The Nationalists took over and made Slavery “legal” for them to perpetrate, and that was done at a time when the true federal minded, law of the land minded, peaceful minded, defenders of liberty publicly acknowledged the fact that slavery was a crime “against nature itself,” and steps were taken to defend the innocent victims of slavery.

    The “convention” system of fraud was the process used by the nationalist slave traders to turn the United States (plural) into a Corporate Nation State (singular), and a second “convention” is not likely to reestablish, or acknowledge the true law of the land (common law), nor is a second “convention” likely to result in a return to a federation of independent states, returning from a singular, monopoly, corporate, Nation State.

    The first “convention” placed the innocent people of America in the frying pan. A second “convention” is “legal” according to the slave trading document (Constitution of 1787/89), and a second “convention” is likely to result in all the innocent people in America going from the frying pan into the fire. The second “convention” could be used to eliminate the parts of the fraudulent Constitution of 1787/89 that were placed in place to maintain the color of law, such as The Bill of Rights, and any references to common law due process.

    Article 1, Section 3

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    The supreme law of the land will be dictatorship without our employment of our moral common law due process; which advises us to maintain specific principles, such as the presumption of innocence in cases where an accuser has set in motion due process involving someone, even a president, or congressman, or lawyer, or prosecutor, or judge, of wrongful action that causes injury to innocent victims.

  8. I also am familiar with Mark Levine’s position and have his book. But I’ve since come to a similar conclusion as the author of this article.

    An Article V Convention fails on several simple points:

    1. The Bundy trial and its dismissal clearly documents that individuals in federal office are ignoring the Constitutional restrictions on government RIGHT NOW. Why in the world would they start to abide by the Constitution if even tighter Constitutional restrictions on government are added? This problem can not be solved by sending more bureaucrats to meetings (conventions) to speak for us.

    2. What we call the Constitutional Convention was originally formed for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Article of Confederation. Sound familiar? They returned from this meeting with an entire new government! Why would this time be any different? For an overview and theological perspective see Gary North “Conspiracy in Philadelphia” and its bibliography as a starting point.

    3. I’ve seen some anarcho-capitalists quote Spooner in criticizing the Constitution “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” – Lysander Spooner. These people fail to realize that the enemies of freedom plan far ahead. They have oppressive laws written ready for a crisis. They have new constitutions written (one of which I’ve found), ready for a crisis. “Patriots” who propose abandoning the constitution because they believe it has failed them will only serve to splinter support for freedom. We could have Constitutional government back by midnight tonight if WE all took a page from the Bundy’s.

    • I’m not sure what is (or is not) an anarcho-capitalist, but the work of Lysander Spooner didn’t stop at “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,” he also wrote (around the time period of the so called Civil War) An Essay on The Trial by Jury.
      _________________________________
      There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.

      These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.

      If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States – that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights – it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced.
      _________________________________

      Knowing these facts (actionable knowledge) concerning the crimes of jury tampering upon the American people since 1789, and seeing in our time today that a jury can still acquit innocent people tortured by tyrants, as in the Bundy cases, why then are people not able to see the palladium of liberty staring right in their faces? Who needs another “convention?” Why not return to the common law on offense, rather than be subjected to having only common law defense? What is clearly needed is not a “convention,” and what is clearly needed are more capable jurors, including grand jurors, whose knowledge includes the knowledge required to act upon lawful accusations against tyrants.

      • Ya’ll don’t know how long I have been waiting for someone to actually bring Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” into an actual thread.

        There is a very important fact about that work to refute it; by refuting it I mean Spooner goes above and beyond to misconstrue the facts of the creation of the Constitution; there is no excuse for that since Spooner published “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” in 1867 and James Madison’s “The Notes of the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787” was published in the early 1840’s.

        It is a twisted circumstance, because there is still value in “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” because it helps a person think about how they obligated to government.

        First, Spooner’s wrong headed claim:
        “And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract – the Constitution – made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.” – “No Treason”

        That is a very specific and very wrong claim by Spooner; it is wrong on two counts:
        1) In “The Notes of the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison” on the last day of the Convention there was much debate over whether to have people sign it or not. They did NOT want their signatures to be viewed as contractual nor in the same vein as the signatures on the Declaration of Independence.

        Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…He remarked that the signing in the form proposed related only to the fact that the States present were unanimous.”

        Mr. WILLIAMSON “suggested that the signing should be confined to the letter accompanying the Constitution to Congress, which might perhaps do nearly as well, and would he found be satisfactory to some members who disliked the Constitution.”

        Mr. INGERSOL “did not consider the signing, either as a mere attestation of the fact, or as pledging the signers to support the Constitution at all events; but as a recommendation, of what, all things considered, was the most eligible.”

        …this is just a few quotes from the last day…the whole transcript and debate over signing is worth reading:
        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_917.asp

        2) It was not the signing of the Constitution which made it the Supreme Law of the Land; it was the unanimous Ratification by the 13 States which did so.

        Those facts expose Spooner’s slight of the creation of the Constitution.

        • Boyd White curiously references the work of James Madison.

          James Madison was a pro-slave trading “Constitution” man during the crime that turned the federation into a corporate nation state. That crime scene is documented on the official record to this day, so the need to reference anything else, other than the hands firmly recorded – on the official record – in the cookie jar are not needed, yet Boyd White does reference James Madison’s “The Notes of the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787,” which will afford the reader of that work a measure of evidence concerning what went on in those closed door, secret (gag orders issued), “convention” of representatives from 12 Nation States.

          Rhode Island refused to attend: they smelled a rat. The fact that Rhode Island refused to attend nullified any proposed changes to the existing Federation of States under the common law, and under The Articles of Confederation. The Nationalists went ahead and broke the statute that gave them authority anyway.

          James Madison soon jumped from the Nationalist ship to form an anti-nationalist group calling themselves the Democratic Republican Party. James Madison along with Thomas Jefferson published The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which clearly express specific crimes perpetrated by the Nationalists.

          As to the claims (accusations) made against Lysander Spooner, the claims that to me amount to libel, the accused won’t get his lawful remedy in that case. For one thing Spooner is long gone, and for another thing the Nationalists have been stacking juries since 1789.

          • ad hominem: 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

            What I referred to in my previous comment were documented quotes from Lysander Spooner and James Madison’s notes; so when you engage in ad hominem attacks on James Madison and my self without addressing the positions taken in my comment you have really done…nothing but attack.

            And now to address your position that there was a real crime committed by the implementation of the Constitution.

            “X. The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.” – Articles of Confederation

            So, nine states being delegated authority has precedence in the Articles of Confederation; there is a tacit recognition of that precedence in the U.S. Constitution:

            “Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

            That sounds like a fairly legal transition; including the fact all 13 States, including Rhode Island, DID ratify the Constitution. Though I would not call it smooth since five of the thirteen had vote tallies in the negative over 40% in their State Ratifying conventions.

            To clarify, I am more an Anti-Federalist than a Federalist…and I have great esteem in general for Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority”…but where it is wrong it is wrong as I tried to show with the facts.

            And to help you out from an Anti-Federalist point of view, this clause was in an early draft of the Constitution:

            Federal Convention 1787
            Monday, August 20. In Convention
            “The U.S. shall be for ever considered as one Body corporate and politic in law, and entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities, which to Bodies corporate do or ought to appertain.”

            You don’t have to guess or make wild, light or transient interpretations about the corporate nature of what the Framers were doing…even though that clause did not make it into the final draft…corporatism was clearly on their mind.

  9. Libel Exhibit A:

    “Spooner goes above and beyond to misconstrue the facts of the creation of the Constitution; there is no excuse for that since Spooner published “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” in 1867…”

    The above is hyperbole and ad-hominem. The libeler may have failed to actually understand the work of Lysander Spooner, and rather than find out who is actually guilty of misconstruing the readily available information, said libeler goes on the attack, whereby the victim of the attack is claimed to be failing an intelligence test of some kind, a test offered by the libeler after the target of the libeler has already been in the grave for over a century.

    Then said libeler goes from ad-hominem to hyperbole with the additional false claim that his victim had “no excuse” for the fake crime of misconstruing an intelligence test offered to the victim by the victimizer.

    The tester (libeler) offering the test to the victim (Lysander Spooner) apparently assumes dictatorial powers as judge, jury, and executioner concerning what is, or is not, a lawful document: such as in this case a contract, or “Constitution.”

    The actual jury is still out on this, so the law of the land, which is trial by the country, has yet to try the case. None-the-less, said libeler speaks for someone, or some group, with an air, or a color, of authority.

    Apparently the libeler has claimed – in so many ambiguous words – that the target of the libel is guilty of misconstruing the Slave Trading Constitution with a “contract.” If it is not a contract, what is it?

    Proof of this crime of “misconstruing,” according to the libeler is that those Slave Traders who didn’t want the Pro-Slave Trading Constitution signed, were against signing it, for some stated, or covered-up reasoning.

    Example:

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS “…He remarked that the signing in the form proposed related only to the fact that the States present were unanimous.”

    Again, in defense of actual law, and in defense against further deception, the confession exists in that quote. All the States were not represented during the closed, secret, gag orders issued, conspiracy to throw out the voluntary mutual defense association – federation – and replace it with a slave trading, central banking fraud, war mongering, Nation State, and since all the States were not present the said Pro-Slavery Constitution was null and void as it sat; without signatures, or with signatures.

    Signing the Pro-Slavery Constitution – as a matter of fact – identifies the conspirators for their conspiracy. George Mason refused to sign it.

    George Mason:

    “Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

    George Mason:

    “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

    As to the actual crime perpetrated – on the official record no less – by the Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, and others in the first “Convention:”

    “Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

    One of the most important requirements demanded by those representatives in most of the states was that their consent was as powerful as the consent of any other state. Rhode Island refused to attend the conspiracy, on many grounds, and therefore the crime here is that all the other representatives in the other 12 states who signed the Pro-Slave Trading document were willfully perpetrating a crime against the will of those who agreed to form the original, grass-roots, organic federation on that specific, demanded, condition of equal protection under the law: consent.

    If the libeler misconstrues this fact, unknowingly, out of ignorance, that is one thing. If the libeler knows this fact, and attempts to further deceive other people, then that is all together different. The responsibility of knowing better is born by each individual.

    • Well, I see you are an informed wild cat for sure. And I could write a reply as long as yours but we are about at the point where we are just pointing at each other without making progress.

      Your tenacity over claiming the U.S. Constitution is a pro-slave trading piece of work can’t be argued against since slavery was not abolished and that shows you have a shred of integrity.

      I will also, in light of disclosure, also admit that James Madison’s “The Notes of the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787” has come into question since it is a compilation of his notes and other members and further evidence indicates he manipulated the final outcome…and I’m sure you will like this…to make his own (Madison’s) pro-slavery stance disappear from the notes.

      “Madison’s Hand” by Mary Sarah Bilder
      https://www.amazon.com/Madisons-Hand-Revising-Constitutional-Convention-ebook/dp/B0168A8RJG

      So we have to be intelligent and relay and test ideas; rather than concentrate of who said this or who said that. Of all the quotes in the world…how can we with complete veracity claim that was actually said or that translations are accurate.

      I would disagree the Constitution created Central Banking…the first monetary act was the Mint Act of 1792 and is it a very specific document; including the death penalty for debasing of U.S. Coins. No bank was created by the Constitution.

      And I will stand by what I have laid out that the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution was legal; the dearth of outcry during the period, which a person who think would be a major cry of the Anti-Federalists, suggests that to claim the transition was a crime is a contrived ex-post facto argument.

      And I will stand by the claim that the notes from the last day of the Convention of 1787 and the fact all 13 States did Ratify the Constitution…completely counters Spooner’s claim the Constitution is a contract in any way shape or form.

    • I would also like to point out that by 1787 the Articles of Confederation could not even obtain a quorum to do business. That is why the Federal Convention of 1787 was called. There was a reason the FedCon was called…it was not done arbitrarily or for light and transient reasons.

      To suggest that the Articles of Confederation is superior to the U.S. Constitution places us right back to the fact…the AoC could not even obtain a quorum to do business…and the States were at one another’s throats.

      • The “facts” according to Boyd White versus the official record (court of record in common law terms) can be a method of gathering evidence for individuals who may want to know better.

        Example:

        Luther Martin

        “The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

        “But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.”

        Those are the words of someone who was at the first Con Con Con Job.

        Compare that to the offering offered by Boyd White.

        • Lol, okay, we get it…the secrecy during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was not universally approved…but what in Hades does that have to do with these two ideas I have posted?

          And I will stand by what I have laid out that the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution was legal since all 13 States DID ratify it; the dearth of outcry during the period concerning the criminality, which a person who think would be a major cry of the Anti-Federalists, suggests that to claim the transition was a crime or a “Con Job” is a contrived ex-post facto argument.

          And I will stand by the claim that the notes from the last day of the Convention of 1787 and the fact all 13 States did Ratify the Constitution…completely counters Spooner’s claim the Constitution is a contract in any way shape or form.

  10. If fraud is legal, then what else can be claimed as legal: slavery? I have a very hard time listening to people who patently justify every kind of evil on a nebulous “legal” authority they imagine themselves, or are told to “believe” because some how, some way, some time, some one once said this or that crime is legal, and therefore justified.

    All moral people have a hard time with this type of rationalization, covering-up, aiding and abetting, criminal acts perpetrated by criminals with (or without) badges.

    All immoral people require this type of fraud, this type of excuse, this type of fake justification, this type of covering-up of their crimes, but only because there are moral people. If there were no moral people then eating babies for fun, or harvesting babies for profit, would be no different than sitting down in a chair.

    All amoral people sit on an imaginary fence put in place by immoral people, and maintained by amoral people, and maintained by immoral people, so as to prevent any action taken that causes moral people to volunteer to work effectively for their own defense against immoral people, and their amoral counterparts.

    That is why I have a hard time with those people who actually work at “justifying” the crimes perpetrated by the extremely immoral people.

    Jefferson – in the first draft to the Declaration of Independence – offered the following (cryptic) message:

    “he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

    Thomas Jefferson also entered into the official record (common law court of record) the following confession concerning why the indictment against African Slavery was taken out of the Declaration of Independence. Also, the Declaration of Independence is Statute #1, a common law document, recording (in a common law court of record) a declaration of Mixed War against the British aggressor criminals. Statute #1 for the voluntary mutual defense association – federation – of independent states under the common law.

    “The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

    The closed door, gag ordered, secret, nefarious, deceptive, extortive, coup d’état, crime scene is only called a “Constitutional Convention” so as to cover-up, “justify,” “legalize,” “legitimize,” a crime scene whereby those who profit from crime are then able to accomplish the task of weakening the people in the states that were moral: and against slavery. What does augmentation mean: as in the warning by the founder of the Bill of Rights George Mason’s words: “augmentation of slaves”?

    It means this:

    “Part of Garrison’s opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed “the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools.” Phillips argued that this experience proved “that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery.”

    That from this:

    Garrison’s Constitution
    The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made

    Winter 2000, Vol. 32, No. 4
    By Paul Finkelman

    So called Liberals, Progressives, and those on the so called Left may call harvesting babies stolen from moral parents by so called Child Protective Services legal today. How is that any different than a so called “Federalist” in 1787 calling their Slave Trading “Constitution” legal?

    So…today someone claims that the “founding fathers” were one group of like minded people, all of which were in favor of a Constitutional Convention so as to legally, lawfully, justify the removal of the existing federation and putting in place a corporate Nation State Dictatorship. That is a lie made out of either ignorance or malice.

    So in the future the people looking back at us today may claim that everyone was 100 percent behind the founders of the new “Constitution,” and whatever may be in that new “Constitution” is “legal” because we all agreed to it, or some other pretend justification? All those against it here and now are sent to the memory hole?

    There isn’t any room here to explain to you, or anyone else, the actual law, which is the common law, whereby the entire country is represented by 12 randomly selected people, in tribunals concerning any conflict, and unanimity is required before any action is taken to restore the victim, or redeem the criminal, in a case where the whole country, through the jury, unanimously determines that the individual criminal, in that case, has perpetrated a crime.

    If, on the other hand, the paper here says that eating babies is OK, well, then let them eat babies.

    • Your comment is a prime example why thinking can be dangerous. How we got from talking about Lysander Spooner to eating babies is quite a mind warp.

      Ok, take a deep breath and say, “The U.S. Constitution is legal BECAUSE ALL 13 STATES RATIFIED IT!” That is the only reason it is legal; not because some people signed it; not because some people said so.

      For the Articles of Confederation to actually BE a “Perpetual Union” and “Exist”…connotates that it CAN maintain a quorum…which by 1786 it could NOT; and thus a plan was put together to replace it.

      Did the U.S. Constitution abolish slavery? No. Did the U.S. Constitution abolish Indentured Servitude? No. Did the U.S. Constitution abolish corporal punishment? No, just ask sailors who were flogged up into the 1800’s.

      But even the Republic created by the Constitution was explicitly not the best the Framers could have done and there is no reason to hold it up as Divine:

      Federal Convention of 1787
      Teusday, June 5th, 1787. Mr. Butler
      …we must follow the example of Solon who gave the Athenians not the best government he could devise; but the best they would receive.

  11. If Boyd White, or anyone else for that matter, has volunteered to see nothing, and know nothing, other than what they are told to see and know, then that is their individual business deal that they have made with whatever power they agree to make such a deal.

    “Ok, take a deep breath and say, “The U.S. Constitution is legal BECAUSE ALL 13 STATES RATIFIED IT!” That is the only reason it is legal; not because some people signed it; not because some people said so.”

    The criminal take-over was very well documented as such. The mountains of evidence include the illegal creation of a slave trading document against the nullification done by the people of Rhode Island (through their representatives) who refused to attend the nefarious Con Con Con Job, as they smelled a very stinky rat, and therefore there was no legal way for the criminals to create a new National government out of the existing, grass-roots, organic, voluntary mutual defense, federal, confederacy of independent states.

    The crime included the creation of the National Constitution, done so illegally, so there was no legal step made, from which to launch a RAT-ification process.

    Again, if anyone fails to get that fact straight, then they do so out of either ignorance, or malice. The evidence exists right there on the official record.

    All that legalese is beside the principled point. How about allowing the people of Rhode Island to explain the principle point?

    “No. 15 – Rhode Island Is Right!

    “This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman’s Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)

    “The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

    “They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

    “The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes – the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) – would be doubled or trebled.

    “The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,” which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it – for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time-serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.

    “The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds – That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom.”

    • Results from Rhode Island’s State Ratifying Convention (5/29/1790):
      AYE: 34
      NAY: 32

      Rhode Island RATIFIED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! There is no crime, there is no Con-Job, there is no conspiracy. You might not like, it might not be the best thing, but it was above board.

  12. More of the same justifying slavery done once again by someone living today. How is it possible? I don’t know. I can ask.

    How do you, someone living today, Boyd White, find cause to aid, abet, cover-up, justify, “legalize,” or otherwise support the crime known as slavery?

    Then, setting that obvious aid to slave traders aside, and moving from principle to legalese, it is instructive to point out, once again, that there was no legal way to change the government from a voluntary mutual defense association, under the common law, documented with The Articles of Confederation, without unanimous agreement from each State’s representatives.

    There was no provision agreed to originally, by which some of the state’s representatives, working against the other state’s representatives, could legally, lawfully, rightly, or morally, discard the Articles of Confederation, and write-up a criminal (slave trading, slave trade subsidizing, usurping of the common law) “constitution.” Not having that legal avenue available to a portion of the state’s representatives agreed upon, there was no validity to that slave trading constitution. It was a confidence scheme, albeit a very effective one, to then claim that the Slave Trading Contract can be ratified, or not ratified.

    Once again:

    1. The Constitution fails lawful justification because The Constitution falsely claims to make the subsidizing of slavery legal. How many crimes are involved in just that single fact of crime?

    Example:
    “Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous.”

    It (the slave trading contract) fails the laugh test.

    Look at the hoop jumping that must be done, even today, by people like this Boyd White apologist for slavery, to “justify” the false, fake, counterfeit, stealing of loot from productive people, so as to then finance, subsidize, the “crime against nature itself,” to pay for out of the tax payers pocket,
    “such a trade” that “is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind,” as if none of that ever happened, or could ever happen today. See nothing, hear nothing, know noting about it, certainly not acknowledge it, not when the work being done is to “justify” it.

    Hoop jumping: ignore just how ridiculous false patriotism is in fact.

    So setting aside the morality of the crime in question, and then moving back to the illegality of it, as if the morality of the crime was somehow “justified,” which it was certainly not, but for the sake of keeping the record straight, and asking the modern day version of a slave trade apologist a pointed question, concerning his claim of “legality” for the crime of the past millennium:

    ““Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

    Mr. apologist for slave trading Boyd White, please inform anyone reading this as to what constituted agreement in a congress of the united states? What constituted agreement in a congress of the united states which thereby authorizes those in congress to agree to get rid of the voluntary mutual defense association, to turn it on it’s head, and replace it with a document (a contract or not) that proposes to subsidize African slavery?

    What is that process by which congress, under the Articles of Confederation, reach that goal of agreement, which then authorizes that change from voluntary mutual defense association, under the common law, turning that instead into involuntary dictatorship, above the law of the land, which included the extortion of productive capacity from producers in every state, and said loot stolen would be used to enforce the enslavement, abuse, and who knows what else, of millions of people from Africa?

    “No. 3 – New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism

    “Like the nome de plume “Publius” used by pro Constitution writers in the Federalist Papers, several Anti-Federalists signed their writings “A FARMER. ” While the occupation of the writers may not have coincided with the name given, the arguments against consolidating power in the hands of a central government were widely read. The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788. The true identity of the author is unknown.

    “There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

    “Whether any form of national government is preferable for the Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make up our minds upon. . . .

    “That a national government will add to the dignity and increase the splendor of the United States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than solid. We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people. The Swiss have been four hundred years the envy of mankind, and there is yet scarcely an history of their nation. What is history, but a disgusting and painful detail of the butcheries of conquerors, and the woeful calamities of the conquered? Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect nor difference. No man of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments – he will be respected in none. After all, what we call respect and difference only arise from contrast of situation, as most of our ideas come by comparison and relation. Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. In all governments virtue will command reverence. The divine Cato knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind, until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it.

    “That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone.

    “If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable – a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.

    “Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted – as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.

    “That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . . .

    “As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics . . . it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing ambitious.

    “That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated, will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance. Gibbon relates that some Roman Knights who had offended government in Rome were taken up in Asia, in a very few days after. It was the extensive territory of the Roman republic that produced a Sylla, a Marius, a Caligula, a Nero, and an Elagabalus. In small independent States contiguous to each other, the people run away and leave despotism to reek its vengeance on itself; and thus it is that moderation becomes with them, the law of self-preservation. These and such reasons founded on the eternal and immutable nature of things have long caused and will continue to cause much difference of sentiment throughout our wide extensive territories. From our divided and dispersed situation, and from the natural moderation of the American character, it has hitherto proved a warfare of argument and reason.

    “A FARMER”

  13. Well, for those interested in discovering the facts in the first nefarious case of “Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!”, please do yourself a favor and get out of the STATE of ignorance, and get into the following information:

    http://unionstatesassembly.info/journals/summaries/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20the%20ONLY%20Lawful%20Government.pdf

    Please note that the above source is 1 of many competitive sources offered by real people whose real concern is similar, or precisely the same as: “Changing the US Constitution? Not On My Watch!”

    Perhaps much of the confusion, leading to apology for criminal slave traders, has to do with brain washing. I will address that brain washing factor directly, but first note the fact that the Con Con where the Con Job was perpetrated was not Congress. There was no agreement by Congress – stipulated in the Articles of Confederation (which is a contract, and if not a contract, a trust contract for example, then what is it?) – to replace the existing contract (trust contract?) with a new one: one that just so happens to create a Corporate Nation State out of a former Federation of Independent States.

    The work done by the people in that link offered above includes the additional proof of crime, inculpatory evidence, that concerns Land Patents (law of the land is the common law), Allodial Title, and admission of new Territories into the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation Trust Contract.

    Vermont was the safe haven for runaway slaves and runaway Patriots. Please note that fact.

    So the slave trade apologists, the despotic Nationalists, the central banking frauds, and the war mongers did, in point of fact, counterfeit the Federation of Independent States in 1887/89, and they did so on the official record (court of record in common law terms), but the point to ponder now concerns the first 10 Amendments that offer to the people our common law remedy. When I say “our” what I mean is the people as a whole, but to be more specific – for Christ’s sake – I mean the moral people as a whole, informing the immoral, and amoral, people, through true law (common law with trial by jury), that crime will not pay: it can’t, as anyone with any true religious knowledge knows:

    “8 Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors.”

    Those who are truly evil, those who are incorrigible, only God can save them, because they can’t save themselves, and they don’t want any help.

    For those who stand on principle, which is law, our actions follow a Golden Rule, but we can use help to stay in that narrow boundary.

    Bill of Rights.

    How much more power – as if all the power has not already transferred – will quickly transfer from productive, moral, people in America, as power flows to the criminal elite, if those criminals can get rid of our common law trial by jury due process that applies to everyone all the time the same way: as a RULE?

    See National Debt Clock Real Time to get an idea of the current rate of power transfer.

    Criminals do not follow rules.

    On to Brain Washing 101.

    From the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

    “Q. Let me ask you finally — this has
    been a long road — how you regard — what is
    your explanation for the fact that there has
    been such little national media coverage of
    these — of this trial and this evidence and
    this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
    which is the first trial ever to be able to
    produce evidence on this assassination —
    what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
    is not sounding but is in fact totally
    silent — almost totally silent?

    “A. Oh, but — as we know, silence can be
    deafening. Disinformation is not only
    getting certain things to appear in print,
    it’s also getting certain things not to
    appear in print. I mean, the first — the
    first thing I would say as a way of
    explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
    of disinformation over a long period of time
    that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
    official line has been that James Earl Ray
    killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
    by himself. That’s 30 years, not — nothing
    like the short period when the line was that
    the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
    30 years it’s James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
    did it all by himself.

    “And when that is imprinted in the
    minds of the general public for 30 years, if
    somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
    did it. Ray didn’t do it, I did it. Here’s
    a movie. Here’s a video showing me do it. 99
    percent of the people wouldn’t believe him
    because it just — it just wouldn’t click in
    the mind. It would just go right to — it
    couldn’t be. It’s just a powerful
    psychological effect over 30 years of
    disinformation that’s been imprinted on the
    brains of the — the public. Something to
    the country couldn’t — couldn’t be.”

    There you have it. The criminals took over in 1787/78, they stole the soul of America, but the true Patriots fought for and won back our common law remedies.

    Those who have been brainwashed, generation after generation, for over 200 years have a rude awakening to deal with, or not. Ignorance is counterfeit bliss.

    • The primary objective of the Constitution was a self interested desire to break away from privileged rule. They did it for themselves…Caucasian males…with the long term hope the trend to liberty would prevail by creating a system of checks and balances where ratiocination would have a chance.

      Because I recognize the value of the Constitution in that regard does not mean I support slavery, indentured servitude, or corporal punishment…none of those three things the Constitution abolished.

      And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”. In 1787 the King of France controlled the Louisiana territory, the British King via the Hudson’s Bay Company controlled those parts northwest of the Great Lakes, the Spanish King controlled the southwest with San Francisco being established in 1776, the Russian Czar possessed Alaska and had made it 100 miles north of San Francisco. Within those domains Native American tribes experienced their own power struggles with stronger tribes pushing around and suppressing weaker tribes.

      So when you damn the United States for creating the Constitution in 1787 without fully acknowledging what else was happening in that era…including slavery and oppression in the domains listed above…there is a substantial amount of cherry picking.

      Am I justifying what the government under the Constitution has mutated into? No, in no way shape or form. If a Republic, in the long run, turns out to nonviable I pray I have the integrity to turn to a “State of Nature” or true “Anarchy” before I ever submit to privileged rule (Monarchy, Dictatorship, Oligarchy).

      But since the Framers did not give us the best Republic they could, only the best that was to be received, there is hope and reason to believe a better Republic can be created.

  14. History according to Boyd White:

    “The primary objective of the Constitution was a self interested desire to break away from privileged rule. They did it for themselves…Caucasian males…with the long term hope the trend to liberty would prevail by creating a system of checks and balances where ratiocination would have a chance.”

    Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787

    Page 13

    Luther Martin

    “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.”

    So…they resorted to deception, also known as fraud. When fraud is perpetrated by Federal officers, and their goal is as stated above, the crime is treason. Even if the officers are National officers, not federal, the crime is still treason.

    Under the Articles of Confederation, which was under the common law, there was a check to balance criminal treason, despotism, tyranny, empire building, slave trading, central banking fraud, etc., and that process was (and still is) trial by jury according to the common law.

    Articles of Confederation

    “Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.”

    All Thomas Jefferson had to do was to grow some balls and set in motion due process the very moment Jefferson encountered the slave traders who insisted upon subsidizing slavery; but then again Jefferson also had his hand in that cookie jar, even as he wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence: slavery is “a crime against nature itself.”

    Jefferson, or anyone else, had plenty of political leverage, help from every single state in the federation, to move forward with the indictment stated in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, to bring the slave traders to their trial by jury, and rescue millions of innocent people.

    For people to fail to see that situation then is one thing, for people to fail to see the same situation now is another thing. People like Craig Sawyer stepping up to the plate, working to rescue millions of children, from the likes of the criminal Clintions, Bushes, etc., demanding PUBLIC TRIALS, isn’t – in principle – any different than Richard Henry Lee, or George Mason, or any number of fellow abolitionists, working against the criminal powers, seeking to rescue those in need, in time, and in place.

    The criminals must cover-up, weaken, render powerless, our common law due process, failure to do so ends their criminal careers.

    Why is that difficult to see?

    “Because I recognize the value of the Constitution in that regard does not mean I support slavery, indentured servitude, or corporal punishment…none of those three things the Constitution abolished.”

    Who anywhere, anytime, and anyplace, has the audacity to claim – with a straight face – that slavery is legal?

    “Rhode Island RATIFIED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! There is no crime, there is no Con-Job, there is no conspiracy. You might not like, it might not be the best thing, but it was above board.”

    Boyd White did it.

    “Results from Rhode Island’s State Ratifying Convention (5/29/1790):
    “AYE: 34
    “NAY: 32”

    Boyd White identifies the inculpatory evidence proving the fact that 34 people, on the official record, makes that outrageous, ridiculous, criminal, false, claim that slavery is not only legal, but everyone in the new Nation State will have to pay for enforcing said crime against nature itself: or else.

    Now this is telling:

    “And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”.”

    That case of Machiavellian maneuvering can be compared to the following:

    https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-2.html

    “The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed “the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools.” Phillips argued that this experience proved “that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery.”

    And this:

    Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia

    “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

    And this:

    Declaration of Independence (before censorship by slave traders)

    “he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

    How is it that someone today cannot see this evil for what it is precisely? Not seeing it is one thing, now making claims that blowing the whistle on it is frivolous is another thing entirely: a malicious thing.

    From Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts:

    Page 442

    “The movement was aimed at reversing
    that. King’s motto was, the SCLC motto, it
    was not civil rights, it was redeem the soul
    of America. That was our motto.
    So you see right away that that is
    much larger than getting a hamburger at a
    lunch counter.”

    So the student of Machiavelli resorts once again to this type of communication:

    “And there is a sort of frivolous drama to say they “stole the soul of America”.”

    Frivolous in this case are those slaves not yet enslaved at that moment when The Dirty Compromise was at play in Philadelphia in 1787.

    https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf

    From nearly 1 million to almost 4 million (souls) victims of slavery between 1790 and 1860. But that is not the only victims. Everyone is a victim, including the criminals themselves. All things are relative, but the sum total of harm done, without question, falls disproportionately upon the helpless, innocent, apparently forgotten, children.

    What do you think happens when a family exiled from Europe, rescued by a very costly trip to America, and said family encounters markets dominated by Corporate Subsidized Slave Labor? Does that sound at all familiar to anyone?

    “So when you damn the United States for creating the Constitution in 1787 without fully acknowledging what else was happening in that era…including slavery and oppression in the domains listed above…there is a substantial amount of cherry picking.”

    OK, now this libel is entering the Man of Straw phase in earnest. Whoever those words are aimed at: it is not me.

    This fellow Boyd White, if that is even a real name, is creating someone out of thin air, a fictional character, and he is attempting to brand me with that fictional character of his construction.

    Who is guilty of the charge “you damn the United States”?

    It is not me. Specific individuals were perpetrating specific crimes upon specific people in specific places, and they were called out for doing so, at the time the crimes were perpetrated. That is factual, and it is on the official record. That is a fact even if I do not exist. So why is Boyd White resorting to this type of Machiavellian maneuvering?

    Then this Man of Straw (with my name on it) is guilty of “cherry picking”?

    If I don’t, for example, choose to add the information concerning the common law adjudication of Allodial Title to this dicussion concerning the first, and potentially a second, Con Con Con Job, discussion, I would not be doing so because I didn’t want to pick that cherry, it is because there is a need for brevity. The subject of what is, or is not, moral, lawful, right, legal, conduct concerning land adjudication is vital information necessary in forming a comprehensive understanding of political economy; as vital as the information concerning labor, and the fruits of labor.

    “But since the Framers did not give us the best Republic they could, only the best that was to be received, there is hope and reason to believe a better Republic can be created.”

    I suppose that those words could be interpreted as a pro-con con con job stance.

    The “framers’ then, like potential re-“framers” today are individuals, some are criminals because the pay is much higher for criminals who work under the color of law, compared to the lowly drone criminals paid for their work by the criminals in fake offices.

Comments are closed.