Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61

Thread: The first constitutions

  1. #31
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    You're quite welcome . We're all sorted out now .
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    This interesting book just came to my attention.

    http://books.google.com/books?vid=OC...page&q&f=false

    Thank you Trust Guy!!
    The classical foundations of the American Constitution: prevailing wisdom By David J. Bederman
    http://books.google.com/books?id=fm8...page&q&f=false

    Likely at a library...somewhere.

    Also...
    The early security confederations : from the ancient Greeks to the United Colonies of New England (Frederick K. Lister).
    The later security confederations : the American, "new" Swiss, and German unions (Frederick K. Lister)

    and...

    HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH A FULL ACCOUNT OF THE CONFEDERATIONS WHICH PRECEDED IT OF THE DEBATES AND ACTS OF THE CONVENTION WHICH FORMED IT; OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHICH HAVE CONSTRUED IT; WITH PAPERS AND TABLES ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE UNDER IT.

    BY NATHANIEL C. TOWLE,
    COUNSELLOR AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    link 1 (1860)
    link 2 (1871)
    Last edited by allodial; 06-02-11 at 03:37 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  3. #33
    The so -called Civil war--the South was not trying to invade the North. It was not a civil war. It hardly saved America. We are all slaves now.

    Abraham Lincoln destroyed the Philosophical Union and imposed a Physical Union--Force over Reason--using bayonets and a train of usurpations worse than England's George III--the reason for seceding from England in the first place--and Lincoln UNDID Jefferson's works and thereby added teeth (an understatement) to Hamilton's Proto-Fascist national banking super state agenda.

    They were both Revolutionary Wars. Re: the first War: The British are coming! Re: The second War: the British and their ways are already here with their Mercantilist agendas enforced by Abraham Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression.

    Lincoln's 'Second American Revolution'
    by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo32.html


    Freedom--from tyranny and its train of usurpations--is necessary and essential but not sufficient. See Thomas DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America" (now remnant thanks to the planks of Abraham Lincoln's Unnecessary War. It was also the bloodiest war in American History and waged on civilians and later on the Indians).

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance90.html
    Other entries:
    http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Sear...http%3A%2F%2Fw...

    The Southern cause was "NOT [just] close to being somewhat justified." It was right and completely justified.

    Lincoln's stated purpose in the war was to destroy the principle of the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, DC, so Lincoln waged total war against them for four long years. Of course, he didn't put it this way but instead sugarcoated his objective with language about "saving the Union." At the time many Americans — including dozens of Northern newspaper editors — considered the act of compelling a state to remain in the Union at gunpoint to be destructive of the voluntary union of the states. And they were right.

    The Unknown Lincoln
    by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo26.html
    Understanding the large body of knowledge that intellectuals Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises and their students-- including the ground breaking work of Thomas Dilorenzo's, "The Real Lincoln", and Stephan Kinsella's illuminating work on CopyRight copywrongs and its co-destruction of a Division of Labor society--are essential to UN-Blinding what IS UnSeen and impossible to glean by just reading what one's masters write, teach and spread around.

    Lysander Spooner, the author of the 1845 book, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery and a celebrated abolitionist, wrote in his 1870 essay, "No Treason," that "all these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,' of having ‘preserved the union,' of establishing a ‘government by consent,' and of ‘maintaining the national honor' are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats — so transparent that they ought to deceive no one." Thanks to 140 years of propaganda in the government schools, these "cheats" now appear to deceive nearly everyone.

    Notes: Lysander Spooner who authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, ...
    http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&c...kwell.com/lewr...

    War is hell for those who wish to secede from exploitative empires.

    As soon as Gandhi began influencing millions of Indians, he and some 60,000 of his followers were imprisoned in 1930. This led Winston Churchill to declare that "Gandhi-ism and all it stands for [peaceful resistance to tyranny] will, sooner or later, have to be . . . crushed." "Gandhi had replaced Lenin as Churchill's arch nemesis," writes Baker.

    A New Look at How Wold War II Happened
    by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo142.html
    Sherman was every bit as much a racist and white supremacist as Lincoln. He was also an anti-Semite, and of course hated red-skinned people almost as much as he hated South Carolinians — and would later kill them in even greater numbers.

    Slaves were raped, pillaged, and murdered indiscriminately along with the white population of the South, and Sherman did nothing to stop it. *This is documented*.

    It has been claimed in print that Sherman was some kind of egalitarian who was motivated by indignation over the degree of racial inequality in the South. (Cisco proves what delusional liars such Lincoln (and Sherman) cultists as Victor Davis Hanson are in "Abuse of African-Americans" by Sherman's army in Cisco's final, stomach-turning chapter.

    ...The union of the founders was destroyed in 1865. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians explains in great detail how, in addition to killing some 300,000 dissenters to rule by Washington, D.C. on the battlefield, the U.S. Army, under the micromanagement of Abe Lincoln, also murdered tens of thousands of Southern civilians, including thousands of slaves and free blacks, while stealing tens of millions of dollars of their private possessions as well. None of it was necessary, of course, for the purpose of ending slavery; all other countries on earth ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. This included the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Danish colonies, where 96 percent of all the slaves in the Western Hemisphere once existed. The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called "national greatness" and "imperial glory." The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state.

    Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State
    by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo123.html


    This country cannot be fixed by "going back to the constitution" because:

    1. Those in conflict cannot agree to which of the "constitutions" by date and amendment to "go back to."

    2. The "constitution" itself was a counter revolution to the agreed government set up at the revolution. It thoroughly repudiates the 5 truths articulated in the Declaration of Independence as the causes and premises for the Declaration by declaring itself to be the "supreme" law/sacred text of the land. Thus creating itself as a "sovereign" with divine right to rule because its subjects have elected representatives to plead and petition the sovereign. The eventual corruption was systemic from the initiation as articulated by the "Anti-Federalists." They were right and the Federalists were wrong.

    All that is going on today "politically" is a verbal religious war by different denominations who will eventually resort to coercive lethal force to make their interpretation of their version of made up law/sacred text paramount to all the others.

    Is it time to change your religion?

    http://www.lib.unc.edu/blogs/civilwa...d-progression/
    Last edited by Darkcrusade; 06-13-11 at 06:28 AM.

  4. #34
    It seems , 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, this is peculiar.

    Thus division from those evolved.

    So whom does this apply to?

  5. #35
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy James View Post
    It seems , 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, this is peculiar.

    Thus division from those evolved.

    So whom does this apply to?
    If all men are created equal, then one man has no right in another man to represent another man, unless said Right is Granted. However, if Artificial Persons are seen as Things, then representation of a Thing does not create a problem - as Rights in Things, regarding an estate - are in fact easily represented. As the cestui que trust is going to want his/her/its interests preserved.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 07-14-11 at 12:15 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  6. #36
    The issue about pro se on the Libel of Review for example. I recently advised the new suitor - if the US clerk demands a signature on the bottom line to simply write -


    Lawful Money Demanded.





  7. #37
    By what right do men exercise power over each other?" - Auberon Herbert

    So why is it that I have to do what some bureaucrat says I have to. Why must I give a portion of my income to Washington DC, so that they can redistribute it to the rich and well connected? What right do they have to the fruits of my labor? Am I their slave? If not, why am I coerced at the point of a gun to do the bidding of the government?

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkcrusade View Post
    By what right do men exercise power over each other?" - Auberon Herbert

    So why is it that I have to do what some bureaucrat says I have to. Why must I give a portion of my income to Washington DC, so that they can redistribute it to the rich and well connected? What right do they have to the fruits of my labor? Am I their slave? If not, why am I coerced at the point of a gun to do the bidding of the government?
    To answer your question:

    Force, coercion, threat, duress, fraud, and sometimes by agreement

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Let us however keep the focus and realize that the Constitutions are not grants of Rights.

    That agrees with my post. The constitutions restrict, they do not grant. They restrict the behavior of government officials - especially judicial officers in context of my experiences.
    Perhaps it might be helpful to see the Constitutions as, rather than sources of some rights, being guarantees of rights of non-citizens by virtue of, among other things, limiting the authority of the State actor.
    Last edited by allodial; 11-05-12 at 03:48 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    ... If you want to Google up a photo of the City Council of Washington DC (the municipal corporation formed in 1871) then you will be hard pressed to recognize anybody from the Obama Administration there. Do you start to get it. It was me who showed RAP/RuSA the real USA Incorporated but alas, that corporation is for promoting sports events! But if you spend a few minutes reading you might forgive the adherents to RAP/RuSA for getting caught up in Internet Spin. But with a flawed fundamental, like the USA and the States are corporations you might better understand why RAP/RuSA after over a year of James Timothy TURNER's lies, is still not on the map nor will it ever be - no surveyed boundaries.

    We should wander past the Fed Act of 1913 to explore how MJ thinks a moment. Listen to what Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire says about the Judiciary Act of 1789. By 1790 we find that the districts, through the District became responsible for the debts of the US government. The District is of course a municipal corporation like I showed you - formally since 1871 - city of Washington, District of Columbia.
    Seems Wikipedia has an expanded write-up on this.

    Under the U.S. Constitution, the District remains under the jurisdiction of Congress. However, at various times in the city's history, Congress has devolved some of its authority to District residents and their elected representatives. The possible paths of bills, emergencies, and temporaries through the power structure of Washington, DC as dictated by the Home Rule act.

    When Congress passed the Residence Act on July 16, 1790, they called for a new permanent capital of the United States to be located on the Potomac River. The federal district originally comprised land in the form of a square measuring 10 miles (16 km) on each side donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia. The Residence Act also provided for the selection of a three-member board of commissioners, appointed by the President, charged with overseeing the construction of the new capital.[1] Two other incorporated cities that predated the establishment of the District were also included within the new federal territory: Georgetown, founded in 1751,[2] and the City of Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1749.[3] A new "federal city" called the City of Washington was then constructed on the north bank of the Potomac, to the east of the established settlement at Georgetown.

    In 1800, Congress created a joint commission to recommend the governance for what was then called the Territory of Columbia. The joint commission recommended a governorship and a 25-member legislative assembly.[4] This would have been the federal district's first legislature. However, the Organic Act of 1801 officially organized the entire federal territory under the control of Congress, but did not establish an overarching government for the entire District as recommended. In 1802, the original board of commissioners was disbanded and the City of Washington was officially incorporated. The city's incorporation allowed for a local municipal government consisting of a mayor appointed by the President and an elected six-member council.[5] The local governments of Georgetown and Alexandria were also left intact.[6] In 1820, the Congress granted the City of Washington a new charter, which allowed for an elected mayor.[7]

    This piecemeal governmental structure remained essentially intact until the passage of the Organic Act of 1871, which created a new government for the entire District of Columbia. This Act effectively combined the City of Washington, Georgetown, and unincorporated area known then as Washington County, into a single municipality as Washington, D.C. exists today.[8] In the same Organic Act, Congress created a territorial government which consisted of a legislative assembly with an upper-house composed of eleven council members appointed by the President and a 22-member house of delegates elected by the people, as well as an appointed Board of Public Works charged with modernizing the city. In 1873, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed the board's most influential member, Alexander Robey Shepherd, to the new post of governor. Shepherd authorized large-scale projects to modernize Washington but overspent three times the approved budget, bankrupting the city. In 1874, Congress abolished the District's local government in favor of direct rule.

    The territorial government was replaced by a three-member Board of Commissioners; two members appointed by the President after approval by the Senate and a third member was selected from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. One of the three members would be selected to act as President of the Board.[10] This form of government continued for nearly a century. Between 1948 and 1966, six bills were introduced in Congress to provide some form of home rule, but none ever passed. The commissioner form of government was replaced in 1967 by a mayor-commissioner and a nine-member city council appointed by the President.
    Note the easy-overlooked and poignant factor of pre-DC and pre-USA municipalities being brought into the District. My off-the-cuff and rough analysis at this time is that #1 Those cities were freed from state constitutional confines. #2 Those cities were originally independent meant they were made 'homerule' in the district. #3 That Washington county, Georgetown and city of Washington were merged, the incorporation of a county (in a sense orphaned by Maryland) made the entire electorate presumed incorporated. #4 That it took a special act in 1895 to fully merge Georgetown is telling. The flag might suggest that DC got its power from Georgetown (a colonial municipality), city of Washington and county of Washington.

    ...the Organic Act of 1871, which created a new government for the entire District of Columbia. This Act effectively combined the City of Washington, Georgetown, and unincorporated area known then as Washington County, into a single municipality as Washington, D.C. exists today.
    Quite a significant legal feat: the merger of the City of Washington, Georgetown [older than the Constitution for the United States of America] and unincorporated Washington County into a single municipality called Washington, D.C. Note, three stars on the DC flag.

    Name:  dc-flag.jpg
Views: 418
Size:  20.3 KB
    Name:  800px-Washington_DC_Legislative_Flow.png
Views: 450
Size:  196.4 KB
    Its interesting to note that Congress can pass a resolution (in the districts) to prevent a bill from becoming a law.

    Re: Georgetown

    Georgetown is a historic neighborhood, commercial, and entertainment district located in northwest Washington, D.C., situated along the Potomac River. Founded in 1751 in the Province of Maryland, the port of Georgetown predated the establishment of the federal district and the City of Washington by 40 years. Georgetown remained a separate municipality until 1871, when the United States Congress created a new consolidated government for the whole District of Columbia. A separate act passed in 1895 specifically repealed Georgetown's remaining local ordinances and renamed Georgetown's streets to conform with those in the City of Washington.
    The United States possess {note plural use} full and unlimited jurisdiction, both of a political and municipal nature, over the District of Columbia.

    It is within the constitutional power of Congress, in legislating for the creation of a commission charged with public duties, to provide that some members of it shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that other members of it shall consist of officers in the service of the United States, who had been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, when the duties of the new office are germane to those of the offices already held by the latter.

    Congress may increase the duties of an existing office without rendering it necessary that the incumbent should be again nominated, confirmed and appointed. Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893)
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    By 1790 we find that the districts, through the District became responsible for the debts of the US government. The District is of course a municipal corporation like I showed you - formally since 1871 - city of Washington, District of Columbia.
    Are there any U.S. State bankruptcy courts anywhere to be found? Why not?
    Last edited by allodial; 08-26-15 at 07:16 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •