'We the People'

[Rock Anthony]

If it is not exactly clear just who are 'We the People', perhaps this paper will provoke more thought and reserach into the matter. I find the linked document to be one of the better treatments of this subject - interesting enough that I read the entire document.

Furthermore, understand that non-government “citizens” DO NOT act through the organs of the Constitution; “the people” that are holding the offices do, i.e. the officers (private law)7 that are “The State”.

...the phrase which appears in the Preamble of the United States Constitution which states “We the People” are not you and I. This is another misconception that people in the movement seem to embrace. You should understand that such people were the ones who signed the Constitution. Such people are the actual men who have obligations to their contracts. One of the purposes of the document was to make all “citizens” in the [U]nited States of America their constitutors.

So, does 'We the People' only refer to those that are signatory to The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (along with their Posterity), or does 'We the People' only refer to the offices of the United States, or does 'We the People' refer to both?

P.S. If some other thread has already been created for this topic, I'll ask one of the admins to merge this into that other thread.

[David Merrill]

I hope it not unfair to LB so I will explain my impressions.

It was a long time ago now that I got on the PAC website and pretty quick, because I was not studying The Red Amendment - LB's book, he began to attack and belittle me. So be warned that I have a bad taste in my mouth. I am not objective and have not researched out what I have to say, in the same tone that I am too tired to read his paper.

He wrote a book that is flawed, in my unstudied opinion. I don't remember exactly why I decided that though. LB's website structure is the business plan for his book. People earn money by selling his book. I think whenever you buy a book, then you are encouraged to become a commissioned salesperson for it. But in the nature of books, people only buy one of them. So the people who stay on the PAC Website, all five of them, are more driven about The Red Amendment than I am about redeeming lawful money here. Sadly - being on my wrong side anyway, LB seems to have made his own bed.

The concept though that you present, maybe LB's theory - or maybe he adopted it - I have never studied it past the most fundamental flaw. Men did not sign the Constitution. States signed the Constitution through representatives with hands to scribe signatures, speaking for the States. Therefore the concept that those men were party to the Constitution is very limited and the idea that the signatures expired with the men is nonsensical enough that I have never delved into it enough to form an informed opinion.

If you can explain why I might be wrong about that though, I might pick up the paper tomorrow, after a good night's sleep.


P.S. I just remembered...


Tim TURNER's RAP/RuSA reconciled the flaw by saying the Consititution was signed by 56 people. That would mean the Signors of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. There you are starting to make some sense in the inheritance concepts. But then TURNER's habitual lying about military support, international support and funding interfered with me studying that out too.

For a spell, Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire was attempting to usurp Tim's Presidency and lectured on a Talkshoe. I grabbed the fuller show and snipped an interesting segment relating to Patroons, New York and that it never became part of the quorum to ratify the Constitution. This applies to some of my family history and me hashing through my perpetual inheritance from the original Patroon charter etc.

Dr LIVINGSTON Presumes Fraud.
Dr. LIVINGSTON about NY.

[shikamaru]

Very, very true, David.

Even Judge Andrew Nepolitano stated that States were parties to the Constitution.
There are even Supreme Court cases affirming what is stated in this thread such as the Paddleford case.
Let it be said, that there are many, many misconceptions about the Constitution which I'm certain the government allows to continue for purposes of faith, fealty, and revenues .

If any constitution applies to people, it would be their State constitution.

If actors who are US citizens can assume State offices, what is to prevent one from assuming the title of "We the People" of a particular State?

[David Merrill]

I think that when a man or woman signs a valid oath of office, they just became party to the constitutions.

[SecuredAmerican]

Dr LIVINGSTON Presumes Fraud.
Dr. LIVINGSTON about NY.

this links are broken

[David Merrill]

Dr LIVINGSTON Presumes Fraud.
Dr. LIVINGSTON about NY.

this links are broken

The second one is still good.

Thanks for telling me.

[allodial]

I think that when a man or woman signs a valid oath of office, they just became party to the constitutions.

One key thing is that the USA Constitution has been alleged to afford is protections to public servants. Ergo: if the Treasurer of Pennsylvania steals $50M, rather than being gunned down Scarface ganster style, he is to get a trial. Islam and the protections afforded to slaves comes to mind...for...some...reason.

IMHO "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" is just a fancy title. There were twelve. Perhaps EU is now trying to 'steal the show' with its 12 stars but a couple hundred years late. [+ Delaware -Georgia]

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire [1], Massachusetts Bay [2], Rhode Island and Providence Plantations [3], Connecticut [4], New York [5], New Jersey [6], Pennsylvania [7], Maryland [8], Virginia [9], North Carolina [10], South Carolina [11] and Georgia [12], to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [Treaty of Paris, 1783]

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire [1], Massachusetts Bay [2], Rhode Island and Providence Plantations [3], Connecticut [4], New York [5], New Jersey [6], Pennsylvania [7], Delaware [8], Maryland [9], Virginia [10], North Carolina [11], South Carolina [12] and Georgia (O RLY?), to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

There are two variations in the wild: one with Delaware one without. But even still, including Delaware, Georgia didn't properly sign the Declaration. But ok even if they didnt, "His Brittanick Majesty" declared the sovereignty of all 13 even if they were all 13 part of the 1774 to 1776 United States (Association). There would still be twelve. If Delaware was included then what else could they mean but the State formed by the Lenape and other nation?

And it is further agreed on between the contracting parties should it for the future be found conducive for the mutual interest of both parties to invite any other tribes who have been friends to the interest of the United States, to join the present confederation, and to form a state whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have a representation in Congress: Provided, nothing contained in this article to be considered as conclusive until it meets with the approbation of Congress. And it is also the intent and meaning of this article, that no protection or countenance shall be afforded to any who are at present our enemies, by which they might escape the punishment they deserve. (Treaty of Ft. Pitt aka Treaty With the Delawares 1778)

A delegation of Delawares visited Philadelphia in 1779 to explain their dissatisfaction to the Continental Congress, but nothing changed and peace between the United States and the Delaware Indians collapsed. (Wikipedia)

Interesting how voila the "first state" is Delaware and so many major companies have made a point to incorporate in .. State of Delaware (Ralston, US Bank, etc etc etc). Aint that interestin'.

And in 1789 (10 years after 1779) you have this Constitution and Delaware is the first state.

Of the corporations that make up the Fortune 500, more than one-half are incorporated in Delaware. It is no wonder that Delaware has become almost a brand name for the ?business? of serving as the official home for corporations. (Source)

Was "His Brittanick Majesty" actually acknowleding the sovereignty of the Lenape nation? Just maybe.



Ain't it interesting that Lenape (Delaware) turf covers Manhattan, City of New York, New Jersey and Delaware? So if Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON is correct and accurate, why did they take the USA meetings to Delaware/Lenape turf? Note: PHILADELPHIA IS IN THE HEART OF LENAPE TURF!!!

Europeans often referred to all Native Americans as Delawares, since many lived along what the Europeans named the Delaware River. In reality, the native people in this area were as diverse as the European immigrants.(Source)

So who had the truest claim to the land? Why would anyone want to set up shop in cahoots with the Lenape?

On this day in 1776, the Assembly of the Lower Counties of Pennsylvania declares itself independent of British and Pennsylvanian authority, thereby creating the state of Delaware.

Delaware did not exist as a colony under British rule. As of 1704, Pennsylvania had two colonial assemblies: one for the "Upper Counties," originally Bucks, Chester and Philadelphia, and one for the "Lower Counties on the Delaware" of New Castle, Kent and Sussex. All of the counties shared one governor. (Source)

How could "His Britannick Majesty" have declared a non-existent colony to be independent?

P.S. Even if we consider a late and retroactive approbation of Georgia with respect to the Declaration of Independence, Lower Counties were part of Pennsylvania so would there not properly be 12 colonies party to the said Declaration?

[allodial]

Note that the Delaware Constitution of 1776 wasnt framed by Delaware but by "The Government of the Counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex, upon Delaware" (are they upon a river like DC is on the Potomac?). In that Constitution it was to be called after the fact "The Delaware State".

1st State: Delaware
2nd State: Pennsylvania
3rd State: New Jersey

Aren't all of them in the "Lenape Zone"?

Regardless, August 26 is over a month after the Declaration of Independence.

However.. lets say that "on Delaware" means "in Delaware" then perhaps it was formed within the jurisdiction of the Lenape/Delawares?

Note I: the Articles of Association (1774) were done at (or in) (City of) Philadelphia.

Note II: The Lower Counties were said to have declared independence from Pennsylvania and the British Crown on June 15, 1776. That would be just a month or so before the Declaration of Independence. Why doesnt the Declaration of Independence instead refer to Lower Counties on Delaware like the Articles of Association of 1774 or the Articles of Confederation? ESPECIALLY since the official stile of didn't change until August or September of 1776?

[David Merrill]

Fascinating reading Allodial. I might try to answer some of your questions after a good night's sleep!

P.S. Thanks for the link! I note in the preamble to the formation of the Continental Congress that they distinguish between East Indies trading company and West Indies - Dutch and British claims.

I am planning to get down to the federal respository in the morning light. Dogs all concerned about an intruder (caught in the act) have put a crimp in that good night's sleep.

[allodial]

Another thing: the earliest books I could find referring to the Articles of Confederation were from 1782/1781...they both indicate that the stile of the confederacy was to be "United States of America". Alleged scans from the US Govt and later books indicate that the stile was to be "The United States of America". Could there be any significance to this?

Re Dutch & British. Could it be that the Dutch and the Lenape/Delawares and the US-ians reached some kind of agreement that has been buried in history? Treaty at Ft. Staniwix might give clues.

Relevantly, according to a New Jersey-ish attorney, they dont give warranty deeds to the land as part of real estate transactions.

Re: Delaware. Delaware was formed in time for the Treaty of Paris to mention Delaware. However, it was never technically a colony. Yet still, there would have only been 11 or 12 parties to the Declaration of Independence. But if we look at the Respublica v Sweers notion of the United States starting with the Articles of Association of 1774 there would have been 12 states: New Hampshire [1], Massachusetts Bay [2], Rhode-Island [3], Connecticut [4], New-York [5], New-Jersey [6], Pennsylvania [7], The Lower Counties [8], Maryland [9], Virginia [10], North-Carolina [11], South-Carolina [12]. If the Lower Counties are discounted as part of Pennsylvania then 11. Georgia clearly was not a party to the 1774 Association.

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, between the colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the counties at New-Castle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia.

Apparently that was the original title of the first draft of the Articles of Confederation of July 12, 1776.

The Articles of Confederation served as the written document that established the functions of the national government of the United States after it declared independence from Great Britain. It established a weak central government that mostly, but not entirely, prevented the individual states from conducting their own foreign diplomacy. (US Dept of State)

EXACTLY *WHAT* national government was there when they were free and independent?

[Chex]

What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes.

The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious.

1871, 1837


Link

[David Merrill]

What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes.

The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious.

1871, 1837


Link

Yes! That is an edifying find:

15) ?United States? means?

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

So the entire Federal Reserve Districts where we handle private credit FRNs are US property. The Fed is an instrumentality of the US.

This is why we find a traffic case dismissed and even the driver license reinstated when handled properly by redeeming lawful money.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

Perhaps any way one looks at it, the goal was to create a 'decoy'. In the Treaty of Paris "United States" was not mentioned as a thing itself but as a "placeholder" for:

New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia

The Articles of Association (of 1774) (though Respublic v Sweers claims the United States existed back that far or something) doesn't even contain the word "united" so much as any mention of United States. But one might have to go back further (if they can do that with Respublic v Sweers) to even the United Colonies. Parties to the Articles of Association of 1774 parties are obviated.

We, his majesty's most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress,

Could the trick have been to declare the independence and sovereignty of the colonies but not of "the United States" as a separate entity itself? To declare the creators sovereign but have their pre-independence creature remain under British rule?

[David Merrill]

I have a book called Inventing America. Tell me if you see anything you want me to specify. Let me know how this link works for you.

[allodial]

Men did not sign the Constitution. States signed the Constitution through representatives with hands to scribe signatures, speaking for the States. Therefore the concept that those men were party to the Constitution is very limited and the idea that the signatures expired with the men is nonsensical enough that I have never delved into it enough to form an informed opinion.

Tim TURNER's RAP/RuSA reconciled the flaw by saying the Constitution was signed by 56 people. That would mean the Signors of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. There you are starting to make some sense in the inheritance concepts. But then TURNER's habitual lying about military support, international support and funding interfered with me studying that out too.

If anyone takes a look that can plainly see that "We the People" is written in the same font as the titles. The parties to the Constitution of 1787/1788 were clearly states of America. Men in the organic sense didn't sign the Constitution. What throws up red flags re: Dale R. Livingston is that if the Constitution of 1787/1788 is a scam then why is he talking about 'saving it'? Even if its a scam remember the Northwest Ordinance, the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence precede it.

***

I recall as I learned about USA-ian history that things made sense up to the Constitution of 1788. What begged an answer was the question of why would they fight so hard only to set up a government that the historical record had repeatedly raised red flags against. Of course 'teachers' didn't want to consider the question. The Constitution of 1788 seems to at most established a constitution for a central government for the territories of the United States.