Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Something that's been on my mind lately regarding the constitution

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 19, 2012, 8:02 p.m. EST by shield (222)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It is my understanding that the Constitution for the United States is to be taken as a whole document, such that where there is a contradiction between two or more clauses, no action can be taken based on any one of them. This would prevent the Federal government from making laws regarding pornography, drugs, healthcare, private property, speech and the press, access to information, internet censorship (or any other form), and related violations of individual rights.

Do you agree? Is there something that you see in the Constitution which would allow congress to lawfully pass legislation based only on clauses which support the power they wish to exercise to the exclusion of conflicting clauses?



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

There is an "whole chain" of social contracts, the premise of the first are represented consistently throughout.

What is not appreciated in modern times is that the first contract is the Magna Carta. Logically and sadly, the framers of the US Constitution could not easily refer to the earlier contract because it had lent itself to the formation of England as the colonies were trying to separate from.

Consistent between the Magna Carta and the Constitition, the beginning and near end of the "whole chain", excluding only the Bill of Rights, technically, is that they both cite "Life" as an "inalienable right". Due process has its beginnings with uses of common law with the Magna Carta. From what I read, the inherent priority of "Life" will prevail over any conflicts of other clauses. Such is logical too.

What is missing today, that was present then (both 1215 & 1787), is natural and true communications. Media has replaced that with lies and manipulations.

Where they have not replaced it, they have contaminated it so deeper meanings require constant purifications of intent, which can take up all the time available IF, even they are possible.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

Actually the media was used as a tool even in the 1700s. That famous picture of the Boston Massacre for example does not show the mobs throwing rocks and shells at the soldiers. It portrays the soldiers as attacking defenseless civilians. I am not saying that what happened was not a tragedy but the artistic license used in the image won support of the rest of the colonies.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

Good example of how dependence on any organized, centralized media can be a problem. Even this message board is easily hijacked, and many people think it has fidelity to a common public intent.

None of the high traffic message boards are free of the false groups posting useless info. Maybe true, maybe valid, but useless.

Media has culpability in usurpation of the constitution after a point. When our voices begin to have harmony around Article V, that is the point technically where they are working against the constitution, if they will not publicize the truth of the constitutional demand for a convention.

I have a concept for a new type of forum software that empowers users to graphicaly sort the thread posts, and the forum itself. Always keeping the the most important post at the top of the thread and the most important thread at the top of the forum. There's a pdf you can download with a detailked description.


Imagine that as a tool for consumer affairs discussion. Now imagine selling advertising for the second best after everyone decides what is best, for very good reason. Some software developer ought to take this on.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I have this foolish hope that the truth will be easy to see if people are allowed to see it, I can always hope can't I?

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

There is another aspect. Time.

When given time to see it, or discuss what is seen with integrity to evidence and reason, and not have the improving, growing discussion and agreement be disrupted, THEN, the truth might be easier to see that any would think looking from these dismal conditions of media/web manipulation we currently have around us.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8631) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Time is on our side, on the political front, that pace is slow and I am not sure how entrenched the power will be. That's when OWS comes into play, we can speed this process by waking up the country to the conditions that most Americas face each day. I see this forum as an opportunity to be heard, I am always censored, Al Franken wouldn’t touch my stuff Occupy Phoenix wouldn’t publish my papers, even though the editor I spoke with loved it, it was stopped before being put out, so I don’t trust any filters. The truth is this is going to be very rough on some very powerful people, if we succeed.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

As long as we have corporate dependence, and corporations control government, any advantage we had in politics, over time, within time, or on time, is seriously declining as we see the economy being intentionally trashed.

There is no place with traffic that has integrity for discussion of solution. Article V is the only solution that is acceptable (once past the misinfo) accross the spectrum of American people. Free speech a abridged. People are confused, people are distracted, people are afraid.

I heartily recomend that anyone sincere, act first by joining here,


Because that's the only place I've seen detailed strategy that is keyed into vital, dominant laws. Then work to determine and contact others that are sincere, wherever they may be found, and get them to join that forum and post in their specific state forum so others of that state know who those of the same consituency are.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

The problem I have with this idea is that the mob usually promotes the wrong post. People often vote me down here and call me a troll when I am try like heck to stay on topic. If they do not agree with my statements they vote me down even though I usually back with links to sources (usually from .gov or .edu sites)

Some things work in theory but when put into practice fail

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

This concept is different.


People have to answer the poll to post, but if they don't post text explaining their poll response, the poll response is nullified. If they post nonsense, one person give a negative poll response and states "this is nonsense", another agrees, copying and pasting the "this is nonsense statement". If someone tries to say the nonsense make sense and gives a positive poll response, someone sincere polls with a negative on both and posts the first is nonsense and the latter is falsely representing with their text post.

Works just like reality but better because time is not an issue, to forum sits there and gathers opinion and those who have facts and reason making veracity, such as you do, and uses them well, will be the only post that can be easily seen, along with a few others that are nearly equal in veracity.

I think once we actually have it to practice with, we will find that part is the easy part, and getting the software tuned up and capable of other search and sort aspects is th real challenge.

Currently all we have is this forum, which fails just as you describe.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

And they will reply "this person is a troll" or "he is lying"

I always thought a good thing would be that when people make statements about some fact they should have to provide a reference.

Something like this: Saturn is the only planet in our solar system that is less dense that water. http://astro-observer.com/solarsystem/saturn/facts.html

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

Perhaps you've underestimated the numbers of the sincere WHEN reason and evidence, such as you demonstrate is involved.

Currently the forum is dominated by persons with false intentions, one way or another. Either they know what they are doing or they don't Same difference. Focus on useless information and confusion adding to the distraction and pointless, superfluous, temporary intellectual alliance founded in the current political dysfunction.

When a forum is dominated in that way, the sincere who are reasonable, mostly feel like they do not belong. They lurk. WHEN evidence and reason is exclusively used, (as you've demonstrated), then agreement found, people feel differently, as if they are confronted with something of substance, and THEN feel as if they must post in support of what is tangibly positive and do so with reason.

ON EDIT:The proposed forum design makes that activity dominantly meaningful therefore present a new and exciting potential to the sincere. Their numbers increase and the agreement expands.

The proposed forum concept will automatically make that agreement the most visible exchange.

They want and NEED to be functional. As long as they are can only find the opposite, they stand off.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

I don't mind when people vote down trash. What happens instead is they vote down things they do not agree with. I can understand people believing that is how is should work but it can push real debate to the bottom.

For example, because I believe charter schools are a good idea and have been for the most part successful in bringing innovation to education my post was voted to -5 and folded up at the bottom. The arguments I made were sound, they were backed up with links to data from the Department of Education but because many on the thread were pro teacher's union they voted it down. I would have welcomed debate and was open to someone challenging me on the issue but that did not happen.

There was no exchange of ideas or debate. There was only "here is another troll" "You are a fascist pro private corporation pig"

Again the idea is great but in practice I do not believe it will spur honest debate. People vote down what they don't like regardless of the rules.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

Okay, in that situation where an "average crosssection" of society is not involved, it doesn't matter.

However, the big problem in that kind of social group is narrowing the issue to the beginning fundaments. If you don't, they are usually off the hook with their accountability. Often they will not engage it to avoid the truth. So basically they are practicing false logic, or social logic based in belief that they hold in common.

The tactics they are using are "cognitive distortions". "here is another troll" "You are a fascist pro private corporation pig"both fit in more ways than one here.

  1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.
  2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
  3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
  4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
  5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.
  6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established fact.
  7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.
  8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.
  9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.
  10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
  11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.
  12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

The above list was created by cognitive therapists to help people understand their own uses of the distortions unconsciously. Here is the thing with cognitive distortions used in language, consciously or otherwise. When it is done to increase understanding, they are efficient when understanding is shared, it is okay, when they are used to avoid understanding it lacks integrity to reason. In that situation you could use #8 successfully on them to help them understand what they are doing to childrens lives, and society, by allowing a uniform and dumbed down education system teach without rationally evaluating the subject matter.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

I agree with you analysis but it does not help the situation. While OWS is supposed to be open to all ideas that help humanity move forward, many have their own ideas or agenda as to what should be accomplished. While the idea of the voting system is intended to filter out trash talk it ends up becoming a popularity contest. People start to know each other and vote people down because of their name. I know a few that would vote me down if I posted "I am glad the sun came up today"

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

"While OWS is supposed to be open to all ideas that help humanity move forward, many have their own ideas or agenda as to what should be accomplished."

True to a degree where techno censorship is used. I found a post with this link to a thread, that will not appear in the forum and never did from what I've been able to learn. A travesty when considering the importance to defense of the constitution the concepts there represent.


A defacto statement of "WE WILL NOT allow defense of the constitution. Sad, because none realize that the gov has not been under the constitution for 140 years.

I also saw some posts indicating that after a certain number of dislikes, posts disappear. Accordingly a false and organized group (cointelpro) can actually make information go away on their own!

I agree. Irrational groups form, and trash info because they can, . . . in response to the social structure. The above described gorup could actually unwittingly create that behavior from a group of mislead, but basically well meaning citizens.

Hence the true purpose of political parties.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 6 years ago

Well, I like your posts. Please don't let some morons without principle shout down the truth. The truth will win in the end.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

That is the right idea, but discernment and discretion serving constitutional intent need to be preserved, meaning WHERE the truth is discussed may control whether or not it becomes widely known enough, to constitutional citizens, to effectively unify in defense of the constitution.

The problem is image.

Almost all media is focused on image, power and fear.
We learned to respond to these things as children and became part of a media induced society.

Image consciousness is compelled by social fears, which are largely unconscious, but can be discussed rationally once they are brought up. The places that people WANT to discuss are where many people are, logically popular, also, against human interests, made so falsely. Secretly they are technically designed to censor and are occupied by false groups that have an agenda using what media taught about social fears to manipulate, as they might, the American citizens trying to use the forum to unify in defense of the constitution.

I formally inform citizens of these efforts here and now, that free speech is abridged, meaning revision of the First amendment is needed, NOW.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 6 years ago

Hmmm, yea, I could accept that. What fits it together is when the crowds are used for publicity which makes the forum popular.

My gig is the crowds, where do they come from? I mean the ones that run the eurosocialist lingo, where do they come from, how do they find each other? Why is all this coming together for them? I mean demands are one thing, but methods of gaining the authority to meet them is another? There is no strategy to gain that:(

Have you noticed what is going on in schools in the last few days? Your point about "media induced society" actually provides an explanation for the behaviors. Social fears.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

I know where you are going, some mind-control, secret society thing like you were posting last fall. I saw that thread hanging for days.


I suppose psychological research basically supports the possibilities, but people image fears start raging, ones cultivated long ago, and they run in escape to the things they know about, misinfo albeit, but still comfortable for them.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 6 years ago

Closer to home, media and adolescent homicide. This is shameful. My point about media is that it is dismantling our evolutionary program and young people are freaking out. This is just in the last couple of days. It's been going on like this for some time after 9-11. Hopelessness and misleading are tragic.

1 dead, 4 wounded in Ohio high school shooting http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/1-dead-4-wounded-in-ohio-high-school-2202322.html

Death of 10-year-old Long Beach girl after fight ruled homicide http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/long-beach-girl-homicide.html

Social fears Here are the daily casualties. By tolerating corporate media this is what we are doing to ourselves.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Wow, that was an impressive analysis.

[-] 0 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

The British arms manufacturers providing a manufacturing industry and financing, training etc to the north, were the losers of the lost war. The one ended by the Magna Carta. Through the civil war they regained control of their serfs and slaves, here on this continent, but that will be no more because their secret fraud is exposed.

Spread the word. Don't let their contaminated meanings of life pollute the intent that is shared with your country people. Recover the true meanings and functions of free speech.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

It is good to see that other people recognize the right to life as a primary right :) It is my understanding (logically, and as it seems to be represented in law... sometimes) that all rights stem from this primary right. I hear many people try to put forward the argument that since life is a primary right, one may do anything in order to preserve it, including violate the rights of others. To my way of thinking this is wrong reasoning. Rights have to be held by all people at all times. No right can be considered to exist which allows one to violate the similar rights of others.

Interesting insight regarding true communications. I would have to say that I agree.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

Our common recognition of real needs and conditions, must reasonably control how we all react in our collective protection of life. One thing damm sure. America, nor any nation can do it by building nuclear weapons. That is crazy. Let alone stockpiling them! As long as that is happening we have extremely serious mental problems running the world. Time for a big pow wow with psychology and find out WTF they've been and what they've been doin'.

I've gained some insight into how to restore the constitution by reading here.


[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Interesting. Have you been to teamlaw.org? What do you make of Eric WiIliam Madsen's perspectives on these issues? That was the site that got me started on this path of inquiry. While initially I found it fascinating, there are discrepancies between his information and the information on other sites, and having read the documents he sites I fail to see some of what he sees in them. I'm particularly interested in what you think about his proposition that seating the original jurisdiction governors will allow them to lawfully seat a president and senate and restore the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

I've been put off by the lack of zeal that they have for fundamental uses of the constitution and other related mechanisms obviously there to be used in defense of it. Right off, "seating" governors who lawfully appoint a president is not consistent with the constitution, Article. II. Section. 1. With the lack of zeal for Article V, or ways to enforce the constitution and manifest that prime right, and this notion, I'd seriously have to wonder about teamlaw.org.

It appears they are supporting what might be misinfo and ignoring obvious real law.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Yeah, I initially got really excited when I found that site, but after looking into the law for myself (as he suggested :) I found discrepancies that I could not resolve. My current view of these sites is that they are good repositories of information and history, but it all must be confirmed first-hand before being accepted. It is a daunting task, but thankfully there are more and more people who seem to be rising to the challenge.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

I think we've followed similar paths, gleaning what works in consistent explanation for the governmental situation.

I've always reminded myself immediately, "Okay, this is the problem, not the solution. Don't worry about the details." The infiltrators of our government ultimately do not care if we know of or how the problems were created for us. All they have to do is keep us from knowing the solutions.

A group is gathering here, doing just that. http://articlevconvention.org

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Looks interesting. I'll check it out

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

The notion there which I feel is fundamental and advanced with that fundament, is the concept of preparatory amendments, assuring that an Article V has full consitutional intent. Just those amendments alone could solve a great deal of problems. We've grown used to it, but the right to freedom of speech is effectively fully abridged. That alone will take down the nation eventually if we do not act.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

Are you saying that all rights are equal? For example, suppose I own a can of Pepsi, and you are dying of thirst. Is my right to property equal to you right to life? Or does your right to life trump my property rights?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

My right to life imposes no obligation on you to provide for my survival. It simply allows me to provide for my own at nobody else's expense. The right to life is founded on the concept of property. I cannot live (as a human being) without my body, so to protect my right to life I (my consciousness) must own my body. You must own your own body as well. You traded the exercise of your body (work) for the can of pepsi (which represents someone else's work), securing your ownership of it (as a product of your own labor). You had no right to it before you traded for it, the person who produced it did. Similarly, I have no right to it regardless of how thirsty I am unless you give it to me or I trade you something you think is fair for it.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

Are there no rights that are superior to any other?

For example the UN has compiled a long list of human rights. Do they all carry the same weight?


[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

The UN is one of the foremost perpetrators in supplanting the concept of natural rights (which are the only kinds of rights that exist) with the concept of political rights, which are by definition privileges granted by an organization that claims to have the authority to grant (or deny) them.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

So among the natural rights (life, liberty, property) are these all equal? Is there ever a conflict of rights among individuals where one or another right is supreme?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

There is never a conflict of rights between individuals. One individual or the other may violate the other's rights but this is not a contradiction between their rights.

The rights of liberty and property are derivative rights of the right to life. Liberty and property are necessary for life as a human being.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 6 years ago

My first thought here is, the english language or any language really, is not near concise enough to be taken at face value. There is always this interpretation(s) as you yourself have embarked on. I take each with a grain of salt.

For example, FREEDOM, your definition likely would not agree with mine, and everyone else will have a different view. We can't know what that word may invoke in others. If you think you can hang your hat on it you would be mistaken.

Good luck with your unsolvable puzzle. As long as you know that's what it is.

Being smart means you realize how little you really know. Otherwise, your a fool with little knowledge of the truth about things.

Seek the truth and never settle for those half truths designed only to manipulate.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

"Seek the truth and never settle for those half truths designed only to manipulate." Why say that after saying that nothing can be known?

Why not determine the meanings of words based on a dictionary -- a source of meaning which does not change between different people's understanding? Now, a dictionary would first have to be declared the official dicionary of __. In the case of the constitution, it would be Bouvier's Law dictionary.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 6 years ago

Ever notice how dictionaries use other words also with imprecise meanings to define a word imprecisely. I agree we can know things. Like to eat or starve. But take any of those big heavy weight idea words and good luck running down that rabbit hole.

You see, freedom means certain things to me, but I'm sure we won't agree that my meaning is golden and somehow God given. If you thought I was perfectly correct and hit the nail on the head, then I would tell you, your wrong.

If this world was only black and white, you might have a case. But wisdom has taught me that such thinking is foolhardy and verges on arrogance.

Get my drift? Or not. Player's choice. Good Luck with your logical cementing.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Eventually, all words (esp. in a dictionary) can be traced back to their experiential roots. What I mean is that at some point you have to define words ostensibly, by saying "I mean this!" and indicating something that exists. If one does not grasp the fact that all words (which have meaning) can be traced back this way, then one cannot use them precisely or consistently, and the case you present will be the result; each person using a word to mean whatever he wants it to mean, and being unable to accurately communicate his ideas to another.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 6 years ago

Yes, this is true, there's the roots and an intended meaning to the word. But, none-the-less, even though it is all we have here, in this forum, we can never achieve any exactitude with them.

For instance, Perfection, Infinity, God, Truth, Freedom, and Contradiction, all are words that not only are hard to really define but also can have different meanings (definitions) dependent upon the context. We can only hope for a approximation at best.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

I disagree once again. Perfection, Infinity, truth, freedom, and contradiction are words which refer to an evaluation of a concept or group of concepts. Whether or not we agree on whether a given concept or group of concepts is represented by any of these words is uncertain, but their meanings are certain. Perfection is the embodiment of the ideal, whatever that ideal may be. Infinity is the never-ending. Infinity itself may be unfathomable but we can understand the concept nonetheless. Truth depends on context, especially when applied to value-judgements. In order to determine the truth of a statement, the context of that statement must be understood by both parties. But that does not prevent us from understanding the concept of truth. Freedom means the absence of oppression or force; the ability to act of ones own free will unfettered. Contradiction is the negation of one concept by another used in conjunction with it; it is impossibility. We all may have a different idea of who or what God is, but (dependent on the context) we all know what the concept refers to. It refers to a power which acts outside of all constraint; something which acts without stimulus from any other source.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 6 years ago

Well, very good reply. I certainly see your point. My characterization was likely extreme in how it was interpreted and it needs some clarity.

I think what I was really trying to state here is this: Words, all we got to communicate, do convey the general sense of what we're saying and certainly the meanings are discernible. But, they are always approximations and most times we find words adequate to describe what we're thinking but never can they really convey excatly what we mean to say.

IN the real world, we say the words and once again there's another factor, how we say them. Yelling them usually conveys an emotion that need not be stated in words, our behavior will bear them out in our body language and the meaning in that message will be understood without speaking single a word about it.

Like this old addage: Mean what you say, but don't be mean when you say it.

SO much more communication occurs unspoken in person to person unlike here where we hang all our thoughts (ideas) solely on these words alone. If I was laughing while I wrote this you would never know.

Good conservation. It makes us realize what words can do and what they can't.

By the way, infinity, this word really is beyond our grasp to ever define properly or really to even be close to what it is, exactly. Something that never ends or goes on forever is a severe approximation of something we'll never understand in this life. Certainly it's a big word, but not one that has any hope to be claerly defined. Plato thought in his time thought that infinity would some day be understood very well. Little did he know this would never be the case to this day.

Thanks for thoughts. This one is a can of worms but well here they are, words, so we and our predecessors can try improve on the conciseness of the meanings but the perfection of words is elusive.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

While I agree with you that in face to face communication there is much more being communicated that just the words and their meanings, when it comes to written word, and especially law, the only communication that occurs and that is intended to occur occurs in the form of written words. Therefore, written words (and their definitions, according to an authority on those words which is accepted at the time of writing) can be the only criteria for defining the meaning of those words. Which means that in law, the only meaning of the law is that which is defined by the aforementioned authority on words. Disagree?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 6 years ago

No, but, I will say in law, as most do know, it's is always an interpretation of the law which has to be made. An interpretation of the words which make uop the law. Not concise and always debatable. Judges are usually the prevailing authority in interpreting law since it takes much education to even have a decent chance at it.

I stand with words are too general in ordinary language, far from 1 + 1 = 2, if you get the drift. Many ancient philosophers thought calculus would be a dialog with God because of it's precision. Ordinary words, not.

Good debate. This one is worth the while since it is these inept symbols we use and unfortunately it's all we got for now.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

I would say that if law were based on the principle that words were to be interpreted by those who decide whether or not one has broken the law, there is no law until one has been found guilty of violating it. Law is supposed to prevent the exercise of individual caprice on the part of those who are to hand down the sentences. This cannot be done without law being defined and understandable before one is accused of breaking it. If we are assumed to know the law, the law must be knowable.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 6 years ago

To an extent. Personally I think laws need to be primarily intuitive. In the same way that stealing is intuitively known to be wrong. We don't have to know the statute or the exactly wording of the law to know and be responsible for not breaking it. More technical laws, which many times are complex and poorly understood are many times mistakenly broken.

I agree, laws should be knowable and understandable. And we the people need to start paying attention.

Good posting action shield!

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Yes! But why is stealing wrong? I would post my argument here but I would like to hear yours first!

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 6 years ago

There is no mention of the Department of Education. There is no metion of the Department of Hair Color. There is no mention of the Department of Shoe Sizes. The Bill of Rights, which is the power of the people document, says that "Congress shall pass no laws,,,,, concerning religion." I cant find where it says "States shall pass no laws concerning religion." If states have the power to regulate drivers license on federal highways then state should be able to allow Christmas scenes on public property.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Well, it would seem to me that since governments own the roads, they can make the rules regarding their use, including requiring driver's licenses. Unless there is some law or custom wherein people could claim the "right to travel", as some have brought up, it would be impossible to lawfully deviate. Now, I have heard arguments that applying for a license and registration tags makes once's vehicle a commercial vehicle and it is only such vehicles which are regulated by law. I can't say anything one way or the other on that as I have not looked into it.

Simply because there is no mention of a specific department does not preclude the government from creating one. There is a principle known as "implied powers" which is referred to by congress' power to make all laws necessary and proper for the execution of their enumerated powers. I think that this is a well founded principle even though it has been grossly misused (especially with regard to commerce). There is no reason I can think of that the state should not be allowed to create its own education system but it is a gross violation of rights to mandate attendance, as is now done.

And the first amendment prevents congress from passing a law "regarding the establishment of religion", which means it is prevented from establishing a state religion, which members of the state must be a part of (although what is the difference between a state school and a state religion? They serve the same purpose). The first amendment also prevents congress from making laws violating or abridging the right to freedom of speech and of the press. People (esp. congressmen and courts) seem to forget the last part when talking about issues like pornography, although hate speech is well protected. Go figure.

There is no such thing as "public property". Property is a private matter. The United States owns (or claims to own) city streets, squares, plazas, parks, etc. It allows us the privilege of using them, and, having the right to do so, may allow or disallow certain uses of that property, including Christmas displays.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

what's in the constitution that prevents it from making laws about health care?

can the government provide healthcare?

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Nothing (that I know of) prevents it (the government of the United States) from making laws about healthcare. However, there is one extremely important constitutional concept which prevents government from forcing people to purchase insurance or other forms of healthcare as recent "government policies" have suggested; it is the 9th amendment (even if that amendment did not exist, American citizens would be protected against forced purchases of any kind). The 9th amendment states that "rights" enumerated in the constitution are not intended to be a conclusive or definitive list of rights held by citizens of America. This is important because it provides constitutional proof that the constitution is not the source of rights; and that rights are held by the people (and that the people's rights are the source of the constitution). If this were not the case, the constitution would be an invalid document, since it was written by delegates chosen by those who had the right to make such a decision.

But how is government to provide that healthcare? Should government agents be required to first become doctors so that they can provide healthcare services? If not, then the health care must be provided by others, who are likely not government employees. What right does the government have to force them to provide their services on any terms other than those that they choose? What right would government have to force anyone to provide his or her services on any terms other than their own?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

But how is government to provide that healthcare?

health care check up and consultation office should be as common as libraries

people should be able to walk in and receive attention and medicine

Should government agents be required to first become doctors so that they can provide healthcare services?

the doctors degree seems to have made itself an exclusive club

one does not need to be a doctor to provide healthcare services

If not, then the health care must be provided by others, who are likely not government employees.

the government has never had a problem hiring employees

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

I think you're trolling.

"health care check up and consultation office should be as common as libraries. people should be able to walk in and receive attention and medicine "

That is not at all an answer to the question I asked. If this were a presidential debate, that would fly. Here it will not.

"the doctors degree seems to have made itself an exclusive club. one does not need to be a doctor to provide healthcare services "

You're correct about that. What I meant was "Are politicians the ones who are going to physically provide the health care or are they going to order others to do so according to political specifications?"

"the government has never had a problem hiring employees"

I don't think this one even needs a response in order to refute it, just watch the news.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Historically speaking the most important clause in the Constitution has been the commerce clause and virtually all subordinating legislation is legally and juridicially justified on that basis.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

You're not wrong in recognizing that the commerce clause has been used to justify much legislation. But I disagree with the idea that it's the most important clause in the constitution, to the exclusion or negation of others. I just don't think that any clause was meant to trump another, otherwise what would be the point of putting them all in there? Why not just say "Government should be doing x, y, and z and it can do anything it wants to so long as x, y, or z is the justification for it"?

I don't think that it's justified to use the commerce clause or any other to overrule other clauses. That kind of behavior would be more appropriate for a corporation, not a lawful government. If you do some research into the history of this country, however, you will find that the United States is a private corporation. So it's usage of the commerce clause to justify its legislation makes perfect sense.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Functionally the commerce clause is the heart of the Constitution and it was widely recognized by opponents of the Constitution at the time that it was the commerce is exactly what made the Constitution the reactionary antidemocratic document that it was, is and ever shall be. Clearly not the sort of document on which to base a revolutionary democratic movement.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 6 years ago

I think the preamble is very powerful where it stresses promoting the general Welfare of the people.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Powerful enough to negate other clauses?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 6 years ago

I really don't know. Maybe?

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

I say no. If "promoting the general welfare" or "protecting the interests of the state" is enough to negate all other clauses, legislation could be passed "for the general welfare" which destroys all the rights of the commonwealth. For example, the patriot act, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, the National Defense Authorization Act, etc!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 6 years ago

It would all come down to interpreting what promoting the general welfare means, I suppose.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Yes, but no matter what you come up with, the actions taken based on that would still be limited by all the other clauses in the constitution which dealt with the same issues. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any clause is superior to another, except for those clauses which deal directly with repealing previous clauses and amendments.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 6 years ago

I'm no constitutional scholar, LOL, but I think there may be an argument that the preamble supercedes any other clauses or amendments meaning that all clauses and amendments must meet the standards of the general Welfare clause and the rest of the guidelines in the preamble.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

And for the same reason, any action taken on any other clause must also meet the requirements of all the others and violate none of the others which apply to the same issue. Why would the preamble be the only part of the constitution to which this concept applies?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 6 years ago

Honestly, in my mind when I look at the constitution as a document, I believe the preamble sets the stage. It is the overarching wish for the nation and so it could be determined that it supercedes the rest of the document, that the rest of the document must adhere to those wishes. I'm not saying I'm right or anything. I really have no idea. But, that is how I see it. I appreciate your intelligent thoughts on the matter.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Well I don't disagree with you unless you're saying that something in the preamble could (or should) be able to contradict something that comes later in the document.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 6 years ago

My hope would be that nothing ever ended up in the document that does not adhere to the preamble. I think problems may arise when interpreting the Constitution. For instance, the Supreme Court ruling that money is speech. Hmmm. That would seem unconstitutional to me if put to the test of the preamble. Money = Speech ≠ promoting the general Welfare of the American people.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Here is the full text of the first amendment to the bill of rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance"

So "money" is not "speech"; that is true. But neither is the expenditure of money. So this issue, in this context, has nothing to do with the first amendment. Now, Federal Reserve Notes are not money, in the historical sense of the word. They do not represent anything other than the debt of those holding them. For proof of this, research the methods by which FRNs are issued, if you haven't. No contributions to candidates for presidency of the United States are made in any form other than FRNs.

So the issue of FRNs equalling speech is merely a distraction. It is a distraction from the real problem with the United States, which is this: The United States is a private corporation, created for the purpose of expropriating the wealth of the American sovereigns. There are many researchers who have uncovered this fact, among them are: http://www.teamlaw.org/, http://algoxy.com/poly/emergency_powers_statutes.html, the authors of "Cracking the Code", and, I'm sure, others I have not come across. When looking into any of these resources, it is extremely important that you do your own research to back up any and all of their claims. As I have found, there are errors in almost all of them, but the resounding fact that the United States is not what it pretends to be is more than reasonably upheld in the documents referenced by these researchers. Refer to my conversation with "forourfutures" in this thread for more context and links.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 6 years ago

Thanks. I've found similar information including teamlaw.org helpful in clarifying the findings you mention and it's all available for anyone interested enough to look into.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

something interesting that I found recently (since now i'm in a position to research the original documents from which these ideas are allegely sourced). Regarding the military flag concept, Executive Order #10834 does NOT contain the words: "a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides", nor do any of the documents attached to O.E. 10834. That portion of the argument can be considered officially debunked. But, of course, I encourage you to do your own research.



[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

Let's face it. The General Welfare clause trumps all of the amendments combined. The tenth amendment was added arbitrarily to the constitution as basically a prank. Since the founders left no instructions on how to amend or change the constitution, we need to interpret it as we see fit and disregard the wording.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

The framers did leave instructions on how to amend, as well as a process.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

We are the ones that define constitutional intent.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is a very useful and correct, constitutionally, intentionally oriented clause.

It only means that whatever is thought of as a "power" belongs either to the states, or the people, not the federal. That is awesome, would not not say so yourself?\

Here is where constitutional intent is being discussed, if you are interested. http://articlevconvention.org

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

blah, blah, blah... Your lips are moving, but all I hear is "I want to hurt poor people." The only people discussing the constitution are the ones who want to make it say what they want. Everyone else already knows what it means.


[-] 0 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

If this is a joke, it is a poor one.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

A joke? That's what you think of justice? A joke?? Look, the people who wrote the constitution were a bunch of slave owning, knuckle dragging troglodytes. Sometimes we need to re-write (or re-interpret)their ramblings to provide fairness. You don't like fairness? I have nothing else to say to you then.

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

"Let's face it. The General Welfare clause trumps all of the amendments combined."

"The General Welfare" almost always means granting power to government agencies to regulate individual exercise of rights. Your post provides more evidence of this. What does "general welfare" mean, if not the protection of the commonwealth? How could violating their rights possibly protect them? And from what?

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

"The General Welfare" almost always means granting power to government agencies to PROTECT THE POOR AND DISADVANTAGED. Name one instance of a government agency violating a person's rights? One. Just one. Bet you can't.

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Do you want me to list violations based on legislation passed to promote "the general welfare" or just government violations of rights? I'm going to assume the first since that is the context of our conversation.

The IRS collecting income taxes (since 1990 it has become mandatory for American citizens to have a social security number) is an excellent example of violation of right.

First of all, why should "the poor" be given handouts that are provided, not by those who pass the legislation allowing the handouts, but by others who produce goods and render services?

Second, in what way are people "disadvantaged" if not by legislative decree? The only "disadvantage" I can think of is one that is imposed on one group and not on another by force. I hope you are not suggesting that people with different skin colors have an inherently different potential to achieve their goals or that people born to poor families have less potential to follow through with their own plans than those who are not?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

What? Alright, fine. I bet you can't name TWO then. The government never violated anyone's rights. Everything they do is good. Look, some people are disadvantaged when they are born... we need to help them with a hand up. I'm not going to be any more specific than that because I have a feeling you are trying to trick me into saying something offensive about why certain groups of people are born disadvantaged.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Laughed too hard. No response possible :)

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

The legal system (not to mention the federal government) follows the Constitution when convvenient and when it fits in with whatever fad the liberals follow at that moment.

[-] 3 points by jpbarbieux (137) from Palmetto Bay, FL 6 years ago

As well as the Repub-Klan

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago


[-] -2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

I remember when Obama was defending his ideas after he was elected by claiming the Constitution was incredibly vague. I see no vagueness in the constitution. I'm not entirely sure he's even skimmed through it.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

Wow, so let me ask you, since you are smarter that the Founders, how are you able to find the Constitution not vague when the Founders intended the document to be vague. That's a problem with bible thumpers, they can take a vague idea and turn it into a religion. to be honest and fair though, so can atheists. The Constitution was a compromise and there is not a single compromise that has been made that is not vague in its precepts, or then why would we need a supreme Court?

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

How the hell is the constitution vague? The founding fathers listed out what they thought. You can do this, this, and this as a government and if you do this, this, or this then the people can get mad at you. The ability to amend the constitution is there in case of things the founding fathers had no way of foreseeing. Show me where its vague.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

You should read other writings about that era. every clause was a compromise and if they did not intend on new legislation and ideas to come forth, they would have never created a legislator. instead every grievance would have been the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Only a fanatic would believe that what worked for a horse and buggy community could be adequate for our society. Even constitutional originalists are having trouble sticking to the original intent of the Founders. Get over it Dog, the founders were contemporaries of a small, egalitarian nation. That is no longer the case and the Constitution needs to acknowledge the changes we are living through. besides, a constitutional convention, in this highly polarized society, would be the precipitous of civil war. Also, if you don't know that a score of people can read a document and come to different conclusions, then you have not been around long enough to have an informed opinion. By your logic we are to keep funding the post office, even though it is no longer efficient. or we are to continue to allow Congress to decide where the coined currency should be spent, and not the FED. you original intentionalists need to look around you and then you will see that the constitution has taken on many metamorphosis, and whether you agree or not, it'll continue to be a living document. I'd rather have the document grow up, then be reformulated through A CONSTITUTIONAL convention. Besides, I have no respect for the argument what would the Founders do because they would have probably done what is no longer feasible today.

[-] 0 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

You would allow the treason of GATT and NAFTA to destroy our economy and the environment with multinational corporations managing endless wars. Your fear mongering of a convention to amend is wholly unwelcome to the future of this nation, indeed the entire world. It is based in the premise of ignorance created by those your mongering serves.

Excerpt from The Declaration Of Independence: --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The below (excerpt of the constitution) is the above codified

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The current government is not constitutional. It was not made so after the civil war.

We have the Constitution, but unfortunately we have a massive deception ongoing. The US government has not been constitutional since 1863. It's been running on the "Lieber code", or The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 a private corporation named, “The District of Columbia”.

The "Lieber code" was the rules of engagement for the civil war.

British arms manufactures financed the north in the civil war and created massive debt. They exported an arms manufacturing industry to the north and provided massive funding. Civil war upon the people has been effected on this continent, through this, by the losers of the lost war. The war the Magna Carta ended.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Excellent comment! I don't know who you are but please, stick around. Or at least drop in when needed.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

Truth is exciting, because it is functional and useful for unity. I would recomend gathering where it is well exercised by a group with intentions to use it to preserve our rights and freedoms. Check the thread about priorities in preparation for Article V.


[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

I have read (probably) much of the same literature you have regarding the re-incorporation of the DoC and subsequent events. I found this site earlier today which claims to debunk many of the related theories: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ And there is a lot of good information on it. I disagree with his attempted debunking of the DoC matter. He claims that it was re-incorporated in 1871, but that it was unpopular and so it was later re-incorporated again, lawfully this time. Having read the documents he linked to I disagree. All the subsequent Acts concerning the District of Columbia did was to change the internal government structure, NOT to re-incorporate it as something other than what it was incorporated as in 1871. There are links to some cases where the Flag Defense has been ineffective (though in those cases, it was clearly being used ineffectively). One thing I've been trying to verify for myself is the matter of the nom de guerre, or your name in all capital letters, being an entity created for the purpose of creating a trust, with you as trustee and the IRS as beneficiary. The difficulty I have had in verifying this is that I can find no reference to the principle of law that lowercase and capital letters signify different entities when the names are otherwise the same. Perhaps you have done some research on this topic and could share some information? Just kind of casting a line out here...

[-] 0 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

Right on! You are digging. And you are correct about becraft, my impressions exactly, but I hadn't yet found this site.


There is a .pdf there, curseofcosurety.pdf that explains very nicely the nom deguerre.

Simply put, IF the 1787 constitution had been restored, we would not be in the situation we are in now. We've been the victim of an elaborate fraud for 140 years.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

I had been to algoxy before but somehow missed that link. Is there any evidence to support the idea of the strawman other than the fact that no business could be conducted with the IRS and other Corp US affiliates except through such an instrument? I'm a little wary of relying solely on that principle, as compelling as it is. Anyway, reading that inspired me to get a copy of Cracking the Code.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

I like you feel that reluctance, but realize that if we continue to reduce our invokation of the contract making identity, the problem disapates. That's the personal side.

The public hopefully side has us working against the institutions of fraud that such activities promote. The first level is the education you and I are confirming, and trying to refine, that needs to be shared widely. The next is ending the massive misleading of good people with the current forms of activism. I've been looking at this site,


That thread has the "preparatory amendment" to Article V concept discribed a second time. I think its the same author as the algoxy site.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

I am not totally against article V. I just believe that people who are trying to see it come to fruition need to contemplate all the unintended consequences of such an action. This is one of those arguments that i agree with Conservatives. just imagine if an article V happened tomorrow, who do you think would have more effect on the changes made, the people or the moneyed interests? I say the latter. But i'm big enough to admit I could be wrong. though I've thought it through, I don't think so.

[-] 2 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

I've thought it through too, and you are right. If it happened tomorrow it would be a disaster. But those of us that KNOW the constitution cannot be relinquished under any conditions KNOW that all the is needed is a package of amendments which PREPARE for maximum constitutional intent, just like Article V stipulates.

  1. End the medias dictatorial control of wht is truth.
  2. Reverse citizens united, and perhaps further restriction on campaign finance.
  3. Reform election systems and secure voting methods.

All delegates must agree to propose and ratify those three amendments, THEN agree to up to one year for the people to inform themselves before beginning the general convention proposing other amendments.

Those three reset the potentials for a reasonable democracy as the republic see see itself needing from time to time in order to adapt and correct.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

I believe those three amendments, if they were the only new things proposed, would go along way to reestablishing liberty. Although, i'd add one more. I believe proportional representation would be a better form of republicanism and is in more aligned with the Founders' original intent. When there were thirteen states, and not two parties, I believe the moderates within the nation were better represented.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 6 years ago

Hmmmm, I've never looked into that. Sounds very reasonable.

I have examined how a large percentage of the framers were opposed to multiple parties. Washington I think said something like this reasoning, "If there were more than one, there should only be two, because if there were more, the stronger of the 2 would control the others and make change very difficult."

At any rate, the three amendments will serve restoration of constitutional government very well, yes, liberties will be well secured. Most importantly, American citizens can conduct an Article V with the fullest constitutional intent then resume a reasonable dialog constantly and maintain an informed opinion wherein democracy when needed, will function.

Have you seen the draft proposal for a revision of the First Amendment and how it would be implemented? Don't know where, but some awesome history was sourced that added 70% more to the notion of free speech we currently entertain. I thought I'd understood how natural law worked until I came across the social implications of that. Great stuff. The PTB would never let that stuff be written down and published.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

obama only sees the constitution as a document that limits his powers, (which is what it's supposed to do), he doesnt like that.