Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Constitution of the United States

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 19, 2011, 12:44 p.m. EST by emptythought (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Section 9. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person holding office of profit or trust under them, shall, without consent of the congress accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from king, prince, or foreign state. Wall street corporate has the ear of congress by way of lobbyist. Congress has accepted emolument by the way of lobbyist. The constitution by faith, trust and fact has been broken!

43 Comments

43 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 2 years ago

A new effort has been started to Occupy The Constitution. This effort launches a new Direct Democracy tool called the National Opinion Collection System ( NOCS ). This tool creates a process to capture ALL the comments of EVERY citizen about major social issues, elections and bills before congress. This effort is described at http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupytheconstitution-introduction

[-] 1 points by egarners (27) 3 years ago

I see we have some lawyers here.....good. We need some good constitutional lawyers (do they exist?) to get this of the ground.

The federal grand jury system is still in fact run and operated by people from local communities. All that is needed now is “local education” of these grand jurors, and encouragement for them to start issuing indictments.

And if you are questioning how this may be possible, folks, these traitorous fools have given themselves enough rope for the grand juries to hang ‘em. For example:

Title 18 § 2331. Definitions (United States Code – Criminal Provisions)
[READ THE DOMESTIC TERRORISM SECTION CAREFULLY - especially the part about violating the criminal laws "of any state"]

If your representatives no longer honor their oath to OBEY and protect the Constitution, they are in fact engaging in acts of treason.

FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE!

Read more: http://www.constitutionattacked.com/2012-national-defense-act-is-terrifying/

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 3 years ago

Why not elect a King? Monarchy is better than a bipartisan rule under a free maison constitution. Sweden is just fine.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 3 years ago

Read it again. "without consent of congress". Your point is void if congress consents to it.

[-] 1 points by Ramsey502 (5) 3 years ago

All this talk and no action

[-] 1 points by Ramsey502 (5) 3 years ago

And your point is what exactly???? That a number of companies residing within our borders control your inability to achieve financial freedom? And your spirited "cut and paste" tactic will have any affect??? I like the idea of this so called movement, but it clearly lacks any military influence whatsoever. You can achieve mass approval and even aid in this endevor, however without proper leadership in a number of areas it will fizzle from the public eye in a hurry. I am well versed in such areas

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 3 years ago

Corporations, especially the banks, are often largely foreignly owned, and engage in activities that are in no way in the best interest of this country.

Also, many of the member banks of the Federal Reserve system are simply satellite branches of foreign banks.

I suppose it could also be argued that when foreign sovereign wealth funds invest in Treasuries, therefore funding our welfare/warfare state, that it is not that far of a stretch to consider this an emolument.

Do you think that the Federal Reserve Board is included in this restriction?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

The UN and IMF are indeed primary note holders of the soon to be defaulted upon BIG Bankruptcy. This nation has never even paid the Civil War debt, much less any which took place afterwards. The United States "membership" of these organizations, as well as the funds/troops/efforts on their behalf, is not voluntary.

Article 1 Section 9 was further augmented by the original 13th Amendment. It was vaporized by the attorneys/barristers/esquires who wrote the 1871 Bankruptcy.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

FrogWithWings Hi again. Just a quick question - is all this information you hold something that you have found out on your own, been told, or something that you have read and accepted as your own premise for what you post??

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

FrogWithWings

Please bring me up to speed on this Civil War debt thing. Does this apply to the Union, Confed or both war debts. Just asking because my GGrandfather served and I want to know why he had to furnish so much of his own stuff including transportation all over the south. Man, I have this diary and he was building his own shelters, foraging for food etc. What brought about that debt you make reference to anyhow.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

The cost of that debt in gold backed 1851 money, that Lincoln borrowed and confederate debt combined therewith, was roughly 330 million dollars per surviving United States Citizen. The 1871 reorganization, when our nation's capital was moved to a newly formed DC as part of the new terms upon defaulting the loan payments, from Philadelphia, was the second bankruptcy pact of this nation, with the first one being of the Independent Colonies, adopted by all in 1791.

See Article 6 of The Constitution for the United States of America.

All records are to be found in the library of congress as well as other sources that have copied and even host them online in other places.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Frog -

What you are telling me is that the Revolutionary War was financed by money borrowed from the (I assume) banks on behalf of the US Government. Is that correct?? This gets more interesting the more you take me into it. Never had the opportunity to visit the LofC but would love to do so.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

It would seem when the United States has had to borrow money, it has typically been from foreign private banks, obviously not from England for the revolutionary war as that money came from the French, who really didn't have it to lend. I stand corrected if my memory is faulty.

In the earlier days of our history, there seemed to be no shortage of private foreign bankers all too willing to loan the United States money, for the right terms anyhow.

Now with all the multinational layers, it's quite convoluted other than the debt borrowed from China.

As a non-economist and non-financial expert, it is insulting to my intelligence that there is a difference in "selling debt", "investing in debt" and "borrowing money".

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

The majority of the finance of the Revolutionary War was made by the individuals within this country. If you will check for the Pierpont Papers, you will find that that debt was repaid after the war by giving Mr. Pierpont significant portions of the State of New York as his personal property which he then surveyed and sold as individual parcels to fellow citizens of the United States in order to recover that which he had loaned. These documents are now in the archives of the State of New York with a few remaining in private or public hands, several of which I finally was given access to, a few years ago. It is very interesting reading and study on the history of how our country survived during those early years. with no official recognition and definitely no tax base to fund that war.

You as a citizen can hold that debt too by investing in securities of our Treasury. We did this several years ago and it was quite an experience, an honor, and a surprise on the part of the bank officials when my wife and I with our youngest child walked into that fifth floor office with its walnut paneling and said we wanted to purchase such. I still laugh about that great adventure.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Ahhhh, roughly 100 million was borrowed from overseas, 40 million from within. The balance of the debt was discharged while Andrew Jackson was in office.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Thanks for the exact figures. I stand corrected on the "majority" issue.

Still a very interesting study of how we financed our part within this country.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

It is interesting to compare the cost of wars fought after the advent of electricity and industrialization. It required much work and skill to make guns and cannons by candle light and raw horsepower.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

A lot of things are interesting to study. Did you also figure out the per citizen cost of those wars. I would be interesting in knowing if I am getting the buck for the tax dollar.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

The least conservative estimates, for the civil war, are 330 million per head of 1851 money. The exact numbers are not easy to nail as the default appears to have gone to an "all bets are off" position.

Prudent would have been fighting the Bankers instead of accepting the 1871 terms. However, the moral of the nation was quite low and so was our numbers of able bodied fighting age men.

That sounds like an enormous amount and it resulted in a BK of which we've never been able to have discharged. The federal government lost all land not privately owned by citizens and then later sent our gold reserves overseas.

If that wasn't bad enough, all privately owned lands and tangible property were then "collateralized" as well as the future production and earnings of Americans, and then ultimately, Americans themselves were also collateralized. The revolutionary war was not nearly as much, but, it wasn't cheap either.

The exact figures escape me at this moment and I'm scratching my head, less than 100% certain that the 330 number isn't corrected for Y2000 money. I know the corrected cost of the civil war was in the trillions.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

I work 8 hours a day and go home exhaused. I know you have researched the question I asked and was merely asking you a question. Maybe I will get the answer over the Christmas break.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Your name says it all - an emptythought.

[-] -1 points by D33 (48) from Seattle, WA 3 years ago

Yup, and he should use IdontunderstandtheConstitution for his next screen name.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Are you two of the notion that bribery/lobbying with money/graft/favors/value exchange is not treason?

[-] 1 points by D33 (48) from Seattle, WA 3 years ago

Yes. Are you of the notion that lobbyists equate to potentates and foreign states? You guys keep misusing legal terms. Treason has a very specific meaning, accepting "bribes" from lobbyists is not treason, but is morally and ethically wrong, as well as illegal in some circumstances and under a different law.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

You are reading a different document than I am reading, or you simply lack comprehension. Please refer to these "laws" of which you mention.

Again, The Constitution IS the Highest Law of our nation, period.

I seriously doubt you can pass this test, try it............

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti16.html

[-] 1 points by D33 (48) from Seattle, WA 3 years ago

lol, I'm a lawyer, I've already passed plenty of tests relating to the Constitution. Like I said, the terms you guys are using have specific meanings which do not match with your usage. I'm in favor of ending lobbying, but I'm also in favor of people not misconstruing the Constitution or our other laws.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Lobbying OR petitioning our representatives is an obligation and duty of Americans. Bribery is not. Today such lobbying could be so easily done by reasonable person via the same electronic means of which Congress votes.

However, we both know the big problem with that is, once the original 13th was vaporized, legislation written by esquires and the like, is often well beyond the comprehension and easy understanding of reasonable persons, who were originally intended to write legislation in plain English.

Even contemporary representatives often admit they vote on miles of tedious legalese of which they have never read in it's entirety. And this is nothing new as congressmen have protested even what should be simple tax code even in the early 1900's, although completely against the intent spelled out by the very terms "reasonable man" and limits of the federal government not to exceed such.

So have you been admitted to the BAR?

[-] 1 points by D33 (48) from Seattle, WA 3 years ago

I have, and it didn't take long to realize our system is a broken joke and I shouldn't have chosen this field. C'est la vie. I do agree legalese is ridiculous, but when you have to make so many rules, and you need to be specific while accounting for many possibilities, it makes a bit more sense, plus people like me need jobs ;). Like I said, I believe accepting those gifts from lobbyists is morally and ethically wrong, but it doesn't rise to the level of treason as defined in the US. I'm not trying to be pedantic, though I may be on accident, but I feel it lowers the impact of our arguments when people throw around terms incorrectly.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Well, to the sense that most all acts of accepting bribes result in provable cases of voting against the wishes and best interests of constituents, to the affect of extracting their wealth, affecting their safety, liberty and persuit of happiness is easily determined by many to in fact be war on Americans.

When such happens at the hands of multinationals, both representatives and those tendering consideration, whose interests are very clearly against those which are best for the greater good of Americans, the case of treason becomes even more solid.

I think millions of now homeless and unemployed Americans would certainly agree.

I studied law for quite a while and was offered two full ride scholarships after a few schools kept track of my personal exploits in the 'injustice system. Last offer was 4 years ago.

My oh my, they sure hate for pro se litigants to step into their world as we are unhindered by an oath to uphold that system, nor are we officers of the court.

After I learned well how it worked, I knew my heart wasn't screwed in that way and I'd end up being unable to uphold my oath to the de facto system itself,choosing to actually help the down trodden who could not afford justice, yet needed it the very most. It's not unusual for those type of renegades to wake up dead. I'm sure you are very well aware.

I'm not interested in going into detail of how I've managed not to get surgically clipped, but, I'll tell you this, the first time I got steam rolled in an open court, to the absolute disbelief of all attending, from that point, the game was on and all interaction recorded via multiple means.

I managed to force quite a few prudent recusals and seemingly pre-mature early retirements in just two cases in less than 5 years.

For now, an understanding has been agreed upon and I've been no longer subjected to further trifling.

I don't have a problem with representatives consulting with attorneys, CPA, economist, military experts etc... I do have a problem with the "reasonable man" clauses being blatantly subjegated and ignored by both sides of the coin.

Persons breathing have the right to vote, that's wrong. Reasonable should again have to be proven in order to have a say/vote or ANY position serving or representing The People.

Esquires/barristers and such are allowed to hold elected or government positions as well as write miles of laws containing esoteric and tedious language far beyond the ready comprehension of those reasonable yet who are not experts in all the various fields.

I'd bet large that plenty of legislation has been written and passed that you have to study to comprehend writings of other experts outside your own area of mastery.

Again, that is wrong.

Doesn't being admitted to the bar make you an Attorney and in fact, an officer of the court?

You may enjoy this man's works and this one in particular. It is very interesting learning. Many of his others are equally fascinating.

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Lobbying OR petitioning our representatives is an obligation and duty of Americans. Bribery is not. Today such lobbying could be so easily done by reasonable person via the same electronic means of which Congress votes.

However, we both know the big problem with that is, once the original 13th was vaporized, legislation written by esquires and the like, is often well beyond the comprehension and easy understanding of reasonable persons, who were originally intended to write legislation in plain English.

Even contemporary representatives often admit they vote on miles of tedious legalese of which they have never read in it's entirety. And this is nothing new as congressmen have protested even what should be simple tax code even in the early 1900's, although completely against the intent spelled out by the very terms "reasonable man" and limits of the federal government not to exceed such.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Frog:

Now one for you - if we only had the Consitution and no laws what court would you be called into the be charged and tried for a violation and would it be:

  1. Breaking the law, or
  2. Violating the Consititution?

Your call.......................................

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Article III court of common law, as was the case prior to 1871, where one would be charged with an unlawful act which resulted in harm or injury to others or theirs. Of course we both know attorneys would vehemently oppose any such return to courts actually operating in law.

Tell me of these "laws" which exist beyond your scenario, do you not mean codes and statutes whereas a person can be incarcerated for behaviors or acts of which there is no harm to any others or theirs, and no offense other than against the alleged peace and dignity of the State?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Are you really talking about that little thing passed by Congress this past week waiting for the signature of the President??

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

No, I answered your question.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 3 years ago

Hey Frog:

I am not saying that it is good or bad. I simply need to ask the question, what LAW are you referring to that proves your point. The Constitution cannot be broken a law can. If a law was broken, which one??

I worked for the government for 15 years and am well aware of the gift restriction issue. However, as the Consititution applies, there were not any kings, princes or foreign states within thousands of miles where I was - but I an aware of laws that apply. ARE YOU???

Do you know of any American citizen who has been arrested by any police entity for "breaking the Consititution"?. It is not made of glass you know.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Here is Article 1 Section 6

"Section. 6.The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. "

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Article III section 3 lays out treason. Trial with two witnesses. Read it, much treason has been committed and in the form of acceptance of consideration and in many cases to the ends of making this very war against Americans. That is why many have risen up to protest.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

And do yourself a favor, read Article 1 Section 6 with the meanings of each word from a 1828 Dictionary or older. It contained only 70,000 words, many of which, have since had their meanings perverted or altered.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Article 1 section 6 I do believe. Again, it was heavily bolstered and made even wider in coverage by the original 13th Amendment. Is our Constitution not the highest law of the land? What you are aware of are codes and statutes upheld by courts operating under Article IV via Sanctioned Jurisdiction. I'm pretty sure that's what you are aware of anyhow.