Are You Happy With Your Constitution?

[palani]

Maybe if you found out the origin of the word?

From The History of the Laws of Louisiana

http://i47.tinypic.com/2drfb4x.jpg

[iOWNme]

Quite interesting. My answer is a resounding 'No', i am not happy with Criminals claiming they own me. I am not a fan of STATISM, no matter what the flavor. I see little difference between any forms of 'Governments'. I know you disagree....

The real problem is this: Since the Roman people (Or ANY other people living in ANY other 'Constitutional Republic', or under ANY other form of 'Government') ONLY have the power/right to use defensive violence and to voluntarily trade, they can only delegate those powers/rights to others. Did the ROman senate ONLY use defensive force and voluntary consent? NO, and if they did they wouldnt be 'Government', they would just be a group of men voluntarily interacting. There has NEVER been a 'Constitution' in the history of man that was based on DEFENSIVE force and VOLUNTARY consent. NEVER. They are based off of pseudo-religious ceremonies, where mere mortal men claim they are Gods.

The US CON says in Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 1:

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes".

Now, did Thomas Jefferson have the power/right to collect taxes from people? How about James Madison? These were mere mortal men who claimed by decree to have superhuman powers (like Gods) and to be able to exercise those mythical powers at their whim. Powers no other men had, yet they were somehow able to conjur them up out of thin air.

Just like ALL OTHER 'Constitutions'.

[palani]

I see little difference between any forms of 'Governments'. I know you disagree....
Seems to me we have been on this topic before.

When I refer to 'government' I do not mean 'state'. The two are separate entities. Just like possession is not ownership. Ideally the highest title to land is when possession and ownership are joined in one entity. Don't pay your taxes and ownership will be separated from possession and mere replevin will not join the two again. To me this is not idealism. It is a practical description of what happens.

An ideal state consists of an individual who is in a state of freedom (owes not duty to anyone else on earth) and is self-governing to the extent on Friday night he doesn't go out on a toot and you find him passed out in a gutter somewhere. Self-governing extends to more than just moderated drinking. It extends to drugs, economy, means, family life, gainful occupation, etc.

When you fail at self-governing then others will step in to govern your activities. I presume this is the government you choose to avoid owing any duty to. They can and do become overbearing in their interference but recognize that it is in many cases YOUR activities that lead them into attempts to 'save' you from yourself. Many 'patriots' simply go ballistic at any attempt at interfering with their freedoms. Show that you are capable of governing yourself and be left alone.

[Carl]

Maybe if you found out the origin of the word?

From The History of the Laws of Louisiana

http://i47.tinypic.com/2drfb4x.jpg

Maybe you should take your own advice before posting your crap.

The word constitution comes from Latin; change it to groundlaw (http://www.pagef30.com/2008/08/word-constitution-comes-from-latin.html)

[palani]

Maybe you should take your own advice before posting your crap.

I hope you don't homeschool your kids. Genetics is enough of a disadvantage.

[joboo]

http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/025-470x367.jpg

[Ponce]

The Constitution will always be the Constitution.......but.......the ammendments to the Constitution is something else.

Is like Original Bible, it has been changed so many times that it is no longer the real Bible............but of course I know that the Bible is only a History book and not a "holy" book, only men made it into a holy book.

V

[Carl]

I hope you don't homeschool your kids. Genetics is enough of a disadvantage.

What's the matter fuktard, you can't handle being shown to be the fool you always portray yourself to be by posting your out of context crap?

[palani]

What's the matter fuktard, you can't handle being shown to be the fool you always portray yourself to be by posting your out of context crap?

Thy surly reeling-ripe scut hath a unchin-snouted varlot.

[Serpo]

There is also that other thing where they say ALL PAPER is going to be worth less.............

[palani]

There is also that other thing where they say ALL PAPER is going to be worth less.............

Paper has great significance in society. It is called a vessel with the cargo being the words written on it.

[Serpo]

Paper has great significance in society. It is called a vessel with the cargo being the words written on it.

Yes we wouldnt want the vessel to sink because the cargo goes down with it.

[madfranks]

Either take the name calling to the thunderdome or simply stop it. I really don't like banning anyone, I feel like I'm giving a time out to a child.

[Hatha Sunahara]

My sympathies lie with Sui Juris' view of government. However as a practical matter, if government is nothing more than a necessary evil, the one that was established by the Constitution of the United States in 1789 was possibly the one that most effectively limited the power of the government so that large numbers of people could live in relative freedom from it. Of course this has all changed because of corrupt politicians selling the people out to those who would enslave them with debt. Still, the most profound limitations to the government's power are alive. Those are the Oaths of office to protect, and defend the Constitution, the 10th Amendment which allows nullification by the states, and the second amendment which allows us all to defend ourselves from the tyranny that is shredding the rest of the constitution. The biggest joke of the year will be watching Mr. Obama taking his Oath of Office for the second time.

In Totalitarian Dictatorships, people displayed portraits of the Dictator in their homes. I'm going to download a you tube video of Obama taking his oath of office as an example of supreme black humor, and keep it on my computer in case I need a shot of 'wake up'.

I'm happy with the Constitution, but not with the nation that keeps allowing it to be shredded.


Hatha

[7th trump]

Maybe you should take your own advice before posting your crap.

The word constitution comes from Latin; change it to groundlaw (http://www.pagef30.com/2008/08/word-constitution-comes-from-latin.html)

What Carl said........................its all pure crap from a guy who says he cant, by contract, tell how he unbecame a "14th amendment" citizen....which is more crapola because hes never acheived that status....and its obvious from his postings hes lost in the law.
Just an old bent road sign flopping in the wind pointing in what ever direction of the wind.

[palani]

What Carl said........................its all pure crap from a guy who says he cant, by contract, tell how he unbecame a "14th amendment" citizen. Lies and distortions from et tu 7th? When have I ever stated I was such to begin with? If you aren't something then how do you "unbecome" it?


...which is more crapola because hes never acheived that status....and its obvious from his postings hes lost in the law. People who make accusations must be able to prove them. Could you do so NOW?



Just an old bent road sign flopping in the wind pointing in what ever direction of the wind. Allegory wrapped in delusion surrounded by mystery. The constitution is good. The government is bad. Your perception is more frightful than your reality.

[Horn]

I'm unhappy with palani's & carl's constitution in this thread.

[palani]

Yes we wouldnt want the vessel to sink because the cargo goes down with it.

Maritime law deals with the travels of these little bits of paper from port to port. Independenter se habet assecuratio a viaggio vanis. The voyage insured is an independent or distinct thing from the voyage of the ship.

Rocks Paper Scissors:
Rocks sink while paper floats .. paper defeats rocks
Scissors cut paper (and court orders) ... scissors defeat paper
Scissors don't cut rocks (or specie) ... rocks defeat paper

General rule ... alway take scissors to court. Test any court order against them. This works with FRNs as well to test for real money. Scissors has no effect at all on the 10 commandments (rock).

The U.S. constitution starts as a maritime voyage. It hasn't come ashore yet and scissors works well to counter any ill effects.

[7th trump]

Lies and distortions from et tu 7th? When have I ever stated I was such to begin with? If you aren't something then how do you "unbecome" it?

People who make accusations must be able to prove them. Could you do so NOW?


Allegory wrapped in delusion surrounded by mystery. The constitution is good. The government is bad. Your perception is more frightful than your reality.

Lies and distortion huh?
Its been you this whole time telling lies and distortions. You said you couldnt say how you unbecame a 14th amendment jurisdictional citizen in another thread ...or can you remember your lies?

You made the accusation you could tell how you unbecame a 14th amendment citizen. I called you a liar because all you do it post telltale information that you are confused and lost in the law......YEAH, its that blantantly obvious palani you dont know anything and post everything about legaleese crap....you're a dog and pony show at best!

My statement about the old road sign blowing in the wind was in reference to you palani, not the Constitution..........all your posts point in every direction (you're confused). Anybody can go and read your post over SUI JURIS and clearly see you are lost and confused. You wouldnt post these idiotic wimsical angles of legaleese if you werent confused.
And all you say in reply is your signiture smart ass George Carlin type responses.
You are not as intelligent as you think you or portray yourself to be Palani.......law isnt that difficult to understand, but you are all over the legaleese globe yapping legaleese you dont have a clue about to bring all together.
And I'm not the only one whos recognized this about you....so go ahead and say what you want......it wont be anything of importance anyway, as usual.

[palani]

You said you couldnt say how you unbecame a 14th amendment jurisdictional citizen in another thread ...or can you remember your lies? I guess you don't want to answer my question of 'how do you you unbecome something you never have been'?


You made the accusation you could tell how you unbecame a 14th amendment citizen. I called you a liar because all you do it post telltale information that you are confused and lost in the law......YEAH, its that blantantly obvious palani you dont know anything and post everything about legaleese crap....you're a dog and pony show at best! If I have a monkey on my back called 7th trump can you describe how exactly I signed up to get that monkey in that position? If you can do that could you then proceed to inform me how I might remove said monkey?


My statement about the old road sign blowing in the wind was in reference to you palani, not the Constitution..........all your posts point in every direction (you're confused). Could you re-read the op and tell me how that post could confuse you? If you are permanently in a state of confusion then I could understand your comments. Are you in that particular state?

[7th trump]

I guess you don't want to answer my question of 'how do you you unbecome something you never have been'?

If I have a monkey on my back called 7th trump can you describe how exactly I signed up to get that monkey in that position? If you can do that could you then proceed to inform me how I might remove said monkey?

Could you re-read the op and tell me how that post could confuse you? If you are permanently in a state of confusion then I could understand your comments. Are you in that particular state?
Really Palani?
Let me get this straight.....you said, by contract, you cannot tell how you unbecame a "US citizen" and somehow I'm suppose to answer that question.....hmmmm....what ever.
See everyone......palani, the great politician.

Here I'll answer it for you anyway, its a rather simple fundamental question to begin with for those who havent polluted themselves with self-rightousness gibberish.

Social Security!
Only a "US citizen" can participate in Social Security. The "People" in their political plane cannot participate without first decending into the plane of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".......the 14th amendment.
Whats on the SS-5 form, palani, that every applicant of Social Security must sign under penalty of perjury to being?

Without the ssn you cannot get permission, as a subject, to drive. Whereas the "People" dont need a drivers license.
How about a marriage license...cannot get that without a ssn.

The rest of your post is well..........just gibberish not worthy of a response

[palani]

Social Security!
Only a "US citizen" can participate in Social Security. This is an untruth. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.pdf Check out section 5 in the application form entitled 'CITIZENSHIP'.



Without the ssn you cannot get permission, as a subject, to drive. Whereas the "People" dont need a drivers license. Traveling is a common law right. Driving is commercial and requires licensing. Nothing here related to having or not having a SSN.


How about a marriage license...cannot get that without a ssn. Many states recognize common law marriage. There is no SSN required for this arrangement.


The rest of your post is well..........just gibberish not worthy of a response Your logic is not well founded. You do not lose your citizenship if you dump your SSN. Whether you choose to participate or not has nothing at all to do with what nation you choose to owe duty to. The world does not revolve around your decision to participate in social security or not. That said you cannot be a proponent of common law if you believe in this social insurance program. Neither can you be a proponent of common law beliefs if you have a bank account or go around dispensing phony money. But neither of these beliefs have anything to do with nationality or citizenship either. But keep guessing. Eventually you might stumble on a remedy that works.

[7th trump]

This is an untruth. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.pdf Check out section 5 in the application form entitled 'CITIZENSHIP'.


Traveling is a common law right. Driving is commercial and requires licensing. Nothing here related to having or not having a SSN.

Many states recognize common law marriage. There is no SSN required for this arrangement.

Your logic is not well founded. You do not lose your citizenship if you dump your SSN. Whether you choose to participate or not has nothing at all to do with what nation you choose to owe duty to. The world does not revolve around your decision to participate in social security or not. That said you cannot be a proponent of common law if you believe in this social insurance program. Neither can you be a proponent of common law beliefs if you have a bank account or go around dispensing phony money. But neither of these beliefs have anything to do with nationality or citizenship either. But keep guessing. Eventually you might stumble on a remedy that works.
You really are a stupid twit arent you palani?

(13)the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Ohh gee..............just what political platue do you think participating in Social Security pits the participant.
"Federal personel" means individuals entitled to receive immediate and deferred benefits under any retirement program of the government of the united states (the federal government).
Well the Social Security Administration just so happen to be a government agency administering retirement benefits, immediate and defered benefits at that.......hmmmmm looks like palani, if he'd stop thinking that statute dont apply to him might, just might not make him look like the dimwit Palani makes himslef out to be.
But hes above researching the statutes because he beleives they dont apply to him.....so what would he know anyway?....oh thats right .....nothing!

Ohhh you're right palani.....who am I kidding.....Social Security doesnt have anything at all to do with a persons political stance!

Hahahahahahahahaha...............

[palani]

Hahahahahahahahaha...............
Thank you for providing evidence of your insanity. It answers a lot of questions.

[iOWNme]

I know there are members who seem to think that the US CON was good, but it just got corrupted, etc etc. I STRONGLY disagree.....

The US CON only did 1 thing: Set up the next Ruling Class.

The Declaration of Independence is a document i cherish much more over the 'US CON' as it was based in REALITY claiming "All men are created equal....", "All men have the Right to Life, Liberty and Property.....", "When Governments become corrupted mans duty is to abolish it"....Etc.

The US CON claimed to have the Power/Right to set up 3 branches of 'Government' (Powers which no man had), That 'Government' would have the power to tax, (Powers/Rights which no mortal man had) compel individuals to fight war, (Kidnapping) Steal mens property with 'just' compensation (You CANNOT legislate thievery), to squash Insurrection and Rebellion (Something the Founders claimed to have the Right to do to the Crown), Etc.

The US CON is FILLED with inherent contradictions and immoral acts. Contradictions because it claimed to have the power to do things in which the signers claimed were immoral and unjust when done to them. And immoral because you cannot legislate a crime into a virtue.

If we want to remain rational and logical, we must recognize the inherent contradictions in what we have been told about 'Authority', and we must only recognize the one single truth: No man can become a Rightful Master; No man can become a Rightful Slave. Any attempt to do so is based not in reality, logic, rational or any type of critical thinking. It will always be based in a pseudo-religious, irrational, self-contradictory, immoral, unjust and a downright EVIL 'Superstition'.

The Right to Rule: DOES NOT EXIST

[palani]

I know there are members who seem to think that the US CON was good, but it just got corrupted, etc etc. I STRONGLY disagree.....

I know there are people who practice the Protestant (Quaker/Mennonite/Amish/Lutheran/Catholic/....) religion but I STRONGLY disagree.

See how that works?

Personally I have no objection to people having their own beliefs and views. When it comes to constitutions and governments then if you cannot be self-governing you might as well be governed by others.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Government (the institution) is for sheeple. People who need to be told what to do. The conflict is between the government of the sheeple and the non sheeple who do not want or need to be told what to do.

Now if the government of the sheeple could leave the non sheeple alone, it is possible that everyone could be happy. But the non-sheeple the government leaves alone are the 1%--the people who own everything. If you are not a member of the 1%, the government assumes you are a sheeple and treats you accordingly. Government exists to protect the 1% and to tell the sheeple what to do. If you don't fit into that model, or you object to it, you are going to have a problem--regardless of how you attempt to govern yourself. The only real self-governing people, Palani, are the 1%, and they are not doing a sustainable job of it, or of governing the sheeple. It is necessary therefore to change governments at times, such as when they get corrupt. The only way to avoid that would be to get rid of the entire institution altogether. But then who will tell the sheeple what to do? This is our major dilemma. The sheeple need a government, and the wolves need government to protect them from the sheeple who think they are not sheeple. We all have to negotiate our way through this.


Hatha

[Horn]

Personally I have no objection to people having their own beliefs and views.

None whatsoever, are you being just with yourself?

Most of those religions practice an unending mission to convert you to mythical & abstract virtues.

[palani]

Most of those religions practice an unending mission to convert you to mythical & abstract virtues.

Government can become a religion to some. They all certainly try to convert you. Take the 14th amendment for instance. Had Panama issued the same wording (that 'All persons born or naturalized in Panama, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens') would you volunteer to become a Panamanian national? By doing so would you be acknowledging their laws and statutes as domestic?

By stating for instance that you are not now and never have been Muslim are you not declaring that Muslim laws and statutes are foreign?

Ignorance of foreign laws is ignorance of a fact. Only when you say you are a citizen or can show naturalization papers do all laws from that jurisdiction take full effect. Say instead that you are a non-resident alien and these laws and statutes have much less effect. [You are not entirely free of jurisdictional issues if choose to visit or transit]

[7th trump]

Government can become a religion to some. They all certainly try to convert you. Take the 14th amendment for instance. Had Panama issued the same wording (that 'All persons born or naturalized in Panama, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens') would you volunteer to become a Panamanian national? By doing so would you be acknowledging their laws and statutes as domestic?

By stating for instance that you are not now and never have been Muslim are you not declaring that Muslim laws and statutes are foreign?

Ignorance of foreign laws is ignorance of a fact. Only when you say you are a citizen or can show naturalization papers do all laws from that jurisdiction take full effect. Say instead that you are a non-resident alien and these laws and statutes have much less effect. [You are not entirely free of jurisdictional issues if choose to visit or transit]

Ohhh wait a minute palani.... a few months back you said "facts" were foolish or something to that nature?

So why are you now saying "Ignorance of foreign laws is ignorance of a fact".

See everyone palani is nothing more than a double standard word-salad dimwit politicing his ego.

[palani]

Ohhh wait a minute palani.... a few months back you said "facts" were foolish or something to that nature? I might have said facts were on the moon. That is because what is important is your reaction to notice rather than what that notice is. Your reaction is a fact. Did you know that the word 'fact' started out in meaning as 'evil deed'?


So why are you now saying "Ignorance of foreign laws is ignorance of a fact".

See everyone palani is nothing more than a double standard word-salad dimwit politicing his ego.
The measure of my patience is how much I tolerance insane people. You may go here http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm and read up on the topic of IGNORANCE to your hearts desire. If you choose to do so then you will find there are two sorts of ignorance ... that of law and that of fact. Concentrate upon the section dealing with ignorance of fact.

[7th trump]

I might have said facts were on the moon. That is because what is important is your reaction to notice rather than what that notice is. Your reaction is a fact. Did you know that the word 'fact' started out in meaning as 'evil deed'?


The measure of my patience is how much I tolerance insane people. You may go here http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm and read up on the topic of IGNORANCE to your hearts desire. If you choose to do so then you will find there are two sorts of ignorance ... that of law and that of fact. Concentrate upon the section dealing with ignorance of fact.
No no no word salad politician......I beleive I replied to one of your idiotic posts, Palani, about taxes originating from the participation of Social Security and then procured the statutes as "facts" which you replied facts were evil and aren't revelent.
Basically when shown the law to prove myself you replied basically saying "bullshit"!
Then sometime afterwards you replied saying you dont read any statutes as they dont apply to you.....which I called bullshit.
You cant have this both ways palani.....you'd certainly like to have it both ways but not as long as I'm a monkey on your back you arent.

How many are catching on to your tricks palani?
I see you are always "called out" by someone in just about every forum you post in.
Perhaps you should try posting under a different name?
Maybe then you wont get called out on your bullshit ego word salad as much!

[Carl]

Government (the institution) is for sheeple. People who need to be told what to do. ~ Hatha

That's not true. The vast majority of people don't want to be told what to do by government, or anyone else for that matter. What they want the government to do is mitigate and adjudicate conflict and provide the amenities and services that will enhance their way of life. That's primarily the reason why most agree to pay taxes, to support government. It is only a very small portion of the population that believe it's the government's job to make those who do not believe as they do, conform to their world view.

[Horn]

It is only a very small portion of the population that believe it's the government's job to make those who do not believe as they do, conform to their world view.

Most of that same "small percentage" have full faith in the dollar to gain value thru deflationary pressures... . .

[palani]

No no no word salad politician.

I don't speak babble. Do you know of an interpreter?

[7th trump]

I don't speak babble. Do you know of an interpreter?

Is that really the best you have?
I'm surprized you didnt type that in "bedazzling" palani-eese...........you know where you type latin to show you're superior to the lower.

[palani]

you type latin to show you're superior to the lower.

Maxims of Law are written in Latin. The English interpretation is included but your translation might be different. Both languages are given for convenience.

Lawyers are supposed to know these maxims of Law. Eustace Mullins used them all the time without the English translation. The lawyers of his county attempted to get an injunction to make him file his papers in English only. It was costing them too much time determining the translation of these Latin phrases. Once translated the meaning still must be determined.

I use them because they are well established and there can be no argument against them.