The united states constitution

[mick silver]

the united states constitution
http://constitutionus.com/

[JohnQPublic]

the united states constitution
http://constitutionus.com/


According to the ruling majority this is equivalent to: http://toiletpaper.com

(Ponce- you could probably pick up this site pretty cheap). :)

[Libertytree]

According to the ruling majority this is equivalent to: http://toiletpaper.com

(Ponce- you could probably pick up this site pretty cheap). :)

I reckon it's a good thing most of us don't give a flying fuck what the ruling majority think. :)

[iOWNme]

According to the ruling majority this is equivalent to: http://toiletpaper.com

(Ponce- you could probably pick up this site pretty cheap). :)

Except no 'Ruling Majority' has ever tried to read a piece of toilet paper and then determined they could run my life based on what it said.

[7th trump]

Every one of you who has commented about the ruling majority doesn't understand they are standing the jurisdiction of a ruling majority....called democracy form of government.
Step outside of that jurisdiction and into the jurisdiction where there is no ruling majority..........called a Republic form of government.

Everything revolves around "RIGHTS".
Which rights do you prefer?

Civil Rights (see Civil Rights Act of 1866) with the ruling majority (US citizens) dictating or-
Bill of Rights (see the US Constitution and state Constitutions) where you, the individual, (The People) rule yourself.

One resides under federal citizenship the other-
Resides within State citizenship.

Which one do you prefer?

[iOWNme]

Every one of you who has commented about the ruling majority doesn't understand they are standing the jurisdiction of a ruling majority....called democracy form of government.
Step outside of that jurisdiction and into the jurisdiction where there is no ruling majority..........called a Republic form of government.

Everything revolves around "RIGHTS".
Which rights do you prefer?

Civil Rights (see Civil Rights Act of 1866) with the ruling majority (US citizens) dictating or-
Bill of Rights (see the US Constitution and state Constitutions) where you, the individual, (The People) rule yourself.

One resides under federal citizenship the other-
Resides within State citizenship.

Which one do you prefer?

I prefer ACTUAL individual freedom, something the 'Constitutional Republic' could NEVER be.

There is no 'jurisdiction' of the 'ruling majority'. There is no such thing as 'Government' or a 'Democracy'. STOP IMAGINING THE MAJORITY CAN ALTER HUMAN MORALITY.

Your beloved 'Republic' CREATED A PARASITIC RULING CLASS with the IMAGINED right to rule. The 'Constitution' supposedly 'granted' to something called 'Congress' the MORAL RIGHT to:

- STEAL (sometimes called taxation)
- KIDNAP (sometimes called conscription)
- PLUNDER PRIVATE PROPERTY (sometimes called eminent domain)
- CRUSH POLITICAL DISSENT (Sometimes called treason)
- MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE (Sometimes called declaring war)


How many contradictions to human morality do you have to be shown in order to throw away your SUPERSTITIONS about what the founding 'Republic' ACTUALLY WAS? Do you IMAGINE that when you change the name of something it can turn from BAD (stealing) into something GOOD (taxation)?

Why do you CONSTANTLY look to the SCRIBBLES OF POLITICIANS in order to try and figure out the world? EVERY SINGLE THING YOU POSTED does nothing but LEGITIMIZE YOUR OPPRESSORS.

'Congress' does not have the RIGHT to do anything that i as an individual do not have the RIGHT to do. Do you know why? Because they are HUMANS. I understand that you IMAGINE they are something other than that, but i promise you underneath all of the magic ink and pseudo-religious ceremonies they are nothing more than HUMANS. They are not some other species who are EXEMPT from human morality. And human morality says that stealing is bad, kidnapping is wrong, and plunder is EVIL. Scribbles from 'Politicians' 230 years ago DON'T CHANGE MORALITY!

Innocent people are being CRUSHED every day by the PARASITE CLASS, and instead of you pointing out the evil people, you point to the VICTIMS of the oppressors and call them out as being the problem. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Dont even try and rebut with crap like 'taxes are lawful if they are done under the Constitution'. NO THEY ARE FUCKING NOT. Dont try and give me some legalese about 'apportioned taxes' or 'excise taxes' or 'direct taxes' or any other EUPHEMISMS designed to FORCE people into BONDAGE. Did Thomas Jefferson have the MORAL RIGHT to steal from another man? NOPE! DID ANY of the Founders actually possess the Rights they claim to have 'delegated' in order to 'create' the Federal Government? NO! NOBODY has the moral right to steal from ANYONE, stop IMAGINING that to be the case. Geez....Just try and actually THINK about things once in a while instead of treating your beloved 'Republic' as a freaking RELIGION: Because that's all it is- FAITH based. The moment you apply rationality, logic and morals to the US CON, the moment you remove all of the inherent CONTRADICTIONS from inside your own head, it falls apart INSTANTLY.

By IMAGINING that the PARASITIC RULERS have altered morality with their scribbles in the US CON, you are acting neither rational, logical or even pro-human. You are LEGITIMIZING the OPPRESSIVE RULING CLASS in this country. Do you have Stockholm Syndrome? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)

Now 7th Trump - Instead of replying with an EMOTIONAL response, try and actually rebut the CONTRADICTIONS i have clearly laid out here. In order for you to do that you will have to prove that:

1. Men can delegate rights they do not have.
2. Scribbles on paper alter human morality.
3. Individuals can be morally obligated to do the wrong thing.
4. It is good to be bad.
5. Euphemisms alter human morality.
6. There are two classes of humans on earth.
7. Obedience to 'Authority' is a virtue.

Please go through these 7 points and rebut them using rationality, logic, reason and human morality. I am awaiting your HONEST reply, but i somehow do not see that happening. PLEASE try and separate your blind obedience to the 'Republic' and 'Constitution' and try to apply YOUR OWN PERSONAL moral code to it and tell me what you find. Im not telling you to follow me or agree with me. Im not telling you what your morals should be. Im telling you that YOU do not even follow your own morals.

[7th trump]

I prefer ACTUAL individual freedom, something the 'Constitutional Republic' could NEVER be.

There is no 'jurisdiction' of the 'ruling majority'. There is no such thing as 'Government' or a 'Democracy'. STOP IMAGINING THE MAJORITY CAN ALTER HUMAN MORALITY.

Your beloved 'Republic' CREATED A PARASITIC RULING CLASS with the IMAGINED right to rule. The 'Constitution' supposedly 'granted' to something called 'Congress' the MORAL RIGHT to:

- STEAL (sometimes called taxation)
- KIDNAP (sometimes called conscription)
- PLUNDER PRIVATE PROPERTY (sometimes called eminent domain)
- CRUSH POLITICAL DISSENT (Sometimes called treason)
- MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE (Sometimes called declaring war)


How many contradictions to human morality do you have to be shown in order to throw away your SUPERSTITIONS about what the founding 'Republic' ACTUALLY WAS? Do you IMAGINE that when you change the name of something it can turn from BAD (stealing) into something GOOD (taxation)?

Why do you CONSTANTLY look to the SCRIBBLES OF POLITICIANS in order to try and figure out the world? EVERY SINGLE THING YOU POSTED does nothing but LEGITIMIZE YOUR OPPRESSORS.

'Congress' does not have the RIGHT to do anything that i as an individual do not have the RIGHT to do. Do you know why? Because they are HUMANS. I understand that you IMAGINE they are something other than that, but i promise you underneath all of the magic ink and pseudo-religious ceremonies they are nothing more than HUMANS. They are not some other species who are EXEMPT from human morality. And human morality says that stealing is bad, kidnapping is wrong, and plunder is EVIL. Scribbles from 'Politicians' 230 years ago DON'T CHANGE MORALITY!

Innocent people are being CRUSHED every day by the PARASITE CLASS, and instead of you pointing out the evil people, you point to the VICTIMS of the oppressors and call them out as being the problem. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Dont even try and rebut with crap like 'taxes are lawful if they are done under the Constitution'. NO THEY ARE FUCKING NOT. Dont try and give me some legalese about 'apportioned taxes' or 'excise taxes' or 'direct taxes' or any other EUPHEMISMS designed to FORCE people into BONDAGE. Did Thomas Jefferson have the MORAL RIGHT to steal from another man? NOPE! DID ANY of the Founders actually possess the Rights they claim to have 'delegated' in order to 'create' the Federal Government? NO! NOBODY has the moral right to steal from ANYONE, stop IMAGINING that to be the case. Geez....Just try and actually THINK about things once in a while instead of treating your beloved 'Republic' as a freaking RELIGION: Because that's all it is- FAITH based. The moment you apply rationality, logic and morals to the US CON, the moment you remove all of the inherent CONTRADICTIONS from inside your own head, it falls apart INSTANTLY.

By IMAGINING that the PARASITIC RULERS have altered morality with their scribbles in the US CON, you are acting neither rational, logical or even pro-human. You are LEGITIMIZING the OPPRESSIVE RULING CLASS in this country. Do you have Stockholm Syndrome? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)

Now 7th Trump - Instead of replying with an EMOTIONAL response, try and actually rebut the CONTRADICTIONS i have clearly laid out here. In order for you to do that you will have to prove that:

1. Men can delegate rights they do not have.
2. Scribbles on paper alter human morality.
3. Individuals can be morally obligated to do the wrong thing.
4. It is good to be bad.
5. Euphemisms alter human morality.
6. There are two classes of humans on earth.
7. Obedience to 'Authority' is a virtue.

Please go through these 7 points and rebut them using rationality, logic, reason and human morality. I am awaiting your HONEST reply, but i somehow do not see that happening. PLEASE try and separate your blind obedience to the 'Republic' and 'Constitution' and try to apply YOUR OWN PERSONAL moral code to it and tell me what you find. Im not telling you to follow me or agree with me. Im not telling you what your morals should be. Im telling you that YOU do not even follow your own morals.
You're so confused.

I'll address each one of these questions individually before going onto the next.


1. Men can delegate rights they do not have.
Please expound a little so I can correctly address your question.
Which rights are you talking about, and which men?
Bill of Right or Civil rights?
Are you referring to statesmen or man in general?

[iOWNme]

You're so confused.

Im confused? (i noticed you didnt address ANYTHING i posted that would require YOUR OWN MORAL OPINION, and not the scribbles of Politicians). I dont care what legal definitions or lwaful court cases you can recite, i asked what YOUR personal opinion was. By confused i think you mean my opinion is DRASTICALLY different from your yours, but there is absolutely NO CONFUSION inside my own head, because i have removed all of the contradictions that the belief in 'Government' creates. I laid out everything clear as day using rationality and logic. I can see how that would confuse a STATIST.


I'll address each one of these questions individually before going onto the next.


Please expound a little so I can correctly address your question.
Which rights are you talking about, and which men?

Which men? Do you see how badly and twisted your view of reality is? Are you IMAGINING there are other species of man as well? There are only 1 species of men on this planet, and they all have the same Rights. NONE of them can logically delegate a Right THEY DO NOT HAVE to another. POOF! There went all belief in 'Representative Government'.



Bill of Right or Civil rights?

There is no such thing as 'Civil Rights'. It is a CONTRADICTORY statement. The word 'Civil' means 'Government'. 'Government' doesnt give or protect Rights, They steal and violate them, and EVERY 'Government' in the history of the world has done so. The word 'Rights' mean something than cannot be altered or amended, it cannot be increased or decreased, it cannot be transferred or abolished, etc. How could you POSSIBLY think that these two things are compatible? Second, the 'Bill of Rights' is a piece of paper that i have absolutely NO MORAL OBLIGATION to follow, especially seeing as how i wasnt there when it was discussed, i didnt sign the document, and i didnt consent to allow other men to decide what 'Rights' i can have. These are all clever euphemisms to build mental chains inside peoples minds.



Are you referring to statesmen or man in general?

The same species i mentioned above. They are all equal in Rights. Which means they can only delegate Rights they have as individuals. And if no individual has the Right to steal (sometimes called taxes) then where did CONgress get the powers laid out in Article 1 Sec 8?

[7th trump]

Im confused? (i noticed you didnt address ANYTHING i posted that would require YOUR OWN MORAL OPINION, and not the scribbles of Politicians). I dont care what legal definitions or lwaful court cases you can recite, i asked what YOUR personal opinion was. By confused i think you mean my opinion is DRASTICALLY different from your yours, but there is absolutely NO CONFUSION inside my own head, because i have removed all of the contradictions that the belief in 'Government' creates. I laid out everything clear as day using rationality and logic. I can see how that would confuse a STATIST.



Which men? Do you see how badly and twisted your view of reality is? Are you IMAGINING there are other species of man as well? There are only 1 species of men on this planet, and they all have the same Rights. NONE of them can logically delegate a Right THEY DO NOT HAVE to another. POOF! There went all belief in 'Representative Government'.




There is no such thing as 'Civil Rights'. It is a CONTRADICTORY statement. The word 'Civil' means 'Government'. 'Government' doesnt give or protect Rights, They steal and violate them, and EVERY 'Government' in the history of the world has done so. The word 'Rights' mean something than cannot be altered or amended, it cannot be increased or decreased, it cannot be transferred or abolished, etc. How could you POSSIBLY think that these two things are compatible? Second, the 'Bill of Rights' is a piece of paper that i have absolutely NO MORAL OBLIGATION to follow, especially seeing as how i wasnt there when it was discussed, i didnt sign the document, and i didnt consent to allow other men to decide what 'Rights' i can have. These are all clever euphemisms to build mental chains inside peoples minds.




The same species i mentioned above. They are all equal in Rights. Which means they can only delegate Rights they have as individuals. And if no individual has the Right to steal (sometimes called taxes) then where did CONgress get the powers laid out in Article 1 Sec 8?

Yes, you are confused.
From reading your post I can tell you've reached your limit. You aren't in a rational state of mind. The anger from being confused is taking its toll on you. You're lashing out which apparently I'm your target.....no biggy!
First off, the body of your post is about government...easy enough.
However, you want me to address these government questions based on your opinion of what government should be....not what it is, but what you believe it should be.
There lays the problem...your opinion and what actually is reality of government don't mix.
There isn't going to be anything I say that's going amuse you unless I say something that you agree to.
I know where this is going..........You aren't not going to allow me to explain government, but you want me to give my opinion of government.
Court cites are opinions of how laws (statutes) are interpreted (real life application), but you don't want to hear them. Without them I cant give you an honest opinion.
Well grasshopper......do you want my opinion based on what I know or do you just want me to whisper in your ear sweet "opinion" nothings?
If you want to hear sweet nothings.....then IM palani....he's has all the sweet nothings to keep you all warm and cozy this winter.
Face it.........you don't want to hear the truth


I never mentioned anything about specie's of men........What I was asking was you to further explain what you meant by "men". The body of your post was about government, but the seven examples you listed aren't really addressing government in the sense of "men". So I'm asking for a clarification.
This is why I told you I will answer each one before going to the next....you're confusing and irrational.
No person has the right to delegate to another in the sense of man to man, but the way our government is set up a man (statesmen, an oath taker) in an office who's duty is to oversee issues of the People has a duty (not a right as you perceive) to address the government of such grievances. (there's where you confusion lays)


Yes, there is such a thing as "civil rights"...and no I cant find any definition that says "civil" means "government". Please post this definition and a link to it.
Yes, the government did give out rights....its called the Civil Rights act of 1866 Look it up sometime. It will help in your confusion.
No, the government doesn't steal or violate civil rights. What you are experiencing is your confusion between the Bill of Rights and civil Rights.
You as a "US citizen" don't have much for the Bill of Rights.... please go this website http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm in this website you'll see a link to the Library of Congress where it shows a real actual authentic Senate document listing which Bill of Rights you as a "US citizen" actually have access to.
( I don't know how many FUCKING times I have posted this website link to this forum which you fools just toss in the waste basket).
Civil rights can be taken away or added as the government who offers these rights deems fit.
Like I said you are confusing civil rights with the Bill of Rights....the two are on different jurisdictional planes.
You believe you have the full protections of the Bill of Rights when all you have in reality are mere civil rights the government adds and takes away.....you are the one who is confused.
You can think and believe all you want. but the reality of all it is you are seen as a US citizen because thats how you address yourself to the government.
Until you can unconfused yourself between the differences of the Bill or Rights from civil rights, People form US citizens, you are always going to be in a state of irrational confusion....just as palani is always in a state of confusion.


I'm not a statist either........I've learned how to not participate in Social security for the government to take away and give to another....and I bet you haven't. If you have you wouldn't be this confused in the first place.

[mick silver]

more rules are control

[kiffertom]

more rules are controlI cant argue that!