If you think there is a Constitution please read this

[suijuris]

Ice, Jerseee, great posts. Pay attention people - you can read all the conspiracy theories you want about the status of the constitution, but here are universal truths to remember:



If you choose to believe it is DEAD the sad truth is that it is DEAD to you alone, and by your choice alone.



It is not DEAD to the thousands of judges, elected officials, police officers, etc., required to swear to uphold and defend it.



It is not DEAD to the many Americans who expect those sworn to uphold and defend it to do exactly that.



It is KEPT ALIVE by the few who actually have the courage and knowledge to take action against those who abuse the power derived from the people.



If enough are tricked into abandoning their duty to defend it, it will loose its power because those sworn to uphold it will have no fear of JUSTICE. We are seeing this already, and the solution is not to throw it out the window because one is to lazy to take action.



It is currently upheld as the supreme law of the land; every decision in every court from the Supreme Court down must be in absolute agreement with it. Do not let the fact that the courts can misinterpret it or become corrupted by power or money lead you to believe otherwise.



We hold these truths to be self evident...

[Jerseee]

SJ,



YOu've just given me an idea. Here it is The Declaration of Independence! (A snippet) Tell me that this doesn't apply today and you guys may have something but if not--you can eat your words--I'll accept an apology in private if you don't want to be ashamed of yourselves for saying the Constitution does not apply in these times:



When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, <u>it is their duty</u>, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



If this doesn't apply today--then those that reject this PROOF deserve the UCC and its oppressors.

[Ice]

This has been a long conversation (got brought up in that thread at awaregroup forum, didn't it?)



Anyway, thanks Jerseee and SJ for the time you have devoted to this issue.



It is my hope that the "sleepers" will awaken and take upon their shoulders the responsibility to maintain that which derives its power and authority from them.



Wouldn't that be great?!

Originally Posted by Jerseee

PJT04,

So if dead forefathers can't contract--neither can a dead author argue the validity of a contract. Just because he did not accept the contract, does not mean no one else can. That's one part of it that makes it a living document-IMHO.



GOOD POINT JERSEEE. I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION BEING A LIVING,BREATHING DOCUMENT.



I GUESS THE CONSTITUTION IS REGARDED AS A LEGAL BINDING DOCUMENT BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY AGREE AND ACCEPT THIS DOCUMENT AS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

[iamfreeru2]

SJ



I have asked in a previous post what constitution Judges, police, elected officials take and oath to? Is it the Constitution for these united States of America or the Constitution of the United States? You know there is a difference don't you? Are they swearing an oath to the corporate US or the organic uSA? Think about it. I do not vote for that reason. I do not vote for corporate officers of the UC Inc. located in DC. I am not a US citizen and voting is restricted to US citizens only.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Sorry for the above typo. I meant US not UC.



iamfreeru2

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

SJ



I have asked in a previous post what constitution Judges, police, elected officials take and oath to? Is it the Constitution for these united States of America or the Constitution of the United States? You know there is a difference don't you? Are they swearing an oath to the corporate US or the organic uSA? Think about it. I do not vote for that reason. I do not vote for corporate officers of the UC Inc. located in DC. I am not a US citizen and voting is restricted to US citizens only.



iamfreeru2

I have only heard HEARD rumors that there are two constitutions. But I do not KNOW that there more than one. I have seen but one constitution. If there are two please provide proof. Then I can compare the two and research which one public officials are actually swearing to uphold.



Maybe you are referring to the multiple definitions of the United States. If so, there are more than two definitions for the United States. And I unaware of how that fact can be used to draw the validity of the constitution into light, or to prove that more than one constitution does exist. Can a thing not have many titles and/or meanings, and yet be just one thing?



Even if you do prove that there is another entire constitution with different articles therein, who is to say that that second document cannot be used with the same effectiveness as the first? If you and I have two valid contracts with the same terms, does it impair my rights in any way if I loose one of them? NO, because I can still enforce the other!



But all this is hypothetical, because I have not seen any proof. But I just thought I would give you a taste of where the conversation will head if you can support your claim.



Also, proof of claim that only US citizens can vote, I know of no law restricting US or state nationals from voting. Here are some research links to help you out with the national topic:



<a href="http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizensVNationals.htm">http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizensVNationals.htm</userdefined>

<a href="http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyAUSNational.pdf">http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyAUSNational.pdf</userdefined>

[suijuris]

This could bear repeating:



"It is currently upheld as the supreme law of the land; every decision in every court from the Supreme Court down must be in absolute agreement with it. Do not let the fact that the courts can misinterpret it or become corrupted by power or money lead you to believe otherwise."



That statement has not been rebutted.



So....



It is safe to say that the constitution these judges are UPHOLDING is the SAME as the one they are swearing to defend.



If not, then the situation claimed to be in effect DEFIES LOGIC: A judge swears to uphold and defend one constitution, yet upholds the law as set forth in another, entirely separate and alledgedly DEAD document.



What then is the gain or loss to either party?



Have I lost any of my protected rights if the courts still uphold the one constitution I believe in and use to defend my rights?



And what has your enemy, the government, gained from the alledged creation of new constitutions, etc?



I fail to see the logic.

[Jerseee]

OMG,



Not more assumptions without proof of claim. I gotta see this proof.

[iamfreeru2]

SJ,



You will find the proof in the below links that the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES is not the same as the Constitution for these united states of America and these judges are taking an oath to the corporate constitution and not the organic. If you think Senators and Congressmen represent you think again.



http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/Constitutions.htm



http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/17/command.htm



iamfreeru2