If you think there is a Constitution please read this

[iamfreeru2]

I copied the following link this morning. If you think the Constitution is in effect think again. Please check out the following:



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



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



good research. Now if you can prove that an "act" supersedes "supreme law" then you've got something.

[iamfreeru2]

The reality is this is happening. Are people stopping what is happening? Most people are asleep and do not want to be awakened. I have tried for twelve years to wake people up. Nothing has changed.



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



That is a high probability. But there are some out there (very few) that use the Constitution in court. In any event, there is no reason to abandon supreme law because no one uses it. The government uses it when it is convenenient for them and base most of their codes on it.



It is sad--but because others refuse to wake up--those will be the ones lost in babylon wondering about their god given rights when crap hits the fan.

ANOTHER EVEN BIGGER QUESTION WOULD BE THIS:

IS THE CONSTITUTION A BINDING LEGAL DOCUMENT?

CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE:

http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/notreas.html



IT'S SCARY BUT IT COULD BE TRUE.

[Ice]

Question:



Is a contract a binding legal document?



And that is the answer that should soothe your fear.

ICE,

IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE, THE AUTHOR CLAIMS THAT IT WAS WRITTEN FOR THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME. THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS WRITTEN BINDS THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ALIVE AT THAT TIME.

THIS ARTICLE/BOOK WAS WRITTEN IN THE 1860'S I THINK.

HERE'S THE FIRST PART:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:



We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquillity, liberty, etc.

[Jerseee]

PJT04,



The author of that piece speaks for himself. Let me ask you this....what if I accept the Constitution as a contract now? Does that make it null and void?



My point is that the author cannot speak for me now since he is dead. So just because he did not accept and enforce the contract does not make it null.



The author defeated his own words when he died--although he made a point--he has boxed himself in his own words. What I mean is, if he believes the Constitution to be null and void after their deaths--then so are his words since he is dead.



Further he cannot speak for people in the future, just as he has stated the fore fathers cannot. So since this is the case, and I have free-will, I can choose to enact that contract--especially since I am alive.



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.

[Ice]

"Agreement" is "Contract" -- right?



If you and I agree to bind ourselves to the Constitution for the united States of America... WE HAVE "CONTRACT".



I don't care what anyone sez because the fact is that if anyone takes oath to the Constitution then they are under contract to abide by its principles. And that is one simple FACT that some can't seem to understand.



Here is another FACT: Full Disclosure is required for a contract to be legit... right? Well, as long as you sign with "All Rights Reserved" then you should have nothing to fear. Why? Because if anyone were to ask if that is your "Signature" you can respond with: "That depends upon what that might signify". If you don't have full disclosure then there is no contract. You cannot be designated a "U.S. Citizen" by checking a box and signing a form unless there is full disclosure as to what that term means... if it means something other than what you define it as...



Can you folks see where I'm going with this? There is way too much made out of all this "entering their jurisdiction" kind of crap. Remember, you're not admitting to being anything other than what you claim to be... as long as you sign and know how to answer anyone that asks if the writing is your "Signature".



NO CONTRACT CAN EXIST WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT MADE UPON FULL DISCLOSURE.



Some have been resisting their own government for so long that I don't think anything will convince them that they really are the ones in control. The People are really the Power and Authority. All the People need to do is STEP UP TO THE PLATE.

[Jerseee]

Ice,



Good post!!! There was one phrase that you said that stood out and it is the essence of what is wrong with some people:



Some have been resisting their own government for so long that I don't think anything will convince them that they really are the ones in control.



This is the crux of the problem! Not what UCC redemptionists say. Not what the gurus say. Not what the government says. Not what some detached author says. Not what a private bank and its member banks say. Not what some paid off politician says. Not what some rogue judge says. Not what some "police" officer says. Not what some esquire says. But what the people say.



Ice, I don't understand it myself. There is no law without consent of the people. Hell if no one abides by the law--then is it even law?