We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
(note : the copy of the Constitution used herein for quotes has been certified by the National Archives to be a true copy of the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791)
This preamble clearly establishes, and history has shown, the intentions of the founders of this country. We will go through the preamble briefly then, in more detail consider the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791 from a legal perspective and compare what we find with some of it's detractors claims.
Firstly, you will notice that 'We the People' did not create the Union (of the Several Sates) at this time, it created a NEW 'more perfect Union'. Instead this document was intended to cure the defects of the Articles of Confederation, wherein, said Articles, the Union was formed on November 15th, 1777. The preamble of the Articles is "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia.” Notice the words 'perpetual Union'. These are very important as to intent which we will cover later.
The next portion of the preamble 'to...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity', state the intentions of the founders desired outcome for establishing this constitution. On the previous Constitutional Republic page we saw the Declaration of the founders concerning the purposes and origins of their government. This preamble is entirely consistent with their Declaration of 1776.
The last portion of the preamble is also very important, "...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Notice that THIS Constitution is being established FOR the United States of America. In other words a different Constitution is being created for the existing Union of the Several States. There is NO title to this document and it is not 'THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES'. This may seem obscure at the moment but there is a great deal of newspeak centered around these words requiring some further explanation as to the Truth.
One of the most debated portions of the Constitution is the phrase 'We the People'. Detractors claim the people either did not form this document and or that it was designed for only a certain class of people, and therefore the Constitution is at the very least fraudulent or at the very worst tyrannical. It can not be expected that the majority of educated/brainwashed Americans understand the basis of society and government. We will briefly explain this so that the purposes of the Constitution and the reasons for the way it was written become understandable.
The largest objection to the Constitution is that, only certain classes of people were allowed to be Electors (note : not registered voters) and of those who were Electors not all agreed for ratification. As to class let us look at the classes, white propertied males, white non-propertied males, women, children, mentally incapable people and slaves. There is no question that white propertied males were the Electors. Today newspeak defines the new (1947) word 'elitism' to depths of shame even beyond that of racism. But just what is this 'elitism', besides another 'ism'? The word it is meant to cover is, are you ready?? - Aristocracy, gasp! But what is the notion of aristocracy? Hollywood pictures of depraved and decadent kings and princes come to mind. But it is the ruling of a society by those within it who have risen above the crowd and achieved something beneficial for society. Obviously not all hereditary aristocrats were beneficial to their society. But in this country hereditary titles and rank are outlawed, so that leaves the actual achievers for our discussion.
Who were the achievers in colonial America? White propertied males. Makes your egalitarian blood boil, doesn't it? Well don't let your ignorance be revealed by too much animation on your part. Because there was land for the taking, real honest money (although in short supply), and no income or property taxes, why a man would CHOOSE to be long non-propertied was cause for suspicion. This person had no ties in the community, why should he participate in its running, especially if he could pack up and leave at a moments notice? University was available for up and comers, for free if needed. University was not the trade school it is today. America was the land of opportunity, not the lottery, or the welfare state England had begun to degenerate into.
Non Christians and many so-called Christians will not understand the doctrine of coverture. This Biblical doctrine of the relationship between husband and wife was of course followed by the colonists. In this doctrine when a girl is unmarried, she lives in her fathers house under his care and protection. As a child she is of course unable to enter into contract as a minor. As a married woman, her identity fused with that of husband as in the Bible and she was dead to the Law. Only by her husbands permission could she enter commerce because he was liable for her. The woman attained the status of her husband. If he was free, so was she. Marriage is a status, not a contract as you have been told. Elementary law will tell you that as a contract marriage is a 'nudum pactum' because consideration is only at the will of the parties. The woman's status changed from child to that of her husband. Women could not own newly acquired property while married, title vested in the husband as he was legally responsible for the wife. So the woman on the most elementary level could not be an Elector. This doctrine of coverture is so powerful that the Individuals Representing Satan (IRS) needed a way to attack the wife. By taking out a 'Marriage License' you contract with the STATE OF XX and agree to abide by their rules. Then the Individuals Representing Satan gets the wife to take out another STATE SERIAL NUMBER (SSN) so that she becomes a person visible to them. Women's Liberation is the greatest con of all times, as you can see. For the 'right to vote', in 1920 after the Income Tax and Federal Reserve Act were passed in 1913, you sold your soul to the Individuals Representing Satan and also granted permission to be sued. Under coverture, if you were a spinster or your husband was incapacitated or absent you were 'femme sole' and had all the rights of a man. You've come a long way, baby.
It should be fairly obvious why children, mentally incompetents and slaves could not be Electors. The idea of the Constitution being framed by and for a certain class of people is true, it is also obvious why it is true. This leaves us with the complaint that not even all who could vote voted for ratification. This, in turn, brings us to the very basis of government. Government is, very simply, instituted by men in a society, who agree to its authority, to protect their property. It's that simple. It is also very elementary that the will of the majority overrides the will of the minority. Otherwise chaos would result if every individual could 'drop out' of society, disregard his obligations to it, merely because he felt it violated his sense of right or wrong. In the Garden of Eden 50% of the people there were malcontent (Adam's wife). How much more so here and now? What this means is that no matter what the proposal there will be people who do not like it. Despite the superior British force the Americans obviously were the majority. Despite the anti-federalists the Constitution was ratified. Although their campaigning gave us the very valuable amendments.
Time has shown that the authors of the Constitution could not foresee the decadence and depravity of the successors to their offices and 'loopholes' in the Constitution have been incrementally exploited to the point that unbeknown to most Americans the 1787 Constitution has been set aside by the 14th Amendment. The subsequent constitution is what you hear referred to as 'THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES'. The UNITED STATES being a bankrupt municipal corporation. The real Constitution has no title as is often referred to by 'what is commonly known as the Constitution of the United States of America'. Another example of this deception is STATE OF COLORADO instead of Colorado State. Or JOHN SMITH instead of John Smith. Who is JOHN SMITH? Look at every single ID, account name or correspondence from government addressed to 'you'. Not a one will be John Smith. Hint : At law John Doe refers to the NAME of something in this case a human being, JOHN DOE refers to a TITLE( of what?). We will cover this deception in the 'Kangaroo Courts of the UNITED STATES' page.
Going back to basic reasons for the new 1787 Constitution, the founders indeed needed to form a more perfect Union. The States were truly independent and trade between them was nearly impossible due to differences in currency, taxation and even the fact that one States Navy might attack another. The government of the Confederation had no power to enforce taxation or raise an army. Any State could veto a bill. The Articles of Confederation obviously violated basic maxims of government. Clearly, something had to be done. The squabbling little colonies offered no threat to king George's dictates, nor was there any prospect of success as a nation even after the War for Independence. The problems which needed solving were firstly, commerce and with it money. Then defense of the realm. There also had to be a focal point so that the new America could communicate with other countries. A municipal corporation was needed to interact with many other countries who required such an interface. Kings usually were a corporation sole. Internally, a mechanism was needed for applying the will of the people to government and keeping government in check. A judicial system was needed to provide justice in cases of federal importance. An executive branch was needed that could accommodate an elected, rather than a hereditary magistrate.
The greatest source of abuse by the elected and trusted politicians has been two clauses in general. The first is part of Section 8 of Article I. "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)..." This control of the District of Columbia given to Congress unhampered by Constitutional restrictions was necessary for obvious reasons. If the federal government merely had a lease on the land in some State it would be subject to the whim of the State as it's Landlord, a condition which does not merit discussion. Congress could also not prosecute crimes committed on its leaseholds as jurisdiction rightfully belongs to the containing State.
This clause was expanded by the most outrageous of legal Fictions that Congress could create federal districts out of the entire country that it rules arbitrarily over. (We will talk about Federal Regional Areas and National Districts on the 'Kangaroo Courts of the UNITED STATES' page.) This notion fails at elementary law as Congress was clearly confined to 10 square miles of land and 'needful buildings' etc. The notion of this fails in common sense too, as it supposes the created can become greater than the creator. Satan has this thinking deficiency big time. God has the same trouble with men :
ISA 29:16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?
Section 8 of Article I also says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" As you might imagine this phrase has also been twisted into unrecognizable form. One of the most damaging perversions of that phrase is the complete reversal of the meaning of the word 'Welfare'. Today, educated Americans believe that word means some sort of government charity to the less fortunate. Let us refute that by simply referring to Webster's 1828 dictionary. Relating to persons welfare means 'Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness'. You were fooled back in 1935 when the New Deal Social Security was referred to as 'welfare' to unfortunate folks to give the Act some semblance of Constitutionality. Not only was the Constitutionality a blatant fraud, so is the entire Act, trapping you by deception in a Matrix of unbelievable malice. (Much more on this on the 'Kangaroo Courts of the UNITED STATES' page.)
On a governmental level welfare means "Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government'. As far is the east from the west is the liberal/socialist/communist meaning of welfare. Likewise, common grammar reveals that power is granted to government to lay and collect taxes IN ORDER to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. To believe that the Constitution creates a general government of unlimited power is pure lunacy, not ever supported by any court case or responsible dissertation on the Constitution. But rather a limited government of enumerated powers. In law an enumeration WEAKENS a law, giving force only to those things enumerated. Therefore to believe that a general power to tax has been granted is to believe that the enumerated powers are included only for confusion. President Madison elaborates upon the notion of the Constitution as being competent, "No person has a right to assume that any part of the Constitution is useless, or is without a meaning; and 'a fortiori' (by stronger reason) no person has a right to rob any part of a meaning, natural and appropriate to the language in the connection in which it stands". Justice Story talking about regulation of commerce in his 'Commentaries...' puts to rest the 'welfare state' scam. 'The power to regulate manufactures not having been confided to Congress, they have no more right to act upon it than they have to interfere with the systems of education, the poor-laws, or the road laws of the States'. Story reveals the newspeak scam of 'welfare' by using the words 'poor-laws'. Having already shown the meaning of welfare we can now readily understand that 'poor-laws' are to help the less fortunate, not welfare, or 'social security'. Now it can be easily seen that Congress can only raise revenue from taxes to carry out its duties, not for other usurpation's in the guise of 'welfare'.
Section 8 of Article I goes on to say "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Obviously no clause expanding authority into non-enumerated areas exists therein. Detractors of the Constitution claim that the degeneracy of the succeeding office holders was some sort of 'proof' that the founders planned this outrageous usurpation, even though there is no legislation or case history prior to the War of Northern Agression to support such a trend.
Another area detractors point out as 'proof' the Constitution was 'plot' is in the area of treaties. Section I of Article 6 says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This paranoid line of 'reasoning' came about because at the time of the first War for Independence many colonists wished to remain British subjects, despite the King's outrageous behavior. This mental impairment remains today, proof of this is that Clinton was elected TWICE and not found guilty at his trial. The King sent thousands of letters to the white propertied males offering to allow them to keep there lands if they paid homage to him and of course paid their quitrent (property tax) to him. Today this notion is called an income tax deduction. These taxes are still being paid today on the lands thus granted. Which is why the original States have such high property taxes in some areas. With such a mixed population and a then desperate need to trade with England the founders had to ensure that commerce would continue. The Treaty of Peace (1783) shows the outcome of these conflicting requirements.
DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE
Between the United States of America and his Britannic Majesty
In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire &c. and of the United States of America...
There is much in here that the public fool system does not teach you and that leads to much of the misunderstanding of the Constitution. Notice that King George is identified as the strawman for the Pope, as well as the Prince of America. You were taught in school that we won the war. Well we did, but what was the war? By this treaty the King was allowed to keep the lands of those who swore allegiance to him, therefore he was Prince of some of America. And still is. But what of the Pope? History tells us that the Pilgrims and the Puritans came to America to be free of the Pope. The difference between the early settlers and the Anglicans in England was simply that, religious beliefs. The Puritans were not the prudish, joyless, strange dressing people of school lore. Many were very wealthy and better educated than you. Puritans did not show mercy to their enemies! Surprise. No milk toast lay down and cry and die 'churchianity' Christians there. But fierce defenders of their faith and rights. What they did have have was the moral fortitude to live virtuous lives. King George also lost the right to tax America, other than the property taxes of the Tories. So we did win the war. That does not mean the King ever relented in his desire to control America to this very day. (The War of 1812 was a failed attempt to regain the colonies) The same goes for the Pope, he kisses the ground here as a symbol of planting his flag. Oh well, if it makes him happy.
In a more contemporary setting we find that government tries to end run the Constitution by pretending that a treaty somehow surpasses the limitations placed upon government. This treaty thus passed is then 'proven' to be unshakable by the 'supremacy' clause. Treaties are simply contracts between nations. And as in any contract the parties must be able to perform the things required of them. Contracts can not be made for unlawful purposes. This means that each and every treaty the executive and senate have 'passed' that extend outside the limitations of the Constitution is null and void. Period. Vacuum encapsulated liberal/socialist/communist reasoning's to the contrary notwithstanding. One court summed it up thusly :
"No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." "The prohibitions of the federal constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive or by the executive and senate combined." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed 2nd 1148 (1951)
As for the supremacy of laws passed in accordance with the Constitution, in general, it seems irrational to suppose that sovereign entities could agree to bind themselves together and agree to obey the laws of that Union and not have those laws supreme over the members of the Union. What would be gained by the Union if compliance was discretionary? But it does not follow that acts of the federal government which are not pursuant to the limits of the Constitution, but which are invasions of the residual powers of the several States, will become the supreme law of the land. Such acts are merely those of usurpation and need to treated as such.
America could be at risk of war if the States did not honor its treaties, in some cases. In other less dangerous situations, other countries would say "Why should we be bound by the treaty if America is not?" This is why a treaty must override all laws. However, the treaty must not be outside the scope of the Constitution. The last part of the 'Supremacy Clause', "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." does NOT repeal the limitations of the Constitution, as detractors claim. Instead it merely serves notice that State judges are bound to the treaty. As treaties are indeed CONTRACTS between sovereigns, the parties must have the authority to enter into the terms of the contract, for it to be valid. Again elementary law. Treaties are not a loophole for Congress to avoid the Constitution. In fact, if commerce is the subject of a treaty the House must be involved, especially if monies are needed, Congress controls commerce, not the Senate and Executive.
So what did the Constitution achieve? Precisely what it said it did. A more perfect Union. A perpetual, more perfect Union. For those who CHOOSE to be freemen away from the king, a system of government was set up to allow a society to grow and prosper which was self governing. To enter this society you must be a propertied white male. The very same is true today! The society of free white males operating under the 1787 agreement has been greatly reduced by the steady encroachments of the king although you have been told the 1787 agreement still rules. You can still enter the Original Jurisdiction society today and wrest the title of your land, family, cars etc back from the king. This is the importance of the 'perpetual Union', it is still there, hidden under the bull stuff of the Traitors. The king of course covets your life, property and family so much he will not help you get free, in fact he will attempt to keep you as his subject, at gunpoint, just as King George did. Do not show your ignorance by claiming you have Civil Rights. (note caps) The 1787 Constitution was subverted prior to the settling of the issue of slavery and this topic has to be redressed. Even a fool is thought wise if he is silent, so do not say 14th Amendment. We will go into great detail of who you are in the 'Kangaroo Courts of the UNITED STATES' page.
In this 'other world' of Original Jurisdiction and the 1787 Constitution, not even the Individuals Representing Satan have a claim on you! Guess why the banksters needed a new constitutional 'power'. Subsequent plots and usurpation's after the War between the States by British controlled lawyers and politicians does not create a plot by the founders. The 1787 Constitution was proposed by a convention, ratified by the people. It is not a treaty or a contract that breach by a party can render it void or at least null in parts. Nor is it a charter or grant which must flow from a superior. It is more like a compact that the several States and the people thereof have bound themselves to each other and the federal government. It is also like a compact by which the federal government is bound to several States and every United States Citizen. Although the federal government can in no possible view be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was in fact created, yet, as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it to its creators, the several States in the Union and the Citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the Constitution, nor any rights but such as that instrument confers, and those very rights being in fact duties, it can possess no legitimate power but such as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty prescribed and enjoined by the Constitution. Its duties then become the exact measure of its powers; and whenever it exerts a power for any other purpose than the performance of a duty prescribed by the Constitution, it transgresses its proper limits and violates the public trust.
The 1787 Constitution was created with the ability to be modified as its authors knew things would change. We have been the unfortunate witnesses of the depravity of fallen man in the exploiting of loopholes and the addition of repugnant amendments to our Constitution. However, there never was nor will there ever be again an original document of such Superior Excellence creating a government on this earth.
References:
The Bible - NIV 1985
Commentaries on the Common law - Blackstone
Commentaries on the Constitution - Story
Which one are you? - The Informer
Next on the 'Separation of Church and State' page find out just what was intended.
Home