Powell Gammill

More About: Constitution

Happy Con Day, Serfs!


Today may seem like just another ordinary day, but it actually celebrates the day of your enslavement.  But I am getting ahead of myself.

It had begun, innocently enough when representatives of five States met the year before to discuss making some minor alterations to the Articles of Confederation specifically to improve commerce---the States were notorious for enacting protectionist measures on the import of products from the neighboring States.   They decided to invite the remaining States, all of whom except one, Rhode Island who smelt a rat, decided to send representatives. 

223 years ago today (Sept. 17, 1787) the culmination of the efforts of 55 self appointed conspiring men who dreamed of a master's power over everyone, and had schemed in secret to those ends came to fruition.  The remaining 39 signatories -- 16 members who had started the journey had fled, some saying this was no more than a sinister plot to seize the power of the states or enslave the people -- expelled a hot steaming turd they called "The CONstitution of the United States of America" to replace the Articles of Confederation already existing between the States. 
 
And according to their document, once nine State constitutional conventions out of then thirteen existing States, agreed to abide by this document the Constitution came into effect and was binding upon the States. 

It took a few months---much longer than they intended.  And only because of the seven states quickly agreeing (ratifying), two of those States were now wavering and the people behind the Constitution could not secure the two more ratifications needed to "legitimize" their labor.  The great compromise was offered to address the concern of a central power being created to rule them all:  The Bill of Rights that would be written down later (four years later) to ensure our Rights could never, ever, ever be trampled upon by this creation.

These visionaries gave us what exactly?  What was it we already did not have?  And who bestowed the power upon them to deliver us into bondage?

A central government to rule them all.


So what is the Constitution of the United States?

Lysander Spooner did an intricate study of this very question. 

Is the Constitution a contract? 

If it is, how can it be binding on those who have not agreed to it?  And since all the signatories to it are now dead, if it is a contract then it too is dead.  So it must not be a contract.

Is it a treaty between the States that binds the States?  Forever? 

Well, it certainly does not say that.  And it is hard to believe a State would sign on to it (ratify) knowing they could not leave later if they found living within the United States of America was not in their best interest. 

But Abraham Lincoln made if abundantly clear the government of the United States will not allow States to leave.  The federal government murdered a significant percentage of the males in the nation to demonstrate their resolve in this matter.  And bankrupted those surviving malcontents who opposed them for more than five generations to insure such opposition to their desires never rose up again.

I am confused however by the ratification process.  Ratifying takes place when third party agents appointed by the parties of two or more interests negotiates a contract or a treaty for those entities and then takes it back to all of the entities for their approval or rejection.  That means it is a contract or a treaty; the only two instances ratification occurs.  I guess it would be claimed it is a contract between the States in which all have ceded certain of their powers to the collective federal government and the Rights of their citizens for the functions of the central government.  Yet who exactly in 1787 within these States were to legitimately do this ceding seems unanswered. 

I know one State, Rhode Island, refused to ratify the Constitution and was boycotted by all the others until under extreme duress they did eventually bow to their collective will.

I can't really say why the Constitution has any power over anyone other than it is enforced by the guns of government.  It clearly has no legitimate source of its binding authority that I can find.  It merely has the force of government . . . and really what else does any government have when all is said and done but force.  They are a gang with a flag.

The Constitution is a persuasive document in that we are born into it.  We grow up with it.  We may get taught a few points about it in government run or government approved schools.  We get deluged from time to time with patriotic propaganda drumming up support for it.  But just because we do not question its authority, or legitimacy over us does not lend it legitimacy.  Indeed, government's response to those who declare their freedom from its power shows how insecure government is of its power being questioned or denied.


So what does the Constitution do?

It is pretty simple.  You can read it in a single sitting, though it may take a day to digest your way through it, and look up the meaning of some of its words.  The Constitution of the United States of America created a central government that was to have limited and specified powers over the States, and to interact with or defend from other nations. 

That is it.  There is nothing more.  Combined with the Declaration of Independence its existence was to solely protect the Rights of the individuals within its purview.  And combined with the first ten Amendments of the Constitution, it would never, ever, ever pass laws or pursue actions that restricted in any manner our individual Rights -- some of which were spelled out -- or trespass on the sovereignty and powers of the States.

How did that work out for us?

Well, today I know of not a single area that the federal government does not consider is within their purview to legislate, enforce or judge.  I know that of all the things governments do within the United States none of them concern themselves with their only legitimate function---protecting individual Rights.

Indeed clearly their only two concerns are to rob those under their grasp of as much of their earnings as possible while ensuring a property detection, collection and enforcement apparatus to keep those earning coming in.  Like every government that has ever existed, our governments are nothing more than a parasitic organism that threatens the host if a cure is proposed.

Until you free your mind from fear; fear that you need "government," fear of making your own decisions and living with the consequences of your decisions, and fear of your government's response to your self imposed freedom you can never know liberty.  And neither will your kids.

So Happy Constitution Day Serfs!  Enough celebrating, now get back to work.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

 Daniel Webster


2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Larry Stuler
Entered on:

  There is a large number of Americans who now believe that the federal gov’t is ignoring the Constitution and enacting unconstitutional laws.  Nothing could be further from the truth - the federal gov’t is quite aware of its limited jurisdictions.  In fact, the following dissertation will actually evidence this to be true - the federal gov’t has meticulously gone to great lengths to stay within its limited jurisdictions.  What the gov’t has done is to create legal “terms” that have meanings only within its jurisdictions.  

  The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and its main tenet is that "all men are created equal".  Under such a tenet no person or group of people, including some group called government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people.  This is the basis of individual sovereignty.  The Constitution was adopted to form a gov't that would uphold this tenet.

  The Constitution acknowledges this where in Article I, section 8 it grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  The federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce since the law is based upon the tenet that "all men are created equal".  The individual American is sovereign, not the federal gov’t.  See the following Supreme Court decisions that uphold the sovereignty of the individual - United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed. (2 Dall.) 415.  All of these Supreme Court decisions were rendered before the bankruptcy of the federal gov’t in the 1930’s. 

  The FED bankrupted the gov't in the 1930's.  This is easily evidenced by the correlation between the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):  title 11 USC, "Bankruptcy", is implemented by title 11 CFR, "Federal Elections".  Our vote is simply to elect a bankruptcy "administration". 

  However, bankrupting the federal gov't wasn't enough to make Americans pay the interest on the FED's counterfeit money loans to the gov't.  Sovereignty lies with the individual American, not the federal gov't. as evidenced above by the Supreme Court.

  To get around all of the chains that the Constitution imposes on the federal gov't, Social Security was created to destroy American sovereignty.  The "Form SS-5" that an applicant uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form.  After all, only a federal employee is liable for federal employment taxes.  You know the name of the federal employee - the "taxpayer".  "Taxpayer" is a legal term defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine - a federal employee.  26 CFR 2.1-1(b) states that this is the definition of the term as used throughout the Code and the regulations for all calculation of taxes.

  The gov’t has been given jurisdiction over its possessions by Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution.  By checking the box " U.S. citizen" on the "Form SS-5" the applicant has given the gov't prima facie evidence that he has U.S. possession citizenship.  " U.S. citizen" is also a legal term exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession ( Puerto Rico is cited in the example) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship.  This regulation then references back to 26 USC sec. 2501(b) where it states that this is the definition of the term "citizen" "wherever used in the title".  The U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries (see 26 USC sec. 865(i)(3), 872(b)(7), and 2014(g) for example).  This makes a “ U.S. citizen” a foreigner in relation to America.  This is the 14th Amendment citizen.

  The combination of the legal terms "taxpayer" and " U.S. citizen" is known as the legal term " U.S. resident" at 26 USC sec. 865(g).  A " U.S. resident" is a "U.S citizen" living in America - a foreigner.

  So by applying for a S.S.# an American has given away all sovereignty and become a slave to the federal gov't.  

  All of this evidences that the owners of the gov't are quite aware of its limited jurisdiction, but they have absolutely no regard for freedom.

  The federal gov't is legislating today on two main premises - under foreign commerce and that everyone is a federal employee.

  The CFR was created during the bankruptcy proceedings in the mid-1930’s to evidence the correlation of which of the new federal regulatory agencies would be in charge of implementing the regulations under the statutes of the USC. 

  Obviously, federal gov’t regulatory agencies can have no jurisdiction over a sovereign American since “all men are created equal” and the federal gov’t has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.  But a “ U.S. resident” has no constitutional protections.  

  Since one becomes a “taxpayer” by applying for a S.S.#, that person is now subject to the income tax.

  The income tax was ruled to be constitutional in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions - see Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).  These Supreme Court decisions all stated that the gov’t always had the power to tax income and, further, that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal gov’t by the 16th Amendment.  In other words, the income being taxed must be within the limited jurisdiction of the federal gov’t to begin with since no new power was granted to the federal gov’t.  Cites from each of these cases can be found at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3a on my Blog.

 

  Internal revenue is within the customs.  Customs gains revenue for the gov't from importing duties from foreign countries.  Internal revenue gains revenue for the gov't from importing duties from the U.S. possessions - thus a source of "internal revenue".  Customs is foreign commerce.  Internal revenue is a legal term.

 

  The 3 commerce jurisdictions are cited separately in title 28 USC, "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure", chapter 85, "District Courts; Jurisdiction".  Section 1336, "Surface Board Transportation Orders", which was renamed from "Interstate Commerce Commission's Orders" in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1362, "Indian Tribes", is obviously the trade with the Indians commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1340, "Internal revenue; customs duties", is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.  Income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto.  Inheritance tax is the third plank of the Communist Manifesto.  These communistic taxes are only available to the federal gov’t under foreign commerce along with the presumption that the individual is a federal employee.

  Now the federal gov’t and its owners have an unlimited reservoir of revenue from the “taxpayers” that can be used to expand the gov’t’s apparent powers.

  Abolish Social Security, return everyone’s money, with interest, and restore sovereignty.

  I have evidenced the entire Social Security Scam on my Blog at LLSTULER.wordpress.com.  

Comment by Christopher Broughton
Entered on:

Without the con-stitution we would have anarchy! "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual." (Murray Rothbard)


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

GoldMoney