Our Declaration Of Independence; Constitution; And Bill Of Rights, General Discussion of these documents and their "relevance" to Options

[IslandPilot]

I have started this topic in response to "tume's" post in another Forum about TSA Groping of a 6 Year old girl.
Our "original discussion" begins here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10797465
I responded with: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10797474
Tume's post from: here is quoted as follows: (the "quotes" in white boxes are mine, tume's comments are in the "regular text"... and my "response" will follow in the next post)

QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Apr 14 2011, 02:33 PM)
Tume: I would say your "legal interpretation" is entirely consistent with what I learned about US History, US Government, Our Constitution, and our Legal System from 7th Grade through High School... that would have been from 1959 to 1964. But many things seem to have "changed" since then.

To me from the distance in Europe as I study it, it still looks like the written law and pertinent precedents are in place and active. The US Congress has no power to change the Constitution. Fortunately. What I think looks to me changed is the approach, acceptation, attitude to it, total lack of enforcement face to the military junta which apparently governs the USA since I was still unborn.
Yesterday I was watching the movie War Made Easy and what was there especially disgusting for me was a citation from LBJ speech where he was apparently seriously talking about that they "...fight for selfdetermination, for the right of the Vietnamese to choose their own course, free election, without violence, without terror and without fear..." Yeah, the napalmed and agent oranged children, they surely agree. Now they grop the american children and to me it still looks like a result of the complete lack of the law enforcement facing the military junta governing USA. To me it looks being just matter of time until the Americans are killed on American soil by themTM en masse as the OKC or 9/11 was a teaser for. They still prefer to send them to be killed abroad, together with the masses of civilians there. But the inevitable economic decline the imperial politics brings together with the obsoleteness of the infrastructure can soon make it impossible to wage the wars abroad.

QUOTE
The current "crop" of our Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Agency personnel have been very good at "twisting" the "meanings" of the US Constitution... and "revising" our "laws" and "legal system", so it no longer RESEMBLES anything I was taught back in the 1960s.

Our "Declaration of Independence" and "Bill of Rights" today seem to be "nothing" more than "interesting" historical documents. The way that the the "US EMPIRE" acts today; is NO DIFFERENT than the BRITISH EMPIRE acted 225 years ago... which is why Our Forefathers Revolted against it, in the first place.

Sorry, but I think it should be repeated over and over. There still is written in the Declaration of Independence:
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, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (just a legal note: The Declaration of Independence is the law which constitutes United States as the legal entity. The Constitution of the United States just says what are the constitution-government rules of such entity-union of States. That's why you celebrate the 4th July, not September 17th. If the Declaration of Independence would be abolished it would mean the United States no longer exist in the legal sense and under the law of land it would most probably in legal sense become partly possesion of the United Kingdom, Kingdom of Spain, Russian Federation, Republic of France, Kingdom of Havaii and Republic of Texas and Indians. (If I've forget something I appologize to the pertinent parties) Who knows if it wouldn't be better if the Americans themselves aren't able to enforce even the Declaration and Constitution..)

there is also still written in the 14th amendment sec. 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
to my knowledge it was never abolished.

What if the majority in the US Congress is already uneligible due to the 14th Amendment sec. 3. because they have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution of the United States? Can they vote themselves back? Nope. They would need two thirds in each House of the ones who still are eligible... The same for the executive and judicial branch... looks like a judicial Convention would be only peaceful mean left to solve the situation - if only also the State legislative bodies weren't corrupted mostly the same way as the federal government.

QUOTE
We are no longer a "Nation of Laws"; in which the Government derives its POWER from the PEOPLE; so if our "Government" doesn't "FEEL" like complying with the LAW.... they WON'T.

It very much looks like the infamous democracy. But not the modern one, the ancient greek one - where a tiny "aristocracy" was voting what they wanted and the rest were slaves. Even the ancient roman empire looks better, they at least weren't so dangerous for the rest of the world not having the nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and who knows what else...

Back to the topic - I think it would be perfectly legal to bring Pistole, Napolitano, Chertoff & comp. to the Grand Jury to answer in capital process. Better sooner than later.

[GroundPounder]

look at (15) (A) in the link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28...02----000-.html

[tumetuestumefais...]

look at (15) (A) in the link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28...02----000-.html

I don't want to edify anybody but I think it is good to note the name of your country is the "United States of America" -as such it was recognized, as a land won in the war and sovereigned by the Treaty of Paris signed on September 3 1783, which recognized the Provisional Articles signed in Paris on November 30 1782 (-of which the Article 1 is in effect to this days) and subsequently was recognized by all other nations in the world under this name (- the entity "United States" is not a recognizable subject of international law, nor there is any public international corporate law, which would recognize the "United States Inc.") and later enlarged by accessions and acquisitions.

It is also good to note that at the time of the Treaty of Paris ratification no federation of the 13 states united under legal entity recognized as "United States of America" existed. So is it be the same legal entity as the "United States" "Federal corporation" mentioned in the 28 USC? The term corporation means legal entity under domestic law, usually with limited liability, created under corporate laws.

Also the preamble establishes the name of the constituted entity "United States of America" in the Constitution for the United States of America (which is one of the legal name of the document used promiscue with the legal name Constitution of the United States in the very document, and expressly recognises its independence as a legal entity established in 1776 in the signing statement. This entity cannot be legally abolished or superseded by any legal act of any branch of the federal government. Such authority is held only by the 3/4 of the State legislative bodies or Conventions - and to my knowledge it was never used in such sense. There was a secessionist attempt in the american civil war, but because it was militarily unsuccessful the integrity of the United States of America was reestablished and the Constitution remains together with its later Amendments the supreme law of land in the United States of America.

It is true that the Constitution of the United States (of America) uses the terms United States and United States of America promiscue, once it speaks about the President of the United States of America and then about the President of the United States for example, but it doesn't mean it establishes two entities one under the name "United States of America" and another under the name "United States".

Some argue that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 established such a corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but I don't find anything like that in the bill. Some also argue that in the Washington D.C. is the constitutional protection inapplicable, which is clearly contradicted by many Supreme Court decisions, e.g. recently by the high profile 2nd Amendment gun control case Washington District of Columbia v. Heller which was decided against D.C.

So is there a "United States Inc."? In fact I don't know. The 28 USC clearly talks about the "United States" "Federal corporation", which could mean the United States can sue and be sued as a legal entity in the domestic process of law, it still doesn't show there is an entity United States Inc. moreover identical with the legal entity United States of America recognized by the international law. Hints welcomed.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Apr 16 2011, 11:26 AM