I think that we DON'T have a VALID "constitution" to begin with and the whole damn thing is a SHAM! That's because for one thing the Freemasons created the so-called "constitution" in a way that a secret society such as theirs could subvert it to its own ends. The second thing is that it is INcomplete. The entire structure of the Federal judicial system is MISSING from it. Only the "executive" and "legislative" departments receive detailed attention, and even that of the executive is "sketchy" compared to that of the legislative. The third thing is that it is NOT VALIDATED as being such a governmental legal document through the PROPER PRO FORMA process so supposedly "beloved" of lawyers and judges. When the state representatives ( and it is debatable how many of them were technically "states" at that time, having their own "constitutions) of the "constitutional convention" went to sign their names to the "document", they NEGLECTED to apply their respective "state" seals to it; thereby "officially" VALIDATING it as a legal document composed by a convention of the "STATES' " authority. Thus the thing is no more than a scrap of paper with handwritten scribbles on it attesting to NO AUTHORITY of ANY political entities. It might as well have been a mere draft or sketch for a PROPOSED scheme of "government". It also OMITS to include any provision for the design of the national seal to VALIDATE its alleged authority as a FEDERAL document. Thus it was NEVER machine printed as a LEGAL DOCUMENT with ANY of the APPROPRIATE SEALS OF AUTHORITY and without the signature of a PRESIDENT of the United States to "seal" it into commission! In FACT as well as ACT it's really worth no more than a scrap of old paper. And NOT even REAL "parchment"!
The real issue here is the education of the average citizen. The Constitution is written in plain English with the express intention by its authors to be read and understood by every single Citizen in the US. The problem is that not one in 10,000 people have taken the time to really read it and understand it, and as a result the criminals in government have passed many laws usurping power they do not Constitutionally have and the public has failed their duty to call them on it. The Federal government was created to protect the Citizens rights, not to take them away. This country was founded primarily on the concept of liberty, and that was the value people held to be more important than any other. The saying went " Liberty or death" not prosperity or death, or government entitlements or death. Liberty is based first and foremost on the ownership of your person and of your life. No part of your person or your life belongs to the government, and yet in todays world, the government claims to own all of us. The problem is that as Americans we are so stupid we do not even understand what we are and what this country was supposed to be.
What is left out of your thinking is the act of 1871. That, was an infiltration of English elite with the agenda of Rome taking over the nation covertly. Since it was covert, it is not legal, it's is fraud. Anytime we unify properly we we can revert to the original constitutional republic democratically. But the particular unity we need is VERY difficult to understand. Try hard to understand these prime constitutional intents. Maybe, If you can understand these simple inquiries, and agree, there is a chance. Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights? Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? Yea they did. But they were infiltrated too since the 1787 constitution. And because of that oath taken in a trance, the good ones that love that creation and what it means to humanity cannot expose their bretheren". Its up to us to take the lead and the good Masons will follow the people who USE the constitution to its fullest. You may have something there. Hadn't thought of it like that. I see it as mildly deficient. Perhaps realizing the fact that the federal government was infiltrated and so the intentions of those holding office subvert the constitutional structure so much, it looks incomplete. Since Article V describes a situation where 3/4 of the states can propose and ratify, the ideal could easily manifest IF the people can understand, agree with and accept the two smile prime intents of the inquiry above. And, do it right this time. It was written on hemp paper BTW. Which is a sign of 5,000 years of functional human use of nature.
The real problem is that the American public are basically a bunch of morons. The Constitution was written in plain English so that any common man could understand its meaning. It is a contract which specifically states all powers given to Federal government by the States. It is interpreted like any other contract in that unless a power to do something is specifically stated clearly in the document, the government does not have that power. It is the duty of every American citizen to know that. Some asshat named Roosevelt told the American people that he could do anything that the Constitution did not state he could not do. He was lying through his teeth but the idiot masses were ignorant of what the contract really said, so they believed him. If the document was not clear enough to begin with, many of the founding fathers wrote papers to explain the philosophy behind why they decided to write the contract the way they did. The problem is that not one in ten thousand citizens have bothered to read them. It is imperative that any time you look at what is written in the Constitution, that you remember that the forefathers had a great deal of contempt and distrust for any government, even the one they created. The first thing any person needs to consider when establishing if a law is constitutional is where in the Constitution do the people give the government the power to establish this new law. Every law by its nature takes the liberty of the people, so it is imperative that we view every new law as an infringement on our rights. The powers of the government are severely restricted by the Constitution so what exact phrase in the document bestows the power the government is claiming to have? If every person in this country actually did this exercise, they would quickly realize that the majority of the power the Federal Government and even State Governments claim to have is completely illegitimate and were usurped illegally.
Lol yes, they meant to give the federal government any power it could come up with. That's why they listed 16 specific powers and wrote the 10th Amendment limited the federal government to delegated powers. That's definitely what they told them at the state ratifying conventions- you know, since "consent of the governed" is so important and all.
Are you on the right? Or, are you just going to resort to diversion. I didn't vote for any wars on crime, drugs, poverty, or terror.
The purpose of free speech is to provide a way to conduct discourse upon constitutional intent. Currently, communication technology serves the elite for the purpose of manipulating the public and selling stuff. We need our lawful and peaceful revolution to have a mechanism to question the proposal of new laws. There is an amendment which might cause an Article V convention on a single issue. The "Countermand Amendment". Something that should have been a part of Article V, or the 10th amendment. It allows 60% of the states to remove an unconstitutional law. Perhaps 16 states, by now, have submitted proposals for the amendment. https://www.countermands.us/countermand-amendment.html
Look at one aspect of how everyday life is affected by constitutional interpretation in relation to it's application in daily life. Let's say you want to buy a handgun, you see one on sale in Oregon, the price is right, yet you are not allowed to purchase it directly because you live in Washington or Idaho. So you would have to have that handgun sent to an FFL in your State at a great final expense to yourself, sound wrong ? Yes. You can prove your identity, but antiquated laws dating back to the days when proof of identity was difficult, are still being enforced as obsolete regulations related to gun laws extant.
