Bill of Rights...what makes america....america

good to know that NONE! of these will ever be infringed upon... well i mean i know al qaeda can get rid of them...

 

Not quite. Your sentiments are correct, but you are wrong.

The uniqueness of America does come not from our Bill of Rights. Every dictator for life has a bill of rights. The USSR not only had a bill of rights, but had one that extended beyond that of America's. It explicitly went into to detail about the right to protest the government with no fear of threat. A bill of rights becomes useless when power can become centralized.

The structure of the US government is the best in the world at not centralizing power and that is where the brilliance of the idea of America comes from. We have a bicameral legislature, something found in few other countries. We have a independent executive, also rare. And then of course we have a separate judiciary. You have to get the same bill through two separate legislative bodies using the same language, and then the you have to get it signed by the executive, and all the while it has to be in conjunction with the constitution ( here is where the Bill of Rights shines) in order for it to become law. If a bill were to be in blatant contradiction with the constitution, or be over bearing and harmful to the minority, it is very easy to throw a monkey wrench and halt the entire process. It is the propensity for gridlock which makes it possible to halt the centralization of power and preserve the individual freedoms addressed in the Constitution.

 

On the contrary if you read the fine print the government of the US et al is one huge RICO!

 

Very few other countries have a legislature that is equally powerful in both houses. The House of Lords is hardly a check on the Commons. The same is true in France and many other European governments. And the states are not "under" the federal government, that is completely wrong. And are you seriously comparing the US President to the Queen of England. The idea that the power structure of either is even close if laughable. The political power of the UK resides on the PM and the Commons. And one picks the other. Aside from the judiciary, that is not separation of power.

 

all common law gubmints are basically the same.

general elecrtic for instance has a few boards, personnel, quality control, treasury (accounting), and they are not considered separate but as soon as we hang the name gubmint on it somehow they magically become independent? cough.... no they do not.

If you read about the formation of the states they all have enabling acts that bring them in on the same legal footing as the original 13 british colonies.

the king established the united colonies and that was changed to the united estates (plantation lords), of america who then created the united states and the states were created under the united states.

You know this because not only did they have the enabling acts for each state but it was ll approved by congress. If you do not believe that crack some books.

same goes with the king who in the UK is the commander in chief.

the pm is not exactly like our gubenators but works in a similar tone.

the monarch retains supreme power and with a whisp of a pen could abolish your whole gubbermint, but then I imagine we would get to see a modern day beheading.

we traded one king for 51 of them. at least yours has a head to shop off ours is a fiction with no remedy and no recourse.

 

The strength of the US has always been your massive amount of natural resources, combined with innovation that revolutionised the world. Economic power builds any strong state and the US is no different. The US became a great power because of Economic dominance that led to political and military dominance. The American political system actually is a weakness. The separation of power is not efficient. The Republic in general is a weak form of government. A strong executive leader is needed to lead any great power.

 

How the US Government works on paper: the most awesome political system ever.

How the US Government works in reality: Constitution? Bill of Rights? What are those?

 

The statement provided in the image is incorrect. Britian has subjects but the United States has citizen and there is a distinct difference between the two.

Citizens voluntary submit to the Rule of Law but not the the government as the Citizens own the government. In Britian they have a monarchy and the people are subjects of the monarch. We don't have a monarch that we are subjects of and no one is a subject of the US President. We can tell the President to kiss our collective asses if we choose to do so.

Worthy of note a natural born citizen of the United States does not have to swear any allegence to the United States government or even to the US Constitution. No such requirement exists because the government is the servant of the People and the People are not the servants of the government.

 

Which is exactly what the founders of America attempted to prevent. We don't want a strong executive leader as such leaders are inevitably tyrants.

 

It is a free one though.

That is a tyrant. This is not a pure Hobbesian society.

 

I think Santorum said it well last night with something like, our rights come from our creator and that we as individuals are born with those rights. whereas other countries citizens are given those rights through their government to whom they answer to.

Its too bad our country is moving away from that, but I have faith in the end Americans will fight for the ideals that our founder fought for. It will just take our parents and my generation to die off and our childrens and grandchildrens generation to fight their way out of dependency.

My generation and my parents have failed this country. We have given our government more power than was intended and we are paying the price now and our freedoms are going away.

 

The answers you seek are held by just about any new immigrant to the USA. The simple masses of the US do not know and do not care.

 

I actually believe it will take the States to call for another Consitutional Convention and a revision to the US Constitution. We've seen continuous "creep" where the federal government has assumed more and more "powers" that are not delegated to it in the Constitution. Ultimately, in spite of opinions to the contrary, the States still control the federal government but only by their ability to call for a Constitutional Convention and change the US Constitution. This power of the States over the federal government in enshrined in Article V of the Constitution.

The founders of America warned us that the federal government would continually attempt to expand it's power and since the beginning of the the 20th Century we've seen that happening. The States and only the States can stop or reverse this trend of the federal government. I hope that the States eventually take back the power that many mistakenly believe they lost in the Civil War.

 

The Constitution was merely a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation. But opportunists grabbed power and used it as a tool to suppress the will of the majority.

Constitutionalists treat this empty idol like religious fanatics treat the Bible, as an infallible and omnipotent code that the people must be forced to obey. But the rule of law is really the law of the rulers and serves only to make the public into servants of an oligarchy.

Amendments are useless because an organ of the united ruling class, the Supreme Court, gave itself the power to interpret them any way it wants. The same way the absolutist Bible stifled the progress of human thought, the Constitution has stifled the progress of American freedom and will cause the collapse of the commonwealth because it has disempowered the common man, giving control of the nation to self-serving elitists.

 

we dont want ANY leader.

Anyone who wants a LEADER wants to be led!

Those who are led are NOT SELF governed, but governed.

 

yep and we can wipe our butts with it.

when the states CONTRACT with the federal gubafia and take money from them they have to abide by the contracts.

treaties and contracts between them supersede the separation.

Think of it like 2 sovereigns. Each in their own realm and dominion.

They strike a contract creating an easement to go into each others territory to chase someone down.

The contract now becomes the law. Contract law. Each sovereign now has an obligation to fulfill that contract.

thats the problem with a representative gubafia. they can cut any deal they want with or without your permission or sanction.

a new convention and 500 constitutions would do nothing to void existing contracts.

The only thing that needs be done is to repeal the 14th amendment and force congress to uphold the existing constitution and the existing laws.

 

I agree with the elitists, however the rest you have pretty well backwards.

The law of the land is built upon common law and the magna charta and the english bill of rights.

its todays legislation that is usurping rights, much of which is not constitutional and holds no force in law. see marbury v madison.

read your city ordinances sometime that will give you a good dose of what is stifling this country. the constitution if abided by will get your freedom if you know how to kick butt in the courts.

 

A rather strange proposition and I assume it refers to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment that enumerated the protections of a couple of fundamental Rights of the People.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

First and foremost the 14th Amendment enumerated the criteria of Jus Soli (Latin: right of the soil) in establishing the inalienable Right of Citizenship (i.e. natural born citizenship). Natural born citizenship supercedes statutory law and Congress is prohibited from any infringement upon it. Congress has no authority related to this natural (inalienable) Right of Citizenship and under the US Constitution is limited to laws addressing the naturalization of foreign born individuals that want to become US citizens. The Right of Natural Born Citizenship was addressed when the Constitution was originally created but lacked specific enumeration which was accomplished with the 14th Amendment. It was always a inalienable Right under the 9th Amendment so the 14th Amendment did not change the inalienable Right but merely enumerated it because it was being violated.

Next the Right of Equal Protection Under The Law is enumerated in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Once again equal protection under the law is an inalienable Right that was protected under the 9th Amendment but it was being violated which is why the 14th Amendment enumerated it.

Bascially we have two inalienable Rights of the Individual that were enumerated and protected in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The Rights always existed but these Rights were being violated by our government which lead to the enumerated protections of them.

Why would anyone oppose the protection of the inalienable Rights of the People considering that the Declaration of Independence specifically established that the primary role of our government, and the very justification for our government, is the protection of the inalienable ("unalienable") Rights of the People?

 

The problem is that they set themselves up with the states as sovereigns. Kings are sovereigns. Thats the first problem. Not in an of itself, but how it is being used "against" the people. That is to say Nations are sovereign to each other but not to the "sovereign" people who created it, in which they presumably serve.

When looking at the constitution you have to look at it like "you" wrote it and handed it to the gub to sign.

Once signed they are trustees with an obligation to "regulate" within the guidelines of the contract.

They were never given authority to expand the contract or construe their version of the contract. It is our contract of conditions to them that THEY have to follow, stating we approve of their existence only within the boudaries set forth withing the contract, not their contract to dictate to us when we must do for them. (though its abusively treated that way by the gubafia!) They took the oath to serve us not we to them though there is reciprocity unless one was foolish enough to pledge allegiance which is giving yourself into slavery without due consideration.

Holding the "office" of citizen does not negate the rights of the "man" holding that office.

If you look into the "ruling" law, that is the statutes of 1802, it very clearly states who is eligible to be a "Citizen", and who is a second class "citizen". The former with full unalienable rights, the latter with privileges and immunities.

The 14th amendment was inappropriate and written to serve government NOT the people. It was the result of the "STATES" usurping the rights of the people by a series of bad state supreme court decisions. Instead of rectifying the matter it and construing it in favor of the people as they are constitutionally liable to do they instead completely converted the US to a new form of government not sanctioned in the constitution.

Remember the north originally voted yes the south no to the 14th, then the north seen the south being forced at gun point to change their vote to yes so they [the north] changed their vote to no.

When the votes were counted, they counted the original north yes votes as yes and the forced yes votes of the south as yes and even after all that manipulation were still short 1 vote of ratification but "CLAIMED" it was ratified anyway.

What needs to be done it the 14th repealed and those supreme court decisions usurping the power of the people over turned.

The statutes at large are ruling law, and as it stands black people can only be "citizens" and not "Citizens". That has never been repealed!

citizenship can only rightfully be stated as an "office" of government, or we are not self governed.



​

 

correction from above post, it needs to be struck as unconstitutional, cant repeal an amendment that was never "lawfully" ratified.

The UTAH supreme court spelled out in great detail how the 14th amendment has not force in law and went right up to the point of stating it was unconstitutional amendment but did not state it.



Your "unalienable" rights are derived from God, NOT the state.

Constitutions grant NO rights, they are a trust compact to protect our rights not determine them.

Unalienable, political, civil etc etc etc


The "man is a creature of state" is a wholly incorrect premise.

 

Perhaps I misinterprete the entire post but this is what I see based upon this opening line.

It seems to be based upon a Top-Down establishment of government which was not the case in the United States. It is something that people from other countries don't seem to understand and that a lot of Americans misunderstand as well. I will address this in principle as sometimes the principles have been violated.

Sovereignty originates with the People in the United States.

Based upon our individual sovereignty we contract with each other the establishment of our local and state governments and directly delegate roles and responsibilities to them. We, the People, can directly create, change and repeal the laws of our individual States as well as revise our State Constitutions. Our State government is the direct government of the American people and is a contracted entity based upon the State Constitution which we control.

The federal government is a sub-contracted entity created by the States to fulfill certain roles and responsibilities that we, the People, have delegated to the State in our State Consitutions. All Consitutional Amendments to the US Constitution are based upon this delegated authority that we, the People, have contractually established with our State.

In principle the States cannot ratify any US Constitutional Amendment which gives Congress authority (power) where that authority (power) isn't first granted to the State by the People in the State Constitution. For example, unless the People delegate a role and responsibility in their State Constitution for the government to provide a "social security" program the States could not legally subcontract that responsibility to the Federal Government. The State wouldn't have that power because the People never gave it to the State.

We, the People, are not subjects of our government but instead our government is a subject of the People. This fact has been lost on many Americans and is ignored by the politicans that believe they rule us.

 

Again that is 1/2 true.

The constitution was created from the articles of confederation which was created from the then 13 united colonies which was created under the king.

they do in fact rule us because few people have the moxy to defend themselves in court and there is no money in it for attorneys.

We hold the office of citizen and should be entitled to the same legal services any other employee of government gets, to defend against the government however that is not the case.

All they need do is look over their shoulder and call upon a staff attorney to push any agenda they want upon us at OUR expense. Justice for the people, when it comes to dealing with the gubafia, especially the individual is "prejudiced" right out of the chute!

If you want your rights on some issue they force you into court and you will spend every waking moment of 10+ years to learn enough to get you in the front door of a court house then only to suck every ounce of your blood to have a crooked judge either narrowly or expansively construe the matter to rule against you in favor of the government. Its not about knowing your rights in America, its do you know your way through the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) labyrinth of american law and can you trap the judge into granting them to you, and even then many of them force it into appeal and even then they force it to the supreme court. Now add that cost up. Its a stacked deck as I said before due to the rubber stamp penalty industry.

Thats what life in america really is. The so-called founders won the battle and lost the war.

If that is all you got from what I posted on the previous page you either totally missed the point or have chosen to impasse.

There are 60 million laws on the books, we do not need more laws and constitutions, we need the long existing laws properly construed with original intent reigning in the gubafia honored and enforced.

 

I also proved beyond any shadow of any doubt that "Rights" and law go far beyond the statutes and codes, but good luck finding a court that will recognize any adjudication but their own commercial version of the kings law of the realm which has nothing to do with unalienable rights what so ever.

 

Yes the Expierement is sometimes frustrated with the Results.

 

come on its no more of an experiment than new zealand or australia LOL