What happened to America?

[JohninRI]

Lloyd, you're right the people did not protect themselves but all is not lost.

Jacobus,  Spooner's work is one of my favorites especially "A Constitution of No Authority"  He makes excellent arguments.

I love people who refuse to register for the draft or burn their SS cards (which, for most people are given at birth and never applied for) or don't pay taxes.  But don't think that the government's courts will protect you if this is the path you follow.  The government doesn't have rules it has to follow.

If you do those things while you are still eligible to receive the benefits, then you certainly can get in some trouble, but if you extricate yourself properly then they can do nothing.  Yes they will try, but my belief is that you will prevail.  I have been to the courts many times and each time I do it I get closer to doing it correctly.  They still have rules.

[JohninRI]

I would be interested in learning how you can claim that "the Constitution never stopped protecting the natural State Citizens". A piece of paper in itself is powerless to do anything. It can enshrine a system of protection, and serve as an instruction manual -- but if the system itself does not work in harmony with human nature, all the philosophizing in the world cannot make it be effective.

srqrebel,  What they have done is create a smoke and mirror screen to keep us from seeing what has happened in the hopes that we will abandon the Constitution.  They need it gone because only the Constitution can expose their house of cards and return us to exactly what we had when it was adopted, which was a free economy unencumbered by any government interference.  All precedent has been set using citizens who did not possess their Rights.  All precedent since the 14th Amendment is decided in equity and not in Common Law.  I and my family have lived in Common Law for many years.  It's hard work and it requires vigilance but we have been attempting to set a blueprint for others like yourself.

[Caleb]

The Constitution establishes a state. It attempts to set the boundaries and limits of that state, which is, I think naive at best. Men need no law other than that which is already written in their hearts.

[MattLeft]

Once the government took over the schools, that was the beginning of the end.

[JohninRI]

Men need no law other than that which is already written in their hearts.

Now who's being "naive at best?"  This statement will only be true in about 50 years.

Once the government took over the schools, that was the beginning of the end.

Amen

[John Edward Mercier]

Nothing personal, but if you chose not to register for Selective Service... not really much of a problem unless you want federally provided or contracted services. You can burn or destroy a Social Security card without any punishment. The account remains open... the card is to make you feel like something is physically in that account.

The flaws were inherent at the beginning. The US Constitution is a 'social contract'. Meaning its a contract between 50 entities... not individuals.
I would say it failed miserably once Jefferson set the precedent of the Louisiana Purchase. It set the precedent for federal government ownership of property beyond the scope of the US Constitution.
Secondly, would be States continuing violation without any enforcement of such.

[srqrebel]

The system required 'Eternal Vigilance' on the part of the people.  They dropped the ball.

So true!

Therein lies the fatal flaw of constitutional government.

The simple, unchanging fact is, "eternal vigilance" is simply foreign to human nature. No matter what approach one takes, if that approach is at any point dependent upon the eternal vigilance of the people, it will not -- cannot -- succeed, no matter what. It is simply a direct violation of the laws of human nature.

[JohninRI]

Insert Quote
Nothing personal, but if you chose not to register for Selective Service... not really much of a problem unless you want federally provided or contracted services.

The card is what makes someone eligible for government benefits.  It also is proof of 14th Amendment citizenship and not State Citizenship.  The reason the government requires the declaration is because upon attaining the age of majority the person has a short period of time to disavow themselves of any adhesions or contracts which they might have entered into by themselves or by their guardians. 

The problem the government has with the whole mess is the concept that Rights are inalienable; that is, they can not be taken from a person without a "knowing and intentional" or "knowing and voluntary" action on the part of the person alienating such Rights.  I don't know anybody who understood that when they applied for and received a SS# they were giving up access to the State and Federal Constitution's Bills of Rights. Which were then replaced with regulated privileges.

The flaws were inherent at the beginning. The US Constitution is a 'social contract'. Meaning its a contract between 50 entities... not individuals.
I would say it failed miserably once Jefferson set the precedent of the Louisiana Purchase. It set the precedent for federal government ownership of property beyond the scope of the US Constitution.

I disagree, It is a a contract between 50 entities, but its Bill of Rights protects the individual State Citizens.

I further disagree,  The Louisiana Purchase expanded Federal territory which was controlled by U.S. Code just like Washington, D.C.   Any State Citizens moving into and residing in this new territory "knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally" gave up their inalienable Rights for the benefits associated with the move. They lost access to the Bills of Rights.

[srqrebel]

srqrebel,

I agree with the points you made about human nature, you're spot on.  I disagree with the checks and balances.  We should have revolted when our courts declared that the people have the right to decide the questions of fact, but not the law.  This is where the checks and balances fell down flat...

One could lament endlessly about the failure of the people to revolt when they should -- but it always comes down to the fact that constitutional government runs counter to the laws of human nature. The two major reasons for its failure are: 1) The checks and balances kept the advance of tyranny at such an incremental pace that no one paid attention. For the people to pay consistent attention without sufficient external motivation to do so would require suspending the laws of human nature... and 2) Constitutional government, as with any other manifestation of the Authoritarian Model of Government, usurps the responsibilities that naturally belong to the individual. When no one individual is accountable for the course of affairs, "the people" simply cannot be counted on to take responsibility. "The people" are actually separate individuals, and can act only at the individual level. Thus, for "the people" to take responsibility for the course of human affairs when the the functioning unit -- the individual himself -- is stripped of power (i.e. is subject to the "will" of "the people"), one would once again have to suspend the laws of human nature.

This is a recurring and immutable problem that one will always encounter with any attempt to govern human affairs through a centralized system. There can be no exception whatsoever to this rule -- for it would require suspending the very laws of human nature. Unfortunately, it is both as irrational and as seductively fascinating as the prospect of creating a perpetual motion machine.

Once we get our minds off of making an unworkable concept work, our minds are then free to conceive and establish a mechanism of government that really does work, because it acts in complete harmony with the laws of human nature.

...However, As I have previously stated. The Constitution itself is as close to perfect as humanly possible to a perfect contract.  It gave the new government no contact whatsoever with the State Citizens who wanted nothing at all to do with it.  That all changed through the individual's own action and the desire for government benefits.

What did you do when you attained the age of majority?  You ratified everything you or your parents did in your name prior to your attaining this status by registering for the draft and declaring yourself a U.S. Citizen.  What did you do before that?  You applied for and received a social security number thereby making you eligible for future government benefits.  You entered a contract and ratified that contract through declaration that you no longer were a State Citizen and a Citizen of the Country, but were in fact a 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States" subject to the jurisdiction of Congress.  

Perhaps so... but try and convince any contemporary government-run court of that. They would never go along with that argument, no matter how well-grounded and represented, because to accept that argument would mean relinquishing their power over those they are accustomed to ruling -- and decades, even centuries, of blind tradition insulates them from popular backlash when they simply reject it out of hand.

The only other option that I am aware of, for re-establishing the "protections" of the Constitution, is through a violent revolution. With the vast technology and intelligence gap that has developed between us and them, that is a positive recipe for failure -- not to mention that peaceful means for evolving as a civilization are vastly more desirable, and we have not even begun to scratch the surface of the possibilities available to us through peaceful means.

[JohninRI]

Therein lies the fatal flaw of constitutional government.

The simple, unchanging fact is, "eternal vigilance" is simply foreign to human nature. No matter what approach one takes, if that approach is at any point dependent upon the eternal vigilance of the people, it will not -- cannot -- succeed, no matter what. It is simply a direct violation of the laws of human nature.

Lloyd,  You're missing one fact.  The Constitution is so perfect, that they have never been able to defeat it.  When the people finally do wake up and figure out what has happened to them, it will still be there to protect them.  I am living proof.

[srqrebel]

...Do you or anyone else here possess the status?

What do you mean by "status"?

Do we as individuals possess that right? I would say absolutely.

How do you propose one should go about exercising that right, when the most powerful and brutal gang in the land stands against you, and "the people" stand meekly behind them?

[JohninRI]

srqrebel,

The Rhode Island Supreme Court is going to hear a case on the Right to Travel next Monday involving someone claiming just such a status and claiming the Right under the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  He has never had a SS#, and at the age of Majority filed a declaration of his status with the Rhode Island Secretary of State.  His lawyer has presented the issue to the Rhode Island Bar and has received great interest.

[srqrebel]

Therein lies the fatal flaw of constitutional government.

The simple, unchanging fact is, "eternal vigilance" is simply foreign to human nature. No matter what approach one takes, if that approach is at any point dependent upon the eternal vigilance of the people, it will not -- cannot -- succeed, no matter what. It is simply a direct violation of the laws of human nature.

Lloyd,  You're missing one fact. 

First off, I am not Lloyd ...no offense taken

The Constitution is so perfect, that they have never been able to defeat it.  When the people finally do wake up and figure out what has happened to them, it will still be there to protect them.

You will be waiting till the end of time.

...I am living proof.

That is because as an individual, you have the patience and intellect to identify what happened, and painstakingly extricate yourself. Only a tiny percentage of the people have the necessary patience and intellect to even pay attention to this stuff, let alone do the hard work required to make use of it. And even if it starts to catch on among the few, the courts and legislature retain the ability to just say no to the Constitution, as they have sufficiently demonstrated in recent years. Even actions that are widely perceived as blatant violations of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, have resulted in nothing more of a popular backlash than a simple "changing of the guard" at election time.

[srqrebel]

srqrebel,

The Rhode Island Supreme Court is going to hear a case on the Right to Travel next Monday involving someone claiming just such a status and claiming the Right under the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  He has never had a SS#, and at the age of Majority filed a declaration of his status with the Rhode Island Secretary of State.  His lawyer has presented the issue to the Rhode Island Bar and has received great interest.

That is indeed interesting. If they rule in his favor, it could expose a major weakness in their system of subjugation, that could be exploited by aware individuals at least until they take steps to reverse it.

It still comes ultimately down to the fact that they have far superior technology and intelligence capability, combined with the tacit approval of the masses who have neither the patience nor the intellect to pay attention to the facts of constitutional government. That is a far more powerful combination than anything we currently have at our disposal.

That can be decisively and permanently reversed with careful longterm strategy and action... but not from within the gang of thugs.

[dalebert]

The Constitution is so perfect...

Wow, that's an eye-popper right there. The U.S. Constitution is offensive to me. The U.S. Constitution claims tyrannical power over innocent people. We had a thread a while ago that linked to an essay talking about how tyrannical the U.S. government would be even while abiding strictly by the Constitution. I think Vitruvian posted it but it may take me a while to find it.