Article 3:3 states “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt act, or on Confession in open Court” and Amendment 1 reads in part Congress shall make no laws …” concerning how We The People “… petition the Government for redress of grievances”.
With Amendment 10 giving We The People the privilege of correcting government without requiring “a petition to meet any specific guidelines”, isn’t the government’s requiring guidelines over content a violation of the Constitution?
If someone petitions the government concerning something seen as “treason” wouldn’t that make the department to whom the petition was sent and not acting on it commit treason according to the foregoing?
Since the Supreme Court, all cabinet members, all department heads – since lower workers are not allowed to disrespect their superiors’ decisions they are excluded – military including CIA, FBI and everyone participating in the acts – since the Uniform Code of Military Justices say “to obey an unlawful order one can be Court Marshall” – are responsible for protecting the nation aren’t they treasonous?
Since by Article 1.8.5 Congress are “To coin Money, regulate the value thereof,” with “to coin money” including printing it, hasn’t congress, the Supreme Court and Presidents committed treason by allowing the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank to print the United States’ money then borrow it and, with Amendment 16 having never been Constitutionally ratified, taxing the people’s income to pay it with interest an act of treason?
Since those things are acts of treason against the People of the United States of America, and most if not all attorneys are knowledgeable of it, doesn’t that give we the people the right to DEMAND all attorneys, especially those with the knowledge of it, to be disbarred?
Are not those errors by the government to be corrected and personnel responsible punished according to the Constitution’s dictate even if the format of the petition does not meet government imposed formatting?
It's amazing how difficult it seems to be to read the words of the Constitution without putting a personal spin on it that has nothing to do with those words.
"If someone petitions the government concerning something seen as “treason” wouldn’t that make the department to whom the petition was sent and not acting on it commit treason according to the foregoing? "
Some simple questions: Does that lack of action constitute "levying War against them (the United States)"? Does it consist of "adhering to their (the United States) Enemies"? Does it consist of "giving them (enemies of the United States) Aid and Comfort"? All quotations from your quote.
The obvious answer is "No". Failure to act on a petition is not "levying war", it is not giving aid to enemies and it is not adhering to enemies. It is not, therefore, treason as defined in the Constitution. There can be no other answer, for the words are exceedingly plain.
Does failing to take action to somethings a revealed treasonous the constitution say "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" - which failing to take action against those responsible for it is - is also treason? That department IS protecting a know act of treason from being punished. Yes!!! it is treason.
If the petition shows the performance of a treasonous act by government personal their action is "adhering to an enemy of the US. That is treason.
Really? Failing to take actions each and every petitioner desires is "Adhering to enemies"??? I would say that Adhering to enemies means active aid to them, as in "Aid and Comfort". Giving money, perhaps, or other useful items. No, Nature, even refusing to condemn actual, real, active treason is not treason in and of itself - not according to the only definition that counts.
That's exactly what I mean, though - "interpreting" the document to mean whatever you wish it did is not something that I or the rest of the people would like to see. Not, of course, unless it is an action that we would desire to take place...in that case an awful lot of people instantly "forget" that the next convenient interpretation will be something they idon't want to see.
That is protecting them from punishment which is treason. You know I committed treason and refused to turn me in you are "aiding and comforting" me.
Sorry, one requires action (aiding and comforting) and one does not (sit back and do nothing). They cannot, then, be the same thing. Even if an assumption is made that a petitioner is treasonous, or the subject of his petition is, there is still that massive difference. It is not "treason" to ignore a traitor. Stupid, maybe, or shortsighted, wrong, uncaring or unpatriotic perhaps. It is likely a firing offense, or even jail time. But it is not treason and does not carry the penalties outlined. You don't get to define an inaction as an action taken (such as offering aid and comfort)
I believe what you are describing is "Misprision of treason" my friend, and you are absolutely correct with standing. If an employee of the U.S. is made aware of treasonous acts committed by others yet fails to act upon it and hold them accountable, they themselves are guilty of Misprision of treason according to
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2382 - Misprision of treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Here is an example of Misprision of treason in action in regards to 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtCxBNa … jreload=10
That's fine and good, but the discussion is solely what the constitution says. And this second, much different, crime (I note that the definition of "misprision" includes hiding of a mere felony as well as treason) is not addressed there at all.
Still, it's good to see that such an act really is a crime, and punishable in a court of law.
Thank you, NwoInfoWarrior, for you link but the "Deep State" is not allowing it to play.
The constitution described is the act of "misprision" treason. That is what makes anyone knowingly not doing anything about be "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." That is why everyone in any position of government, or anyone in the nation as the article actually reads, who witnessed the "supposed" aircraft loose a wing as it passed a building on its way and regain it before entering into the steal and concrete building as a full plane before its nose exited the other side without a dent committed treason. That is why I constantly say "either you can't read" - which require one to know the meanings of the words individually and collectively - or you don't know word meanings. That is also why I said before "you are poring oil on the water [knowledge] to prevent others from drinking from it.
The0Natureboy, By my reading of your referenced Constitution sections, some of your interpretations seem to be unsupportable exstrapolations
For instance; The 1st Amendment seems to read only that the government may make no laws abridging our Right to petition the government. I don't see anything about the "how" part. How do you come to the determination that the words protecting the Right also includes the "how" of that Right?
Wouldn't a comparison to the 2nd Amendment be a fair one; We have the Right to bear arms, but it is not an unrestricted Right - as our judicial history has determined.
Regarding the 10th Amendment, I suppose it is possible to interpret that the People's power to "correct" the government may be attributed to the wording, (although I think it would be a stretch), but I don't think the "petition" part of your interpretation is correct. The Right to petition was addressed in the 1st Amendment. So it cannot qualify as one of the definitions of powers of the people in Amendment 10.
I think that since Congress authorized the Federal Reserve, as an institution to serve the functions you mention, their, (both Congress and the Fed), actions are completely constitutional, and your premise concerning treason doesn't seem supported.
Several of your other interpretations have already been addressed, but how do you justify your interpretations of the above?
GA, Amendment 10's giving us the right to do what neither state or federal government does - without specifying it must conform to any specific formate - is what makes its contents important. That amendment was law long before the nation decided to make "the presentation's form" more important than the presentation. The rule was made as a means of circumventing the constitution and hinder We The People from doing anything except protesting. Don't everyone in government take the oath to protect the constitution from enemies - for the president which means any enemy - foreign and domestic by everyone else? Doesn't putting a "blockade" up to hinder The People from doing what the constitution DEMANDS we do violate that oath?
The first part of Amendment 2, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a restriction in itself. However, today's government has planned to enslave, via Amendment 13, U.S. citizens they feel threatens their "position" therefore to prevent that We The People need them to prevent government's infringing on our right since we now have to protect ourselves from our own governors.
Amendment 10? You are attempting to put each article, amendment or phrase independent of the entire document. Have you for gotten a "Preamble" - written before anything else was - is a prelude to "what is intended to be accomplished by the entire document" and means everything has to be interpreted according to it? With that being so, one has to interpret the constitution collectively rather than phrase by phrase.
How is it possible "both Congress and the Fed actions" are constitutional by having the people to pay "OUTRAGEOUS INTEREST" for a service Congress are CONSTITUTIONALLY ORDERED to provide? With the president having the position to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" of congress printing our money isn't he also at war against We The People also?
Doesn't the foregoing justify my interpretations of them?
No, I don't think it does justify your interpretations The0NatureBoy.
I do consider the individual amendments, articles, and texts, collectively in the spirit expressed in the preamble. I also consider them based on my understanding of the purposes intended in their construction - as documented from the Founders own records. That is why I find your interpretations to be so off-base.
For instance; regarding 1.8.5; It states Congress has the power to... and then lists those powers. It didn't say Congress had to actually do the coining. Which is why I do not think it is/was treasonous, and that your interpretation is wrong. That is also why I think your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is also wrong. It was intended, (as documented by the Founder's writings and debate notes), as a clarification for anti-Federalists that thought the new Federal Government would usurp the powers of the States. It was a clear statement that powers not assigned to the new government - by the Constitution - would always remain the powers of the states, and if not specifically ascribed as a State power, then it would forever remain a power of the people. Once more, I see it as similar to the 2nd Amendment; short and concise.
That the power to petition had already been addressed, within the above provable context, it is clear it is not something that can be "interpreted" to be one of the "People's" powers alluded to in the 10th. And in that same context, I think it is the act, the Right, that the Constitution addresses - not the form. To address the "form" after the fact is not a treasonous act, nor is it unconstitutional. At least by my interpretation.
I suppose our apparent disagreement about an amendment as basic as the 2nd; I do not agree the militia statement is a restriction, foretells that we won't find any common ground on these other interpretations either.
The fact "We The People" appear in the preamble means all U.S. citizens everywhere anything it includes the term "people" - and should be included in yours I show brackets *as a clarification for anti-Federalists that thought the new Federal Government would usurp the powers of the States. It was a clear statement that powers not assigned to the new government - by the Constitution - would always remain the powers of the states [and people]* - as representing The People.
In 1.8.5 "the right to coin [print] money" doesn't mean congress actually do it, they are to authorize a section of the treasury to do it. If they authorized anyone else to the money is still the people's property so why would government borrow it and paying interest on it?
Everything else is included in my first paragraph but in answering your Amendment 2's *militia* statement:
Government isn't militarizing the police forces for no reason, they are not building concentration camps for nothing, they are not NOT punishing police killings for nothing, so We The People had better began to get those same weapons if we want to continue to call these Dis-United States of America "the land of the free". The handwriting is on the wall, prepare, "read it and weep" or put a president in office who will demilitarize the police forces and make all of the other corrections mentioned above and those that are not.
Well we did give it a go The0NatureBoy, but it looks like we are worlds apart in our thinking. I will keep mine and you keep yours.
We are at an impasse although your words, except for the "militia" part, generally agree with my words. However, I accept my own words "objectively" with the expectation of hearing something from someone else that shows me an error of my views, that's the reason I choose to discuss them. Thank you for your time concerning this aspect of the discussion, I'm about to post yet another on this same page.
Thank you who have proved your input in the "Treason" part of this discussion.
Now we need to discuss Article 6:
1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. - is self explanatory.
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
With THIS constitution being "the supreme Law of the Land" I feel the need to discuss the phrase "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" as it relate to the Preamble.
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The "any Office or public Trust under the United" clause makes We The People the controllers of everyone i government therefore we need to discuss how to intervene in the poisoning of the earth going on today.
Since the preamble is what the entire document intends to achieve for The People I will begin this with Article 6, section 2.
"All Treaties made" includes those made with this land's Natives so the FBI's arresting of Leonard Peltier for defending their state violated the Constitution as well as the "oil pipelines" they attempted to protest from crossing their territories, the allowing Corporations to enter other Nations' territory and do their bidding violated the constitution.
Because of the "perfecting the Union" clause in the preamble there is no purpose for states to have constitutions, thus, with constitution preceding "or Laws of any States" it is only relative to each state's laws. With "constitution" preceding "or ... notwithstanding" Art. 2:3's "three fifths of all other Persons" violates the preamble's "perfecting the Union and Tranquility" clauses and should have long ago been - not according to Amendment 13 - been eliminated completely out of the U.S. Constitution.
Preceding "public trust" we find "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification" meaning these United States of America are not to be governed by "Religious" dogmas and prejudices but the Constitution and laws made pursuance to its preamble are punishable by the government, religions are required to punish their beliefs' violations. Thus, sexual orientation between consenting pubescent boys and girls, being theism, atheist, nudist except for sexual organs and "criminalizing" having and using local environment produced plants" can not be punished by government; however, modified plants, plant extracts that produce side effects or changing air, food and water quality are to be punishable by the nation's law.
The term "Public Trust" implies everyone in government's responsibility is to the "public" before to the government. Historically it could not have worked timely until news publishing and telegraphing arrived but with today's internet and a small bit of modernizing the communities to accommodate it it's timely achievable today. Divide each city and community into quadrants with a polling place in each's center, preferably, opened 24/7, then have each bill posted electronically and independent of any "riders", allow the quadrant time to read it/them and require voting with a "paper trail" for telling both sections of Congress how the majority DEMANDS they vote. Should the people demand something unconstitutional the Supreme Court first then the president (per Art. 2:3) "to ensure the laws be faithfully executed" will see that it meets at least one (1) of the preamble's intended achievements or is Required to Veto it - with a constitutional reason only.
Would you rather discuss the Preamble and how it interprets the constitution's meaning? It Reads ..
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
... so why don't we determine what each of those six intents involve, shall we?
“In Order to form a more perfect Union” I do not see how it can be done by making differences between people, political figures, governmental servants, security agencies and judges that include lawyers, police and sheriffs, nor because of genders, ethnic groups, physical abilities, secret societies, sexual orientations, workers unions or other organizations and social titles endowed by schooling.
“In Order to establish Justice” with justice meaning "to provide proper compensation for actions" to have different compensations for politicians, government agencies, police, judges, or because of classes, genders, ethnic groups, physical abilities, secret societies, sexual orientations, unions or other organizations I do not see that in this nation.
“In Order to insure domestic Tranquility” is for "eliminate grieving because of other’s disrespecting behaviors" and is impossible when bulling is allowed for sexual orientations, ethnics groups (three fifths of a person???), physical abilities, religions and making criminals slaves per amendment 13.
“In Order to provide for the common defence” includes people, land, plants, resources and animated life forms from destruction, they are all part of the nation and are to be defended.
“In Order to promote the general Welfare” includes the environment's entities necessary for maintaining our survival. It is impossible in a system making differences in workers’ compensation since every position is required for the company’s desired results - other than obtaining monetary wealth. An equal welfare system cannot be achieved except in a “service for survival” type government and eliminates money as "the legal tender" for anything.
“And in Order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” means the present people and future generations. There is no liberty when governors circumvent the rights of the people.
Hello again The0NatureBoy, As the Constitution is one of my favorite topics, I can't resist jumping back in for one more try.
I can see your passion for the Constitution, but I think your interpretations of its contents are missing the consideration of what the authors intended their words to mean. It looks to me like you are basing your interpretations entirely on what the words mean to you. I think that falls short of the mark of understanding the intended meanings.
For instance; your interpretation of the "... in order to form a more perfect union," sounds like a personal interpretation of a Utopian concept. The records of history provide ample information that that was far from the intentions of the authors - and that phrase.
It didn't say to form a perfect union, it said "more" perfect union for a reason. The Founders had personal experience with the errors, shortcomings, and impracticalities of the Articles of Confederation, (AofC).
The AofC had so many flaws; it created a national government, but didn't give it the power to work. It declared a union of states, but didn't address any of the state-size imbalances or inequities in that union. It gave the government the power to make laws, but not the resource(s) to enforce them. And so on for a lot of other deficiencies. The correction of these deficiencies was the goal of the new Constitution. Factually, the creation of the Constitution was done at a convention that was supposed to be about amending The Articles of Confederacy to correct those shortcomings - not write a whole new constitution.
That was the intent of their "... in order to form a more perfect union."
They were also well aware of those same "errors, shortcomings, and impracticalities," and in some cases blatant injustices in some of the State's constitutions.
This knowledge was a force in all their deliberations and efforts to construct a Constitution that would protect, (as much as possible), against those weaknesses in the new national government. They were equally aware of the failings and harmful aspects of human nature. And again, this knowledge too, was a guiding force in their deliberations, and wording of their constructions.
My interpretation is not that "to form a more perfect union" meant a Utopian goal, but a guide to deal with the realities of people and states trying to exist equitably. Their "more perfect union" efforts were to mitigate the imbalance of power between large states and small states; to create a structure for a union that would both allow the people the power to determine and control their government, and also for the government to be protected from the machinations of human nature that would come from united factions, or the power of the few over the many, or simply put, to guard against mob rule.
There was nothing in their intentions directed towards a goal such as your interpretation claims.
My apologies for appearing to lecture, I am honestly trying to point out a wrong turn. .My understanding of the Constitution was primarily formed by my readings and understanding of the Federalist Papers, (you are probably familiar with those writings), but a source that was most beneficial to my understanding was a book recommended by a fellow forum dweller - MyEsopteric,; and that was the book [i]Original Meanings[/] by Jack N. Rakove.
If you haven't read it already, you really should. As you appear to be a Constitution enthusiast, I would say it is a must-read for you. I really don't think you can be confident that you know what you are talking about without some of the understandings gained from it. What really sets the bar for discussion is what the author's original meanings were, not what you think the words mean to you.
I picked up my copy on ebay for about $5. I think that if you dig into these two sources, (The Federalist Papers, and Original Meanings), you will find a new perspective for your own interpretations.
Although we may have access to what the authors INTENDED, the wording of the document is what IT say we are to follow with "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" being written in it.
How would you interpret "perfect union" without including everything within it? Granted, it does say "to form" that implies "a never-ending process" until perfected. They DID NOT write their intentions, so the foregoing statement say we are to interpret it according to its wording. The word "more" is what gives it a continued process.
I concur with "to form a more perfect union" does not mean a Utopia but it is the goal to work toward. Yes it's a guide to deal with the realities of people and states trying to exist equitably and *their "more perfect union" efforts were to mitigate the imbalance of power between large states and small states; to create a structure for a union that would both allow the people the power to determine and control their government.* That's exactly what I'm working toward, take from government the power it's doing unconstitutionally and open the minds of We The People to what the document actually say. Because "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" and "any Office or public Trust under the United States" combined with Amendment 10 empowers the people to control and overthrow if need the governors via IMPEACHMENTS independent of Congress or Supreme Court.
Your problem is you are looking at the notes they wrote concerning the document and not at the terms the document itself say. Their intentions means nothing when they are not written in the document as SUPREME LAW. You want what's NOT in the document to be obeyed. Had they never left the notes how would you interpret what's written? That's the key to interpreting it, not what IS NOT written in it.
The "Federal Papers" are not IN the constitution for interpreting it, that is how and why this nation has steered so far from it, they are not taking the wording seriously. If We The People continue to allow that this nation will end up being like 1920s-45 Germany was. This nation has constructed Concentration Camps, Mass Graves dug with caskets ALINED IN THEM and they are "Militarizing" law enforcement groups while justifying their killing unarmed people. Are you so blinded by how that undocumented intent alters the Constitution that you can't see Nazi Un-Uniteed States of America is at hand?
I don't mind your lecturing, I am also, but I'm lecturing based on what is happening to this nation and working to prevent the world from allowing the USA to reduce its population to 500 million as written on the Georgia Stone. Your interpretation will allow it to happen. WHICH DO YOU RATHER?
Okay The0NatureBoy, I can see you have determined that you alone, above all others; the authors themselves, historians, Constitutional scholars, Constitutional Law scholars, and the untold numbers of citizens that have delved into it, understand the true meaning of the words of the Constitution.
My knowledge and readings are puny compared to most of those I noted above, but I have more confidence in my interpretations - even on that flimsy foundation, than I can have in any of the stuff you are proclaiming.
I am always an optimist, but in this case, even my optimism can't see a path forward.
I'm far from that mentality, GA. I base my concepts on the logic of the words presented as "THE SUPREME LAW" by which every law in these Dis-United States of America are required to confirm to. That is what logic tells me but - as said in my new Hub "The Learning Process" - few United Statesman use logic, their schooling prohibits it. All of those you named, "the authors themselves, historians, Constitutional scholars, Constitutional Law scholars, and the untold numbers of citizens", are only schooled, not educated since few people even know the definition of education, they have accepted the school defined definitions but there is an "eternal definition" that will not be schooled out os the educated.
I am always objective, i.e, looking for logical alternative views that will show me errors in what I consider logic. Logic, like education, can not be taught, it is inborn and is usually taught out of most of us in our mother womb because of listening to what they say so repetitiously. Logic and education require a wholistic vision concerning everything, nothing is considered true independent of all associated parts being taken into consideration. That said...
Take into consideration the notes left by the Constitution's authors, the written intent of the document as described by the preamble, the words written in the rest of it, the people who will new responsible for making it function as the Supreme Law, the teachers of it along with those who will read it without or with little to none of the foregoing except the document itself; What do they have to go on? Only the words off the document. Then how are those who only understand the words definitions going to interpret it.
Then take into consideration "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" which is what the U.S. Government believe they are because all European and most other nations have surrendered themselves to the authority of the Dis-United States of America. So, with the governors having the mindset the nation is the world's "absolute power" they [the governors] feel they are "the absolutely powerful" and therefore "the most absolutely corrupt".
With that being the "SOTU" why would anyone continue to buy into the governor's corruption by accepting their "schooled" into us mentality to "follow their leadership to out own demise"? Logic tells me DO NOT accept their schooling nor anything else which eliminate MY FREEDOM.
To my knowledge the Judicial Article has never been publicly discussed; since I've been before several judges in Lincoln Parish, Louisiana for "trespassing" on a State University's "open" campus and obscenity and found guilty contrary to the reading of those laws and in other states for practicing my religion allowed by Amendment 1 it is time for a public discussion of the U.S. Judicial system. The following matters are the first I feel need to be discussed before some other herein.
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
We find authorization for establishing one Supreme Court and as many inferior courts they find a need for with the demand of the courts - should include all attorneys, police departments, and clerks used to enforce the laws - with one requirement for them while in holding "their Offices during GOOD BEHAVIOUR", per Article 6, the same as impeachments (Article 2:4) "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That means judges can not be public drunks, liars (Perjury, misrepresenting the laws), are to be completely objective, when "charging jurors" need only to present what evidence must have been proven and not long drawn out discourses diluting the facts.
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The "public Ministers" would include any person teaching their understanding of life independent of religious association and, according to Amendment 1. CAN NOT be hindered from publishing them nor "redress (their) grievances" to the governors as Public media, internet, is doing today.
3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
According to my understanding the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) diminished the "death penalty" for "Treasonous" acts for protecting treason.
How about the Judicial system allowing "https://www.facebook.com/nailah.gilliam.9/videos/1622110944550025/" to happen all these years, don't you believe that is at least an Article 2:4 "misdemeanor" but more than likely a "bribe"?
Hello again, The0NatureBoy, You will have to tell me what the point of your linked video is that you agree with. I left it after about 4 minutes because the very first premise put forth was flatly wrong.
If the rest of the video is as incorrect as the speaker's interpretation of "mortgage," then I made the right decision. (Do you agree with the speaker's "mortgage" explanation?)
So tell me the point of the video, and how you think it exposes a judicial process abetting bribery.
Greetings, GAA, change your G with an E and we have the same initials except I am a Junior also.
I had run across the definition given for "mortgage" before and I believed it is correct. Many people are saving their houses and land because of what he is saying I also know.
You didn't listen to it, and I agree it was somewhat wavering from the topic which made me want to give it up, but I wanted to hear the punchline. The point was to show why SCOTUS is the "domestic enemies" of the United States of America's Constitution. Why this nation is not governing by the constitution. Why The people are not allowed two "petition the government" without it a presentation format only attorneys have the money to buy the book to know. And so much more.
The definition of a word used today is not defined by it's etymology - how it was used in a another language does not determine how it is used or what it means today in a different language. Words DO change meanings over the years!
the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
What the term "mortgage" means today is not determined by what it meant in Middle English, Anglo-French or Latin.
You make a valid point Wilderness, but it in case, the original meaning is still the intended meaning - it just isn't described in the original terms anymore.
A "mortgage" is still intended to mean, and be, a "dead pledge." A pledge that is not unending and will terminate, (die, become dead), one way or the other. Whether by default of the terms, or completion of them, the mortgage agreement has a death. The pledge of the lender and the collateral provider will end. Hence "dead pledge."
ps. My friend Google helped me out with this. The video speaker obviously had the same resources I did.
Thanks GA. It is as I said to Wilderness, "original definition is superior to any later ones."
Hold off on that thanks, The0NatureBoy, I only said that in this case the original is still the intended. And in this case ignoring the intent, (as your video speaker did), and relying only on the genesis is a mistake that distorts the context - and the intent.
GA, it is as I said in my last post below "If it wasn't a "dead pledge" the courts would not be eliminating mortgages" and I will further say, because they didn't want to be recognized as justifying SCAMS.
I still don't know what you mean by saying the courts are eliminating mortgages. How about some details?
I have been agreeing with you that an interpretation of "mortgage" as a "dead pledge" is a correct one. It is just your interpretation of what "dead" means - relative to the agreement, where we part ways.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean. When you come back with your court example maybe you could explain what "dead pledge" means to you to help me understand your perspective.
When people use the procedure he is giving to a court it kills all payments and the debtor obtains the property. When the property was being foreclosed for lack of payments the debtors were rewarded their deeds, thus, courts agree without the lender's signature being on the agreement there is no pledge, the lenders didn't show by their signatures the pledge was ever alive.
Alright, I think I see a glimmer of understanding The0NatureBoy. It seems you are basing your comments on something from the video that I haven't seen.
I guess I will have to view the whole video to understand what "procedure" you speak of, but short of that, and trying to draw conclusions from too little information, I would think an unsigned mortgage agreement is an invalid agreement, and I can see the courts tossing it out. But I cannot see the courts awarding the property to the debtor - unless some sort of "squatter's Rights" laws are employed.
We have carried the conversation this far, so in good faith I will go back and watch your video, although it is not an exciting proposition - the first few minutes gave me the impression the guy didn't know what he was talking about. I am not sure watching the rest of the video will change that. If you start with a flawed premise, it is hard to not draw flawed conclusions.
Ok, The0NatureBoy. I did watch the entire video. And I did look into the video speaker's claims. So I did give you a good faith effort to address your responses from a common understanding.
The result: Bunk, baloney, and a wasted 3 hours of effort that only validated my initial evaluation.
3 hours! I am so ticked I could make this a 1000 word response - and I think I will, now that you forced me to pour a second martini to relieve the stress of this ordeal - just to catalog the baloney in your linked video. And you didn't even insert the link right! I had to copy and paste the text - without your quotation marks to get to it.
Did you question your source at all, or did you just accept it because it fit your own perspective? Geesh! I have had dentist visits that weren't as painful as that hour and a half of your video.
Adverse Claims, Allodial Deeds, Promissory Note Securitization, USC Code 192, 14th Amendment, yada yada yada. Your speaker threw out all kinds of legal-sounding verbiage - most that contained a seed of truth in legal applications - enough to make one wonder, but none that was anything but a twisted and/or misinterpreted representation relative to the topic being discussed - when researched.
It is to my advantage that I always look for a silver lining to any bad situation, and at least this episode's silver lining provided an affirmation of my confidence in my gut reactions.
I thought it was baloney after 3 minutes and no research, and now I am sure it was baloney after an agonizing 1 1/2 hours of tortuous video, and another 1 1/2 hours of legal research that although I benefited from it - I had no interest in attaining such benefit.
Okay, I am feeling more relaxed now. The0NatureBoy - I also gave your Constitutional interpretations a similar good faith effort, and regretfully, (because I do enjoy Constitutional discussions), I can understand why you promoted that link as validation of your perspective.
Okay Ga, this is Burger King where you can "have it your way" you've got from it what your incarnation allows you. I thought maybe your incarnation had you open to receive more than it does.
Or does it mean a pledge until the collateral provider is dead? That seems to be what the video is saying, isn't it?
I would say no, Wilderness, since he did say they die after nine months.
I didn't go back and check the video Wilderness. The speaker's basic premise was wrong, so anything he draws from that premise must also be wrong.
To follow through on that speaker's reliance on etymology, the explanation - beyond the roots of the compounds of the word, are clearly understandable, (in my view), and supported by period-relative writings. It is a dead pledge because it must die - it is not an unending agreement. When the pledge is fulfilled the mortgage, (agreement), dies. When the pledge is in default, the mortgage, (agreement), dies.
The video speaker went on to say his premise applied to all contract law, but I haven't looked into that aspect.
Relative to the death of the collateral provider, (prior to the "death" of the mortgage), I would not think any heirs would be liable unless they were also co-signers to the agreement. And, if the collateral pledge terms were not fulfilled at the time of the provider's death, then the mortgage would die through default. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on that interpretation. My mail-order law degree hasn't arrived yet.
The thing I don't know to be correct is the speaker said they ARE dead "after nine months". That I have not found either way, yet.
I know that, Wilderness, but original definition is superior to any later ones. That is the reason the Bible calls the United States of America and all who will follow her dictate MYSTERY, BABYLON (speaking out of confusion)..., this nation have taken many words and rearranged their definition in order to control man-en-mass.
I cannot agree that the original definition, in another language, is superior to modern definitions and usage. The goal, after all, is communication and if a listener chooses an older definition rather than the intended one then that listener is at fault, not the speaker. One must assume, of course, that that listener knows the modern definition and understands what is being communicated, then uses ancient definitions as an excuse to change the meaning of the speaker to something else because the words used to mean something else. In such a case it can be nothing BUT an excuse, as it was used here.
What you are saying, Wilderness, is "any BASE can be changed and the change becomes superior to the basic that began it."
Take the law governing positive and negative numbers, for instant. *Each number added to the positive or negative of equal value will always equal zero." That means every time someone counts [NOT explained in my hub "Existence Explained via Numbers"] they are actually saying "zero is divided into half" when we say 1 because the negative is still there: at 2 and beyond we are saying "the halves are divided."
That same principle apply to word definitions, the "base definition" is always valid because it was established upon producing the word, any other definition is rendered to justify some deviation from it, thus, promoting confusion is understanding as it does with numbers when their equal counterparts are not mentioned when using them.
When the base definition, from another language, is no longer understood or used is it still "superior"? Does that "superiority" result in better communication and better understanding?
Because if it does not then it is clearly not "superior" (in the sense of being better). It may be older, but that does not make it better.
(I haven't a clue what you're saying with the arithmetic example. Are you using old definitions of words that I don't understand, because you feel it will produce better communication?)
*When the base definition, from another language, is no longer understood or used is it still "superior"?* Yes, otherwise the word would never have been established, every word's definition is what establishes it.
You should read my hub by the name I posted there then, if you don't understand it means you don't understand the principle behind counting and the use of numbers.
Then we disagree on what "superior" means for a word. If it can't be used to communicate with a listener then it is not only "inferior", it is of no value at all. But then, I'm not about to pretend that the meanings of words never change, either.
The word is not superior, the definition original definition is what is superior to any other meaning decreasing the definition's value. Superior actually means "there can be no (definition in this case) allowed to lessen the standard established." That is why for the United States no other Constitution nor Law is allowed to reduce the intent of its Preamble intends the document to produce.
You're confusing the meaning of words on a document written hundreds of years ago with using that same word, with a different meaning, today. The writers of the Constitution obviously could not make a document wherein the words magically changed on the parchment as the meaning of society gives it changes. Which is why the intent is "superior" to meaning; because it is intent we wish to know, not modern definitions of each word.
But when using the word now, to a listener now, that modern definition is superior, for without it "intent" cannot be communicated. Timing matters.
As an example, "nuclear", in 1841, meant "of or like the nucleus of a cell". Fine and good, but few will misunderstand the use of the term "nuclear winter" which not only has zero to do with a biological cell, but in which the single word "nuclear" references the conversion of matter to energy, specifically with a bomb. If you insist that it is the nucleus of a cell you will be completely lost in a discussion of the extent and results of a nuclear winter. In that setting and discussion the more modern meaning is obviously superior even though the original meaning is still in use and would be obvious in a discussion of micro-biology.
Never forget that not only do meanings and definitions change, but words pick up additional definitions as well, and determining which of several alternatives is superior depends on the context in which they are used. Not on the definition assigned in 1841.
The Constitution's "intent" is written in the 6 things the document intends to accomplish, union (of people and states), (equal to all people alike) justice, (individual's) tranquility, Defense (of people and the nation's land), General welfare (of all life types) and Freedom (for all life born within the nation's boundaries forever). I include those insertions because saying "United states of America" includes all of that, it is people's "tunnel vision" which make them think man are the only thing the document relates to when there can not be "states" without the territory "made of a large conglomeration of living entities consuming each other to maintain themselves and their specie." That intent is to be enforced by the governors - who are We The People (WTP) who don't know we are - any time (WTP) demand it but WTP don't know we are because we accept our "Trustees" interpretation of the document. WTP have made them governors and lost our power of controlling what happens in this nation.
It has never been revealed WTP are the government and the governors are our "Trustees" since WTP don't read anything objectively, we rea according to how the trustees tell us to.
You error in your *"nuclear", in 1841, meant "of or like the nucleus of a cell"* dialog. Everything has nucleus from the largest to smallest thing in existence, and today's "nuclear" use speaks of changing "fusion movement within the nucleus" to produce other conditions. That "nucleus of a cell" does not change, what changed is the movement within it has been altered. Therefore, The original definition is always in place because the base of the word is still there, only man's experimentations on the subject require the definition to be altered to reflect the changes.
Concerning the constitution, "there was never to be any changing of the basic premise" although conditions change. For example using the causes for impeachments, "Treason, Bribery, high (er than a misdemeanor) crime and Misdemeanor," interpreters of the constitution PRETEND not to recognize lying by officials, because of their oath to protect the constitution, as the high Crime of Perjury although it is there. How many congress "Pages" were molested by congressman who were never impeached? The only thing changed is the governors kept secrets from the people when everything done by them are supposed to be revealed and We The People are to DEMAND their punishment.
So, no, the constitution's intent hasn't changed, only the governors refuse to release and/or punish law violators among them because they all have "skeletons in their closets" that corporations know about and force them to do their biddings.
"The Constitution's "intent" is written in the 6 things the document intends to accomplish..."
On this we can agree. Now, should we go back 1000 years, find a different meaning to the words printed on the paper, and decide that the intent was different? No - we wish actual intent, not something else, and do our best to understand what the words meant to the writers, not to someone else.
Sorry, but "nuclear" does not mean "fusion movement within the nucleus". It takes two nuclei to fuse (actually more than that in most nuclear fusion) and it is not a change of "movement within the nucleus" - it really is converting mass into energy. Some of those things within those nuclei really do disappear. In addition, "nuclear winter" can and does also refer to the fission, not fusion, process...but where mass is still converted to energy. In both cases it has nothing to do with the nucleus of a biological cell - the original definition. And, in the phrase "nuclear winter"n that definition most definitely takes priority - is "superior" - to the original definition.
I agree with your "sorry", my term "fusion" should have been atom's. However, the process of converting "mass into energy" involves changing the movements within those nuclei. Thanks for correcting me.
Well, I guess that that is true - movement within the nucleus (if any - as far as I know none has ever been detected) will change. After all, what was two nuclei has become one and is a vastly different thing that either of the others was. Or vice versa, one becomes two vastly different nuclei if it is fission rather than fusion.
So we agree.
Now I'll go to another Constitutional topic tomorrow, I believe elections, since my battery is almost gone today.
LOL Well, we agree that movement within an atom's nucleus, if there is any, will likely change during the fusion process, whether a bomb, controlled power production or even radioactivity (fission). Of course that has nothing to do with the term "nuclear winter" or with the original definition of "nucleus"...
I have heard the term "nuclear winter" but have no definition for it. From what I hear people say it is there is movement - some form of a storm? - but comprehending why they call it that I don't.
I didn't have the chance to get the election concept I wanted to present written up last evening, maybe I'll have enough time before I leave the library today.
Apologies - I live in the world of physics and science, not philosophy, and should have known better. It must have sounded like technical jargon rather than the common knowledge I assume everyone understands.
Just one more case of poor communication traceable directly to the changing meaning of the words we use every day.
I will go back for another look, but I will skip to the ending parts as you mentioned. I am thinking that the video speaker's error is similar to what I see to be the error of your interpretations.
That fellow stopped when he determined the components of the word "mortgage" suited the point he wanted to make. A "dead pledge." How he determined that meant the "contract" obligated the signer - and their heirs for life is beyond my understanding. Had he been as big a fan of etymology as he espoused, he would have taken the next step and discovered the true and intended meaning of the combination of the components of the word. Which is nothing like his interpretation.
Today I am introducing some election errors that make "all elected officials" impeachable for not being elected constitutionally.
Article 1:2:1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
We notice here that The People chooses representatives but today they chose to run for position.
2:2: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
Representatives are NOT citizens of the state they are to represent when they were elected. With Amendment 24 have the presidential "Electors" voted in by the people – although they are – then representatives’ Electors should by. With representatives not being from the state they are to represent in DC the Elector’s purpose would have to be “Selectors” of people from other states for the people of the state they’re chosen to represent to question them concerning the constitution and examine the records of their life’s experiences.
3:1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, 3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
3:3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Here we have Senators who NOT to be from the electing states’ making the “Selectors” each states’ legislatives. With that being the case and We the People are to vote for presidential and [should be] for representatives “Electors” they also should be for Senators, after all, the constitution’s Preamble and Article 6:3’s “Public Trust” suggest “all federal governors are subject to We The People” and not to states’ governors.
What the federal governors term “Electoral College” in Amendment 12 was changed as written by Amendment 24’s requiring citizens to vote in “primary or other elections for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senators or Representatives in congress” and make Electors “Selectors” since there is no reason for the “double voting” for presidents and vices.
Those “Selectors”, as said in Amendment 12, “[would] meet in their respective states and [verify the ballot count of the people]” because, as said in Article 1.1, the “Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State’(s) Legislature” would also be required for presidents and vices electors since it is not written anywhere else. Then they would “certify the count to…” as required in Amendment 12.
by Mike Russo5 years ago
The following is the Preamble to the Constitution. What do you think the framers had in mind when they wrote: In order to form a more perfect unioun, promote the general welfare?We the People of the United States,...
by Clive Donegal5 years ago
When does intentionally discrediting the executive branch rise to the level of treason?When the U.S. president is constantly defending himself and his administration against unrelenting attacks by a political faction...
by My Esoteric4 years ago
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States contains several action verbs which give it life, vigor, and meaning. It reads "We the People of the United States, in Order to 'form' a more perfect...
by Mike Russo7 weeks ago
Too bad there is not an article or amendment in the Constitution that outlines how The President of the United States of America should act and behave. I don't think one has been necessary until Trump has come...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
Section 7 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.Section 81: The Congress shall have Power To lay and...
by niall.tubbs7 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.