How did the “Progressives” Empower Themselves at our Expense for Over 140 Years?

Coach is Right ^ | 6/28/14 | Jerry Todd

[Oldpuppymax]

A three-legged stool can always stand without wobbling – a solid foundation for good or evil. Addressing the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments.

The Articles (7) and their clauses, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) are original to the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. The 11th and 12th Amendments serve to States’ protection. The 13th freed the slaves.

The 14th Amendment – This was the first of three Amendments that created the “progressive” three legged stool. The 14th was a mandatory ratification, a required condition before states were allowed reunification after the Civil War. Congress deliberately established federal supremacy. The 14th, 16th and 17th all go together creating a supreme federal “stool” (pun intended), departing from Inspired Design and destroying the sovereignty of the States with 3 words….”No State shall…”

The 13th and 15th freed the black slave and gave him the right to vote. The 14th made slaves of us all.

Our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights – man is not the grantor. The Constitution was designed as a Limiting Document. It was changed by...

[Talisker]

I’m not clear on your replies. Your second statement seems to contradict your first, especially since I used my second to illustrate my first. Further explanation would be appreciated.

[OneWingedShark]

I’m not clear on your replies. Your second statement seems to contradict your first, especially since I used my second to illustrate my first. Further explanation would be appreciated.

No contradiction -- the Constitution does not impose philosophies on the substance of amendments, but it does impose requirements on the adoption of amendments.

Somewhat like saying that a file-format imposes no restrictions on the content, but that failure to conform to the format results in an invalid document.

[Talisker]

Your New Mexico example is what I was pointing out about the 14th. The NM Constitution addresses human beings with God-given rights. The NM Statutes (all of them) address 14A-derived corporate persons and individuals. That’s WHY arguments based on the NM Constitution are given no standing - it is outside of the jurisdiction of the statutes.

Understand, the NM Constitution ONLY applies to NM statutes when the statutes say it does - NOT merely because it exists. And even then, only within the definitions of the statutes, which are based on corporate privilege, not human rights.

They fool everyone because WITHIN corporate law, privileges are allowed to be called rights if the jurisdictional context is clear to legal professionals. But you quickly find out that they are not human rights when you try to invoke them and are told to get lost by the court.

[Ken H]

I disagree with the premise of the author. It isn't the Fourteenth Amendment that made us all slaves to the federal government, it is the interpretation by the courts over the previous 150 years of the Commerce Clause.

Almost all federal regulatory power, including Obamacare, flows from the Commerce Clause.

________________________________________________________________

Winner.

The EPA, Dept of Education, Welfare, Obamacare, the DEA etc. are all based on the fraudulent interpretation of the Commerce Clause, not the Fourteenth.

[Talisker]

Then to adjust my point more precisely, in the Slaughterhouse Cases SCOTUS determined whether the 14A could be applied at all, and found a non- contradictory application restricted to corporate applications.

But if they couldn’t, they would have acknowledged an inapplicable Amendment which, according to you, would still be valid per se and allowed to exist in the Constitution. Which is weird to me, but I see your point.

[wintertime]

Underlying all is the education of the American citizen.

It only took one to three generations of compulsory, single-payer and socialist-entitement K-12 schooling to give the nation Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The nation has been swirling down the drain, every more rapidly, since then.

Children in the nation's SS schools ( single-payer, socialist-entitlement) always risked learning that the same voting mob that gives them tuition-free schooling is also powerful enough to give them **lots** of free stuff!

And...In Secular schools children WILL WILL WILL learn to think and reason godlessly. They must just to cooperate in the godless classroom. How could it be otherwise?

[Talisker]

The EPA, Dept of Education, Welfare, Obamacare, the DEA etc. are all based on the fraudulent interpretation of the Commerce Clause, not the Fourteenth.

But Commerce Clause rulings are based on reaching through chains of incorporation derived from the 14th. When States incorporate, they acknowledge 14A authority and therefore become federalized corporations. From that, SCOTUS Commerce Clause rulings basically say it's a pig in a poke - accepting ANY federal authority is accepting ALL of it. Then reaching down into what used to be State business I'd easy, because by "federally incorporating" the States made their business federal business.

[familyop]

"How did the 'Progressives' Empower Themselves at our Expense for Over 140 Years?"

Feminism, romanticism and victimology.

[jjotto]

Surprised no one has mentioned this bit of American history:

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/socgospel.htm

[OneWingedShark]

Your New Mexico example is what I was pointing out about the 14th. The NM Constitution addresses human beings with God-given rights. The NM Statutes (all of them) address 14A-derived corporate persons and individuals.

So then, how does one assert that they are not a corporate-person/-individual -- to which a statute is applicable -- but instead a human being?

[Talisker]

So then, how does one assert that they are not a corporate-person/-individual -- to which a statute is applicable -- but instead a human being?

THAT, my FRiend, is the $64,000 question.

And here's my answer: I don't know.

I know there are related methods, as well as theories. A "special appearance," for example, is a way to contest a court's jurisdiction without accepting that jurisdiction by replying to it. This process has been somewhat formalized at the federal level, but States still can and do make up all sorts of different rules for it, without letting anyone by attorneys know what they are.

The problem seems to be that there are no statutes requiring corporate administrative courts to acknowledge this problem. So - they don't. Of course, most people don't even know it IS a problem, and a VERY big one. So there's little if any public agitation over this issue.

So in the end, as things stand, the government can have no applicable law against you, you can know they don't have an applicable law against you, and they can know that you know that they don't have any applicable law against you - and they can still presume the law against you through law enforcement "presumption" and undisclosed court procedures.

That's why this is still - in the real world - legal theory, and I not only don't tell people to go out and "use" it, I tell them NOT to use it. Because I know of no reliable, legally acknowledged way TO use it.

And lawyers certainly aren't going to help, since their bread-and-butter is found IN corporate administrative courts.

: shrug :

That's it. That's all I know. And without people giving a damn, I see no traction, either. Run up to someone and start telling them about the "jurisdictional crisis" and see what happens! LOL! Fast way to lose acquaintences, friends and family!

Pray for a miracle, because that's what I think it'll take.