PDA

View Full Version : A list of infractions to our Constitution, your input appreciated!




nbruno322
03-27-2008, 10:02 PM
I wanted to compile a list of infractions to our Constitution and our American values and traditions. Most people are not fully aware of how far we have drifted and when all of the points are compiled it makes a powerful statement. This list is by no means exhaustive. Please contribute if you can. It is a work in progress, please add catogories or summarize others if you can. Thanks!

Constitutional


-Patriot Act: 10/26/2001

The Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of 9/11 to give the government tools it needed to fight terrorists. The Patriot Act broadly defines a "terrorist". Anyone who opposes a federal program or policy may find themselves under this broadly defined label. In theory, it sounds like a good idea but upon closer inspection it is clearly unconstitutional in an unprecedented way. For the first time in 230 years of US history a law exists that blatantly violates the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution.

-The Patriot Act allows for the government to write their own search warrants. This completely bypasses the nation’s judicial system, destroying an element of checks and balances. The Constitution states that only a judge can issue a search warrant after being presented with probable cause. The FBI can show up on your doorstep with a self-written search warrant to enter and seize your property. According to the FBI’s own records, 167,000 people have been served self-written search warrants, often without even knowing it. Of these, 30% had nothing to do with even the broadly defined "terrorism". This is clearly in violation of the 4th Amendment.

-It is a crime, up to 5 years imprisonment, for anyone who receives such a self-written search warrant to talk about it, to anyone. That means you cannot discuss the search with a lawyer in order to properly defend yourself in court, nor can you tell a federal judge to contest it, nor can you tell your spouse, your priest, nobody. This is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Because of the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act it should have never been passed in the first place. Congress was unable to investigate or even read the Patriot Act as they had 15 minutes to read the 300 page bill before voting on it. Little did they know how unprecedented and unconstitutional the doublespeak titled Patriot Act was. Since October of 2001, not one single successful prosecution in the war on terror has taken place on the basis of evidence gleaned from the Patriot Act.


-10th Amendment (States Rights)

The 10th Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the states are free to make their own laws as long as it is not in conflict with the Constitution. Below are a few, but by no means comprehensive, list of instances of violations of the 10th Amendment.

-Drug War:
Unlike the prohibition of alcohol, which amended the Constitution, the drug war has not and so, seemingly it would be up to the states to decide their own drug laws. This is not the case however. Under California State law, proposition 215, medical marijuana is legal. However under the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) it is not. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of cases where California-legal medical marijuana patients have been arrested and harassed by the DEA, FBI, and other federal agencies. The CSA and the federal “war on drugs” is clearly an infringement of the 10th Amendment, because it is not part of the Constitution and circumvents a states right to choose its own drug laws.

-Speed Limits and 21 Drinking Age:
Another tactic the federal government uses to coerce the states into accepting its guidelines is to blackmail them. For example, the federal government denies federal highway funding to states that do not conform to federal guidelines on speed limits and a 21 drinking age. It would be an extreme hardship on a state to defy the federal government and lose out on the federal highway funds. Again, this strong-armed, blackmail, technique infringes on a state’s right to determine its own laws and thus undermines the 10th Amendment.

-REAL ID:
The REAL ID, which is discussed in more depth in the “American Values and Traditions” section. The REAL ID Act is a widely unpopular piece of legislation with many state government passing resolutions stating their intention not to comply with it as it would be extremely expensive to implement and many states already have IDs that contain better security features than the REAL ID. The REAL ID Act sets federal guidelines that a state must follow in issuing their IDs, in essence making a de-facto national ID. The penalties for non-complying states include having their citizens being barred from opening bank accounts, entering federal buildings, and boarding aircraft. This is another example of a blackmail technique used by the federal government in order to coerce the states into accepting its agenda, undermining the states’ sovereignty and the 10th Amendment.

Former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote: "A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment."

-No Child Left Behind (NCLB):
NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control of education. The federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional: States need not comply with NCLB, as long as they are willing to forgo the critical federal funding that comes with it. This is yet another example of federal blackmailing and undermining of the 10th Amendment.

While this list of infractions against states’ sovereignty is not comprehensive, it shows that the 10th Amendment is basically meaningless if the federal government can blackmail the states into accepting its agenda.

The Constitution and the 10th Amendment is very clear; the states are free to choose their own laws as long as they don’t contradict the Constitution. That means, any issue not mentioned in the Constitution, or added to it by amendments, is not a federal issue, but one to be determined by the states. This applies to issues such as abortion, marriage, education, drugs, healthcare, or anything not contradicting the Constitution. There is considerable diversity among the states and the founders understood this, which is why they included this important issue in the Bill of Rights.


[B]-Republic not Democracy
Ask 99% of Americans what kind of government the US is supposed to be and they will answer “democracy”. The word democracy is not mentioned once in the Constitution. The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. In a Constitutional Republic the ultimate sovereignty rests with the individual and the guaranteed rights cannot be taken away by anyone.

Democracy was feared by our founding fathers. In a pure democracy 51% of the population can take away the right of the other 49%. This is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. Put another way, democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. In a Constitutional Republic, the sheep has a gun.


-Federal Income Tax: 1913
-Completely unconstitutional. It is a direct unapportioned tax. The Constitution clearly states that all direct taxes must be apportioned, or divided amongst the population equally.
-The number of states required to ratify the new amendment was never met.
-On average, about 25% of your income is confiscated from this tax. This money goes to pay the interest on the currency that was created by the Fed and loaned to the government. The vast majority of the money is not spent on essential programs or services.
-No statute or law that exists that requires you to pay this tax.


-Federal Reserve
1913 was one of the darkest years for American liberty as it saw the passage of the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve System.

The barons of the industrial revolution and elite Europeans (Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Rothschild, and others) sought to create a central banking system in the US. The story of how they secretly conspired to force the Federal Reserve System on a weary American public is well documented in the book and video documentaries online The Creature From Jekyll Island.

The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the US. It is the institution that creates the fiat currency, which is backed by nothing. Today, dollars have no intrinsic value. The Fed controls the interest rates and the money supply (inflation). The value of the currency is regulated by the money supply, more money in circulation = less value of currency. The Fed does not simply supply the US government with money, it loans it at interest. This system produces a perpetual debt that can never be paid off by the government. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and other founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of the central banking system to liberty.

“The refusal of King George III to allow the colonists to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the Revolution”. ~ Benjamin Franklin

The Constitution clearly states that only gold and silver may be used for currency and that Congress alone has the authority “to coin money and regulate the value thereof”.

Since 1913, the dollars has lost 97% of its purchasing power. Inflation = tax.

-Fed is a private corporation
-it makes its own policies, Congress neglects its oversight duties.

The Federal Reserve System is consistent with the English central banking system that the founding fathers sought to escape from when they declared independence in the Revolutionary War.


A plank in the communist manifesto.

-Cruel and Unusual Punishment

-Military Commissions Act: 10/17/2006
loss of Habeas Corpus

-Declaration of War

North American Union/NAFTA

American Values and Tradition


-Foreign Policy – Wolfowitz Doctrine, policeman of the world, permanent global American hegemony, global empire, interventionism, foreign aid.

-REAL ID

-Defense Authorization Act of 2007: 10/17/2006
The DAA allows the president to station military troops anywhere in the United States and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.” By revising the two-century-old Insurrection Act, the law in effect repeals the Posse Comitatus Act, which placed strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order without the consent of the nation’s governors.” We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty.”

James Madison
03-27-2008, 10:48 PM
One of the biggest infractions to our Constitution is actually the 16th Amendment. It directly contradicts two clauses, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. Another infraction would be the president's use of Executive Orders, which are, by my research, nowhere legal under the Constitution. Also, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 implies that the Supreme Court would have no authority to weigh in on issues that should be decided at the state level (i.e. roe v. wade). Just keep in mind that 99% of what the government does today is not legal under the Constitution. Nearly all of the departments, the CIA, the Secret Service, IRS, et al.

wowabunga
03-27-2008, 10:48 PM
Good luck with your project. The info when done would make a GREAT info flier.

AJ Antimony
03-27-2008, 10:54 PM
Good luck with your project. The info when done would make a GREAT info flier.

Haha yeah right! It'll in reality make a GREAT life size paper airplane

JeffersonAndLiberty
03-27-2008, 10:54 PM
The Congress relinquishing its Constitutional authority to declare war. That has caused many, many unnecessary deaths and burdened the American people with a debt burden that will enslave us for generations.

*edit: I see you already have it ... sorry. In that case, I second it !

Signzit
03-27-2008, 11:06 PM
the 14th Amendment freed no one and enslaved everyone. Is that big enough?

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/14th.htm

nbruno322
03-27-2008, 11:08 PM
the 14th Amendment freed no one and enslaved everyone. Is that big enough?
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/14th.htm

Sig, could you please summarize? Thanks,

Signzit
03-27-2008, 11:17 PM
the 14th Amendment freed no one and enslaved everyone. Is that big enough?

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/14th.htm


This video does a fair job in summary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE

Summarize don't you want to know...? okay i'll play I won't summarize how about Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump Explains
14th Amendment Citizenship




The following is a reprint from the Free Enterprise Society's newsletter, May 1989. It is authored by former Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump:

"As my interest in constitutional law has expanded over the past years and the word of my interest spread, I have happily become the recipient of Patriot papers, circulars and letters from all over this great land.

Many folks involved in the research and use of the principles involved in our "Republican" form of government have become personal friends. These friendships have enabled a great deal of activity, from diverse sources, to develop together for comparison and evaluation.

I have, from time to time, endeavored to pass information, on a limited basis, from one source to another for enlightenment of individuals on general issues.

This time, however, it would appear that the emerging principles are so fundamental to our form of government, and of such magnitude as to encompass every man, woman and child in our united Republics, that one wonders how they could have ever become obscured.

The principles to which I refer are those heralded in the Preamble of the Constitution, which being: "We, the People...." and continues "....secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity." These words, without question, were used to represent the interests of the signers of the Constitutional contract. That is to say, "The Founding Fathers and their Posterity."

When one reflects on this meaning of "We the People" it would seem to mean that the Preamble People were a class of people who, with the aid of God, originally secured their Liberty with the protections they constructed into the Organic Constitution and the first ten Amendments thereto. This, being the case, tends to bring the import of the 14th Amendment into focus.

The 13th and 14th Amendments, as we have been taught, were fashioned to give freedom to slaves and to secure for them privileges of citizenship.

Our Educators, however, neglected to explain that the 14th Amendment creation was that of a new "class" of citizenship. It becomes clear when one studies the wording of the Organic Constitution, that the original people cited in the "Preamble" could not lose the "Blessings" secured thereby as long as the Constitution was intact, because our Constitution is perpetual.

The 14th Amendment, then had to create another "position" for those persons for whom it was created. Scrutiny of the 14th Amendment reveals that persons encompassed thereby were "subject" to jurisdiction thereof and may not "question" the validity of the public debt.


Big "C" -- Little "c"
When this Nation was founded each of the individual States of this union had their own Citizens (spelled with a capital "C"). Today, we have a second class of citizen (note the small "c"), the 14th Amendment citizen.

In law, every letter in a word is important. A word capitalized may mean one specific thing, while the same word without capitalization may mean something entirely different. In the case of Citizenship (or citizenship), this is more certainly true.


There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123.
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, agrees with the distinction between these different classes of (C)itizenship:

There are two Privileges and Immunities Clauses in the federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment. Section 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, while the 14th Amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Note the lack of capitalization in the wording used in the 14th Amendment, this specifically means that the words "citizens, privileges, immunities" are not the same as in Article IV.

The State of California was admitted into the Union of the United States in 1849; 9 Statutes at Large 452. It was admitted on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.

The State of California was required to have its own Citizens, who were first State Citizens, then as a consequence of State Citizenship were American Citizens, known as Citizens of the United States. There was no specific class as this, but for traveling and protection by the United States government while out of the country, they were generally called Citizens of the United States.

The Constitution for the United States of America (1787) used the term "Citizen of the United States" in Article I, Section 2, (capital "C"), and numerous other sections. This referred to the Sovereign Political Body of State Citizens, this Citizen is entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States under Article IV.

Congress utilized the same term "citizen of the United States" qualifying it with a small "c" to distinguish "federal citizen" in the so-called 14th Amendment. These "citizens" have only statutory rights granted by Congress.

Thus, Congress and most of the Judiciary, without distinction being properly brought forth have made rulings based upon the federal "citizens" who are resident in a State, not State Citizens domiciled within their own State.

The statement by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Stanford, 19 How. 393, 422, in defining the term "persons" the Judge stated:

...persons who are not recognized as Citizens." See also American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, which also distinguishes "persons" and "Citizens." These were the persons that were the object of the 14th Amendment, to give to this class of native born "persons" who were "resident" in the union of the United States citizenship, and authority to place other than the white race within the special category of "citizen of the United States."
To overcome the statement in Dred Scott, supra, that only white people were Citizens, and all other persons were only "residents" without citizenship of the United States, Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat 27.

The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. Stats. At Large, pg. 27, which was the forerunner of the 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress:

All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color... shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,...
(Again, note the lack of capitalization)

This was the intent of Congress; not to infringe upon the Constitution or the state of the de jure Citizens of the several states. It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to subvert the States' authority or that of the Constitution as it relates to the status of the de jure State Citizens. People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869) over ruled on other grounds; French v. Barber, 181 US 324; MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L Ed 297

At this point, I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article are going into shock as they grab for the Constitution to check out the phrase and "question" of the validity of the public debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4 of the 14th Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair.

It would seen then, from the foregoing, that there are two "classes" of citizens in this country:

1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit.

2. Citizen "subject": persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of "limited" citizenship.

It is not my intention, in this article, to become technically involved in citations for the information introduced here, but only to outline an overview for those folks who claim "Constitutional Rights" and then wonder why the legislatures, courts and police don't respond in "kind" to these claims.

When one separates the classes among their appropriate dividing lines, it appears that:

1. Preamble Citizens:

a. Have direct personal access to a God inspired, original Constitution and it's restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property.

b. Have direct personal access to the Article III courts known as "justice courts" which deal with law.

2. Citizen "subjects":

a. Have representative access to the first eight amendments as purviewed by the 14th Amendment.

b. Have representative access to Article 1 courts, provided by legislature, that are known as "legislative courts" which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or officers of the court, known as lawyers.

My concern here, stems from my observation that folks involved with the preservation of our beloved Constitution are unaware of the "limited" citizenship created by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, these folks don't realize that they are, or have voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance of the "benefits" of limited citizenship.

The main "benefit" that I will mention here is Social Security. There are many other "benefits" such as the benefit of "regulation by licensing" that give control of your children to the State by making them "wards of the State" and subject to the "regulation" of the "legislative courts" by statute, etc.

The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes.

I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair in finding that "the court" or "government" is in violation of the Constitution without realizing that the court they are addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.

The reality of the following example of statute law is that the statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone. The court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a justice court.

The final question then would seem to be "where is the article III "justice" court and who can use it? I am very aware that many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship, but for the people endowed with the proper qualifications, it appears that the straight line approach of barring jurisdiction of legislative courts (tribunals) through recision of contracts and declaration of Article IV, Section 2 status is essential, as it appears that only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may claim the protection of the first ten Amendments as written.

As the truth of our personal status, and the responsibilities connected therewith unfolds, it becomes clear that the Article III "justice" court must be accessed individually by the person claiming the right. At present it is being done by common law filing of actions "in law" with the County Recorders who have been found to be "ex officio" clerks of the County courts. The authority for the exercise of the "justice" office is found in the 9th Article of Amendment and I believe all State Constitutions have similar provisions for the Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens).

I will not go farther with an attempt toward instruction but will leave this in the hands of the many patriots engaged in the research of these developments. My mission in presenting this information in a general sense is to help the unfortunate individuals who repeatedly bash themselves against the rocks of misinformation or ignorance in vain, though laudable, effort to protect our beloved Constitution. I hope I have achieved this end."

Ex Post Facto
03-27-2008, 11:26 PM
Here is a list someone posted before on a similiar topic.


Go here to review Bills: http://thomas.loc.gov/ -- Or here: http://www.govtrack.us/

Go here to review Executive Orders: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1927: Protect America Act of 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR1955 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Commissions Act (suspension of Habeas Corpus) Senate Bill 3930
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.5122 The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 802 of the Patriot Act states;

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May of 2007 President Bush enacted NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20. The subject of these two directives was the continuance of government in the event of a major disaster or terrorist attack.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders enacted by President Bush

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

Executive Order 11490 Establishes presidential control over all US citizens, businesses, and churches in time of "emergency."

nbruno322
03-27-2008, 11:59 PM
thanks ex post, this is a work in process where I am compiling a list of the major usurptions of the Consitution and American values. The Executive Orders are an important part of this. As I was compiling this list, I originally wanted to cram it all onto a flyer, but it might as well be book :(

Signzit
03-28-2008, 12:00 AM
Here is a list someone posted before on a similiar topic.

You can through all that shit out, along with the shit the TS posted, none of it matters a damn.

If don't understand the 14th. Amendment and it's ramifications on the Sovereign Citizen you can never win it back.

If you are not a Sovereign Citizen you are not a Party to the Constitution.

You do not have "Rights", you have "Privileges", granted to you, you have been conscripted.

Please read it!

qh4dotcom
03-28-2008, 12:15 AM
All of this makes me wonder what was it like to have lived in the 1800s when the Constitution was respected.

nbruno322
03-28-2008, 06:16 PM
Since October of 2001, not one single successful prosecution in the war on terror has taken place on the basis of evidence gleaned from the Patriot Act.