Constitution & Bill of Rights [VOID]

[LibertyWorker]

So a paper boy comes to my home. I tell him I’ll take the paper for six months. Three months goes by and I stop paying for the paper. He come to me and says “hey you owe me money”. I tell him “I’m not going to pay you”. The next day I don’t get my paper so I call and ask “hey where is my paper” and he tells me “you broke our agreement you get no paper”. So I tell him you’re going to deliver my paper and if you don’t ill send armed people to your house. They will break apart you family take everything you have including your freedom.

Like any contract or agreement it only works if both parties follow it.

If the government will not follow the Constitution & Bill of Rights the contract is broken.

If the contract is broken then “We the people” and the government are no longer bound by it.

So are we hurting ourselves by sticking by a broken contract?

Are you a paper Boy or A Patriot?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So a paper boy comes to my home. I tell him I’ll take the paper for six months. Three months goes by and I stop paying for the paper. He come to me and says “hey you owe me money”. I tell him “I’m not going to pay you”. The next day I don’t get my paper so I call and ask “hey where is my paper” and he tells me “you broke our agreement you get no paper”. So I tell him you’re going to deliver my paper and if you don’t ill send armed people to your house. They will break apart you family take everything you have including your freedom.

Like any contract or agreement it only works if both parties follow it.

If the government will not follow the Constitution & Bill of Rights the contract is broken.

If the contract is broken then “We the people” and the government are no longer bound by it.

So are we hurting ourselves by sticking by a broken contract?

Are you a paper Boy or A Patriot?

How one follows the contract depends on how one interprets two formal documents.
The Declaration of Independence, our divorce decree from tyranny, established that the king was not a ruler ordained with God's sovereign authority but a tyrant.
The U.S. Constitution, our marriage to a more perfect government, does not establish an official government like the ones that existed in the old world because our Founding-Fathers didn't act in the interests of ruling gentlemen; but, they instead acted in the interests of the lowly, subordinate people.
This established a Civil-Purpose above all traditional legal-precedence.
Unlike the other cultures in the world, the defination of what is an American is etched in stone because it was established by the science of natural law.

[stilltrying]

Exactly. It already is null and void regardless if they follow it or not. It does not exist. There is no contract. Did you sign the constitution?

Watch the video

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/26/marc-stevens-delusions/

[TastyWheat]

Did anyone else find that confusing? So you're the Patriot because you made an agreement then broke it or is the paperboy asking for money you already paid?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Exactly. It already is null and void regardless if they follow it or not. It does not exist. There is no contract. Did you sign the constitution?

Watch the video

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/26/marc-stevens-delusions/

The contract exists as a self-evident natural law. We did indeed divorce tyranny in The Declaration of Independence for the reason that the king didn't listen to his conscience, with every person being part of the same collective conscience (soul) whether they be an entitled king or a trespassing peasant.
The Constitution further substantiates the contract when our Founding-Fathers refer to themselves not as "We the official rulers . . .," but as "We the subordinate people . . .."
While the ultimate law is natural law, the supreme law is necessary to keep the three branches of the government in tact and working seperately to hold tyranny in bondage serving the people as a necessary evil to dispense Civil-Purpose to them.

[LibertyWorker]

The contract exists as a self-evident natural law. We did indeed divorce tyranny in The Declaration of Independence for the reason that the king didn't listen to his conscience, with every person being part of the same collective conscience (soul) whether they be an entitled king or a trespassing peasant.
The Constitution further substantiates the contract when our Founding-Fathers refer to themselves not as "We the official rulers . . .," but as "We the subordinate people . . .."
While the ultimate law is natural law, the supreme law is necessary to keep the three branches of the government in tact and working seperately to hold tyranny in bondage serving the people as a necessary evil to dispense Civil-Purpose to them.

What binds me to uphold or follow the constitution?

Who is we? i didnt Divorce anything or anyone.

[LATruth]

Nothing binds you except "commonlaw". Unless you agree to a formal contract, etc.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What binds me to uphold or follow the constitution?

Who is we? i didnt Divorce anything or anyone.

The Constitution marries the people to a more perfect government.
The Declaration of Independence divorced the people from tyranny.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Nothing binds you except "commonlaw". Unless you agree to a formal contract, etc.

Our Founding-Fathers used the science of natural law to establish our government. Natural laws established natural rights. Natural rights didn't reduce to ideas but reduced to the physical level. This was so because science during that time had yet to establish the social sciences.

[stilltrying]

The contract exists as a self-evident natural law. We did indeed divorce tyranny in The Declaration of Independence for the reason that the king didn't listen to his conscience, with every person being part of the same collective conscience (soul) whether they be an entitled king or a trespassing peasant.
The Constitution further substantiates the contract when our Founding-Fathers refer to themselves not as "We the official rulers . . .," but as "We the subordinate people . . .."
While the ultimate law is natural law, the supreme law is necessary to keep the three branches of the government in tact and working seperately to hold tyranny in bondage serving the people as a necessary evil to dispense Civil-Purpose to them.

What you are quoting is force. I did not give my consent nor sign a contract to the constitution. As noted in the linked video from Marc Stevens who also quotes lysander spooner and various other sources. The constitution states for our posterity. But that is an absurd statement as given by the example from Lysander Spooner. You can make a will for your posterity to have your house but they are not required to live in it when you are dead. What you are implicating is nothing more than force, to force people to abide by the constitution.

Once again without signatories there is no contract, no binding agreement. Take he say she say into the court as a contract and they will laugh at you. Until you have signatures or physical evidence then there is no contract. WATCH the video and read No Treason, The constitution of no authority.

[stilltrying]

The Constitution marries the people to a more perfect government.
The Declaration of Independence divorced the people from tyranny.

Once again you cant marry if consent is not given or only through forced marriage.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What you are quoting is force. I did not give my consent nor sign a contract to the constitution. As noted in the linked video from Marc Stevens who also quotes lysander spooner and various other sources. The constitution states for our posterity. But that is an absurd statement as given by the example from Lysander Spooner. You can make a will for your posterity to have your house but they are not required to live in it when you are dead. What you are implicating is nothing more than force, to force people to abide by the constitution.

Once again without signatories there is no contract, no binding agreement. Take he say she say into the court as a contract and they will laugh at you. Until you have signatures or physical evidence then there is no contract. WATCH the video and read No Treason, The constitution of no authority.

The Declaration of Independence justified the divorce between the American people and the king. This justification was based on natural law. Once again, natural law established a natural right. A natural right reduced physically to an unalienable (bipartisan) truth because the social-sciences did not exist during that time. This truth existed as self-evident beyond any legal challenge because it couldn't be known in the mind socially; rather, it was known in every soul physically whether he or she was born into royalty as a queen or king or into poverty as a peasant.
So, if the king doesn't listen to his conscience, then he isn't a king at all but a tyrant and the days of tyranny are numbered. Lawyers can laugh all they want to. In the end, proper government will have a full business agenda entailing the sitting of the pimps (tyranny) on their thrones as a necessary evil in order to serve the burden of getting the trespassing whores (the people) and their posterity off the street.
Lawyers were once used in the old world to maintain tyranny. Tyranny existed by tradition with the oldest sons customarily enjoying being in the employment of the monarchy and the second oldest volunteering serving the Church. This left the rest of the children to the task of the illegal business of survival as trespassers on land 100% owned by the king and the Church. This is why I say the older brothers (royalty) once pimped their younger sisters (peasants).
So, tyranny once existed as fathers treating their daughters as livestock and older brothers pimping their younger trespassing sisters.
The United States is a break from tradition with natural law allowing this to happen. A natural law reduced all the way to the soul. This is the same soul that puzzled Socrates. The philosopher pondered, if all souls are collective in that each one of them reduces to the same perfection, then why are they all born so different?
When *our Founding-Fathers established our new nation, they didn't play the part of official rulers but acted on the behalf of the unofficial people. In the United States, this established Civil-Purpose above legal-precedence with the latter including all past traditions and any future occurence yet to happen. So, when a lawyer claims that the people's Civil-Purpose holds no legal-precedence, they are correct. But this shouldn't sway an American judge and certainly not a jury because the justification ordaining the Civil-Purpose of the unofficial people over that of the legal-precedence of tyranny is based on natural law.

*Once again, President Obama refers to our Founding-Fathers as the founding-fathers in order to distance himself from them and to, perhaps, raise himself above their stature.