Constitution has no binding power on anything

[hoarder]

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=hd6UkU6UaG

[aggregatio mentium]

Is the Constitution a contract? No. And did anyone sign it? No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8lDYrvTILc

For the record I'm only sharing facts. I've opinions and self interests that tug on personal policies like everyone else. And most of the time I keep that **** to myself out of respect for others individual privacy. Life is too damn short. Play hard and love hard. Peace.

[GOLDZILLA]

When officials are sworn in, they are agreeing to uphold it. I would call that a contract.

[hoarder]

Is Ezra Klein a Jew?

[charlie2281]

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independance as well as the Bill of Rights are all binding in my opinion. When I entered the service I was required to swear to uphold the Constitution and to this day(I am 68)I believe in and abide by it. We are a Republic.

[GoldWampum]

Like anything else it's only as good as the people who support it and hold the executors to their oath. Otherwise you accept the premise of the de facto regime. Your choice.

[silverblood]

The constitution is a worthless piece of paper. It is, as Lysander Spooner explained, the The Constitution of No Authority.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, AS AN AGREEMENT, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.

More at the link

[GoldWampum]

Lysander Spooner made some very good points in his day, but he was also a cranky bull****ter in some cases. Do the words posterity and perpetuity mean anything to you? That's like saying the First King of England died, therefore there was never another. Sorry folks, if you were born in the states, you were born under the Creator as well as the constitution. He sometimes played more loosely than the most left of democrats with his addition of words and interpretations.

the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.

It does not say that at all. WOW, super disconnect there eh? You guys should really study it and the documents and events leading up to it before you start with your outlandish BS.

Here's what it really says if you are really interested.

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.

Not hope to secure or maybe secure or even check to see if it makes sense to secure. Just plain old secure. Do, not hope, not wish... you guys are beginning to sound like Obama and Bush.

[silverblood]

I read it as Lysander did, and not as you do, but I do not think it is important what it says because the people who wrote it and who agreed to it are all dead. It's a fact that our ancestors, who died before we were even born, could not obligate their future unborn descendants to any agreement they made for themselves, no matter what they say.

Please leave discussions of a Creator out of it unless you can prove that there is one.

The formatting of this version of Lysander Spooner's NoTreason: The Constitution of No Authority makes it a little easier to read than the other link I posted, imo.

[hoarder]

Libertarians often belittle the Constitution and founders because they want to replace it with something more compatible with world government.

What little power the Constitution still has represents the sum of our remaining liberty. I don't wish to discard it for any new social experiment designed by globalists behind closed doors.

Niether the Constitution nor Founders were perfect, but they are the best there ever was.

[silverblood]

I know a lot of libertarians, and most of them are anarchists like me. They do not want any government at all, much less a world government. This is not the first time you've come up with this assertion, hoarder. Care to back it with some solid evidence?



And by the way, kindly answer the moral question of why one gang of people in a territory has a right to be the only ones to make laws and enforce them?

Government is a coercive monopoly. You are its victim, whether you know it or not. But like people afflicted with Münchausen syndrome, many of the victims of government are its most ardent admirers.

[Lore]

Libertarians often belittle the Constitution and founders because they want to replace it with something more compatible with world government.

I guess we use the term 'Libertarian' differently, because I find libertarians to be deeply anti-worldgov.

Do all documents have an inherent statute of limitations? If so, then I guess we should all chuck religious texts as well (Torah, Koran, etc.) since they're centuries old...

Just in case it's not obvious, I'm being tongue-in-cheek...

[hoarder]

I know a lot of libertarians, and most of them are anarchists like me. They do not want any government at all, much less a world government. This is not the first time you've come up with this assertion, hoarder. Care to back it with some solid evidence?

Most Libertarians/Anarchists are followers rather than independent thinkers. Having read books and articles written by the "great thinkers" of Libertarianism, they figure the proposed social experiment would have to be better than what we have now.
But some people don't have the capacity to notice omission, and what is omitted from the works of these great thinkers is the fact that people are both individuals and members of groups. Their ideology is written as though the world of humanity was a world of individuals...that there are no power struggles between groups, races, religions, etc. Another fact that is omitted by these "great thinkers" is that they are almost all members of a very cohesive group themselves, one that is famous for advocating world government.

This has been debated ad nauseum, I even started a thread on GIM1 about world government and Libertarianism and hoped you would participate or try to refute the points I made, which you did not.

So why don't you explain how world government will not happen under Libertariansm/Anarchism?

[silverblood]

Your method of arguing is to disparage those you disagree with by manufacturing and attributing to them positions that they do not espouse, and then by attacking that manufactured position. I didn't join your thread on GIM1 for that reason. Your method was obvious from the previous thread that begat yours. Your world government boogeyman doubtless exists, but he isn't a libertarian. He's more likely one like you, a Statist. World government is the natural evolution of Statism, not libertarianism.

There's no reason to answer your question. It's necessary first to establish whether or not any government even has a right to exist. I say there is no valid justification for any government at all. Does that sound like I want world government?

Again, answer me this: What moral justification is there for one gang of people in a territory to have the right to be the only ones to make laws and enforce them?

[GoldWampum]

Anarchy is the chaos that invites the vacuum to be filled by tyrannical/tribal/oppressive/dictatorship government. Libertarianism is a limited approach to government that attempts to avoid that. The two do not exist in the same time/space.

[Lore]

Your method of arguing is to disparage those you disagree with by manufacturing and attributing to them positions that they do not espouse, and then by attacking that manufactured position.

Ahh. I too smelled spin and an agenda. Thanks for the disambiguation.

[Spike]

Again, answer me this: What moral justification is there for one gang of people in a territory to have the right to be the only ones to make laws and enforce them?

At the time it was the beginning of a new country. So rules or foundation was needed. But i agree, we've outgrown the need for a Federal government.

Give the rights and law back to the States.

Edit...to say...they've outgrown us.

[hoarder]

Your world government boogeyman doubtless exists, but he isn't a libertarian. He's more likely one like you, a Statist. World government is the natural evolution of Statism, not libertarianism.

Of course the followers of these ideologies don't have the same agendas as the promoters. Make a distinction between the two. I'm not accusing the followers of anything other than allowing others to define their ideas for them. It is the promoters, not followers who want world government.
Ideologies are tools. The little people swear alliegance to ideologies and the rulers use them to control the little people. In war, it matters not which tool is used to win as long as one wins. If world government is achieved through Communism or Libertarianism or both at the same time, the war will be won...or lost in our case.

[Pyramid]

This is an excellent thread and kudos to all who have intelligently participated. IMHO, silverblood wins in a TKO, however.

[Spike]

This is an excellent thread and kudos to all who have intelligently participated. IMHO, silverblood wins in a TKO, however.

There is no winner...where were going

[Pyramid]

There is no winner...where we are going

...fixed it for you.

You are probably right, but I'd rather be a freedom-loving anarchist than a freedom-loving Tea Party, Fox News, Wally-World Republican sheep in Libertarian clothing every day of the week. There is nothing wrong with alternate views, as Dems/Reps are a proven failure. Peace Bro.

[LukeNM]

Did we gain some new **** disturbers here! This entire post is nonsense! Give it up... I would venture that the majority of GIM members here that live in the United States of America believe in and support the Constitution of the United States of America. GET LOST COMMIES! Why don't you say were you are from? If from the USA, you are no countrymen of mine.

[Pyramid]

Did we gain some new **** disturbers here! This entire post is nonsense! Give it up... I would venture that the majority of GIM members here that live in the United States of America believe in and support the Constitution of the United States of America. GET LOST COMMIES! Why don't you say were you are from? If from the USA, you are no countrymen of mine.

Not nonsense at all, most if us are from the USA. We are all arguing and fighting for and believing in the US Constitution, we only hope that it is honored by our politicians...which it is not. Commies?, give it up, no one here is a commie. We're just trying to have intelligent discussions as to why te US is a dying country and trying to figure out how to change that. You're barking up the wrong tree IMO.

[MorganTheGoat]

Do I get dumber reading GiM?

[GoldWampum]

...fixed it for you.

You are probably right, but I'd rather be a freedom-loving anarchist than a freedom-loving Tea Party, Fox News, Wally-World Republican sheep in Libertarian clothing every day of the week. There is nothing wrong with alternate views, as Dems/Reps are a proven failure. Peace Bro.

The disscussion was about the Constitution, not all those groups you threw down there P. I'm thinkin' you and blood are being a little naive about this. Freedom loving anarchist... well I loves me some freedom, but unless you don't fall under Constitutional or any other system of law you are no anarchist. You don't live in an anarchy, or are you reporting in from Samolia? Like to be maybe... but that's not what you are if you live in the US. Try breaking a Constitutional Law and see how much of an anarchist you are... People not carrying out their oath is one thing, supporting an oath to the Constitution is another...

Therein lies the problem... people not keeping their oath and people who don't hold them to it. And no, I'm not perfect at it... but I do recognize that buried under the oligarchy is a valid document if supported by enough people... and it beats any other I've seen, including the false hope of anarchy. Anarchy is as transient as democracy... and always invites a power grab. So no, blood doesn't win, unless he holes up in his house 24/7 and getting by with it. The question is whether it is binding... unequivocally yes... now, is it being enforced... NO, but whose fault is that really? Seriously whose fault is that? Think about it. Just don't feed me the anarchy routine please... that's a pipe dream and in reality is non workable... anarchy = chaos and chaos = Please someone grab the power, I need a dictator. Even in Samolia there is government... It's called tribal and it ain't pretty. I'm pretty sure that's not what you really want.

If we are going to be tribal... I'll take the limited government tribe (libertarian in nature) rather than chaos of knuckle dragging warring tribes.

[Hope+Change]

There's no reason to answer your question. It's necessary first to establish whether or not any government even has a right to exist. I say there is no valid justification for any government at all. Does that sound like I want world government?

Hoader: "But...you want world government. Libertarians beg for world government."


Hoarder I am curious: What is your salary like over at the department of homeland security?

[GoldWampum]

There are lots of things that can be done, but not enough people know about it, want to know about it, or enforce it to make a big enough dent to be meaningful. Unconstitutional laws can be fought and won at a really remarkable rate by people who know how to do it and actually do execute it.

With enough people on board States can be the final say on constitutionality as well. There's nothing in the Constitution that really says that the SC is the final authority and in fact the States formed the Fed and can be the final say rather than the SC. Just have to know it, believe and do it. Visit the Virginia/Kentucky resolution.

The Federalists tried and thought they slipped an ambiguous enough Constitution through on the Anti's, but in the end the Anti's insisted on the BOR and if used properly, it really limits the Fed to not much more and virtually no more authority over people's rights than the Articles.

There are additional clauses that can be used to enforce the oath on the Federal tyrants as well. Is all this gonna happen without it all coming down first? Not likely... not enough people know or care. BUT, after the fact, I would study long and hard as a people the work the founders did and rise from the ashes... maybe it goes regional or back to state sized areas, who knows?

But rather than claim anarchy, well maybe for a short time, but the idea behind limited gov. is that it binds individuals in an effort to preserve their rights individually AND represents everyone. The power just needs to flow from the bottom up, which was the original intention of most (not all, there were a few foxes in the henhouse) of the founders. Thank God for the southerners all the way back to the beginning. They have already pointed the way, even though they were turned away in the 19th Century. There philosophies were and are still breathtakingly free.

[hoarder]

Libertarians are in denial. What happens when countries no longer have borders? Do you actually think there will be any freedom when there is world government?

[Carl]

Your method of arguing is to disparage those you disagree with by manufacturing and attributing to them positions that they do not espouse, and then by attacking that manufactured position. I didn't join your thread on GIM1 for that reason. Your method was obvious from the previous thread that begat yours. Your world government boogeyman doubtless exists, but he isn't a libertarian. He's more likely one like you, a Statist. World government is the natural evolution of Statism, not libertarianism.

There's no reason to answer your question. It's necessary first to establish whether or not any government even has a right to exist. I say there is no valid justification for any government at all. Does that sound like I want world government?

Again, answer me this: What moral justification is there for one gang of people in a territory to have the right to be the only ones to make laws and enforce them?

What laws would there be under libertarianism and who would impose them? If each individual is the law unto themselves then there is no law and where there is no law, there can be no order, there can be no commerce and no community.

Personally, I see little difference between a Marxist ideologue and a Libertarian, as they both require everyone to believe as they do in order for their ideologies to work and there can be no liberty or freedom in that.

[GOLDZILLA]

Personally, I see little difference between a Marxist ideologue and a Libertarian, as they both require everyone to believe as they do in order for their ideologies to work and there can be no liberty or freedom in that.

Every political system/govt/religion requires this or it goes bye bye.

[Carl]

Every political system/govt/religion requires this or it goes bye bye.

Then, should we categorize a belief in Liberty as an ideology?

I think you're wrong. I think the Constitution constructs a government void of ideology other than what the politicians bring to it and the Constitution (pre 17th unconstitutional non-amendment) minimized ideology’s effects. Pre 17th Amendment, it was a political battle between the states and the people where personal or group ideologies were relegated to little more than opinions with no real sway one way or the other.

The 17th is what was used to lock the DNC and RNC in place, granting them monopoly control over our political system.

.

[silver solution]

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independance as well as the Bill of Rights are all binding in my opinion. When I entered the service I was required to swear to uphold the Constitution and to this day(I am 68)I believe in and abide by it. We are a Republic.

You have been CON-ed.

[silver solution]

Did we gain some new **** disturbers here! This entire post is nonsense! Give it up... I would venture that the majority of GIM members here that live in the United States of America believe in and support the Constitution of the United States of America. GET LOST COMMIES! Why don't you say were you are from? If from the USA, you are no countrymen of mine.

I live in the u.s. and I'm not CON-ed.

[silver solution]

Not nonsense at all, most if us are from the USA. We are all arguing and fighting for and believing in the US Constitution, we only hope that it is honored by our politicians...which it is not. Commies?, give it up, no one here is a commie. We're just trying to have intelligent discussions as to why te US is a dying country and trying to figure out how to change that. You're barking up the wrong tree IMO.

The CON was given to the people of this country by the elite rulers of this world.

To this day they (satans elites) are giving out CON-s and pushing demon-crazy (democracy) politics (blood-sucking) around the world.

[EO 11110]

Most Libertarians/Anarchists are followers rather than independent thinkers. Having read books and articles written by the "great thinkers" of Libertarianism, they figure the proposed social experiment would have to be better than what we have now.
But some people don't have the capacity to notice omission, and what is omitted from the works of these great thinkers is the fact that people are both individuals and members of groups. Their ideology is written as though the world of humanity was a world of individuals...that there are no power struggles between groups, races, religions, etc. Another fact that is omitted by these "great thinkers" is that they are almost all members of a very cohesive group themselves, one that is famous for advocating world government.

This has been debated ad nauseum, I even started a thread on GIM1 about world government and Libertarianism and hoped you would participate or try to refute the points I made, which you did not.

So why don't you explain how world government will not happen under Libertariansm/Anarchism?

this is a whopper - see bold above

libertarians are clearly not followers. they excel in critical thinking and use their gift to exploit the rest of you for fun and/or profit. no other philosophy has even a fraction of knowledge housed under the L tent.

[silver solution]

this is a whopper - see bold above

libertarians are clearly not followers. they excel in critical thinking and use their gift to exploit the rest of you for fun and/or profit. no other philosophy has even a fraction of knowledge housed under the L tent.

I have been in contact with many libertarians and found them to be not that bright.

[EO 11110]

I have been in contact with many libertarians and found them to be not that bright.

okay then. who is brighter?

[Carl]

The CON was given to the people of this country by the elite rulers of this world.

To this day they (satans elites) are giving out CON-s and pushing demon-crazy (democracy) politics (blood-sucking) around the world.

Personally and historically, I'm positive you're talking out your ass for the benefit of your ego but to give you the opportunity to prove otherwise; provide proof of this claim.

[silver solution]

Personally and historically, I'm positive you're talking out your ass for the benefit of your ego but to give you the opportunity to prove otherwise; provide proof of this claim.

"I Smell a Rat" Patrick Henry.

Read the "THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION"

United States Constitution
Article. 1., Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article. 1., Section 7. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated,... If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it,...
Article. 1., Section 3. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Protocols
5, #1: "...We shall create an intensified centralisation of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the goyim..."
11, #1: "The State Council has been, as it were, the emphatic expression of the authority of the ruler: it will be, as the "show" part of the Legislative Corps, what may be called the editorial committee of the laws and decrees of the ruler."
11, #2: "This, then, is the program of the new constitution. We shall make Law, Right and Justice (1) in the guise of proposals to the Legislative Corps; (2) by decrees of the president under the guise of general regulations, of orders of the Senate and of resolutions of the State Council in the guise of ministerial orders; (3) and in case a suitable occasion should arise - in the form of a revolution in the State."

United States Constitution
Article 1., Section 2. 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.
Article 1., Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature* thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
*Amendment 17. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote...
Article. 2., Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected,...

The Protocols
1, #6: "Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power..."
1, #10: "...Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, in its ignorance of political secrets, puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy."
1, #11: "The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim, but we must in no wise be guided by them."
1, #23: "In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty."
1, #29: "It is this possibility of replacing (through elections) the representatives of the people which has placed at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment."

Amendment 19. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Protocols
10, #4: "Voting; which we have made the instrument which will set us on the throne of the world, by teaching even the very smallest units of members of the human race to vote, by means of meetings and agreements by groups; will then have served its purposes and will play its part then, for the last time, by a unanimity of desire to make close acquaintances with us before condemning us."
10, #5: "To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinction of classes and qualifications, in order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be got from the educated propertied classes. In this way, by inculcating in all a sense of self-importance (like everyone being a Sovereign Citizen), we shall destroy among the goyim the importance of the family and its educational value and remove the possibility of individual minds splitting off, for the mob, handled by us, will not let them come to the front, nor even give them a hearing; it is accustomed to listen only to us who pay it for obedience and attention. In this way we shall create a blind, mighty force, which will never be in a position to move in any direction, without the guidance of our agents, set at its head, by us, as leaders of the mob. The people will submit to this regime, because it will know, that upon these leaders will depend its earnings, gratifications and the receipt of all kinds of benefits."

On and on do a little thinking and work yourself please.

[Carl]

"I Smell a Rat" Patrick Henry.

Read the "THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION"
.

What does a 1950s work of fiction have to do with the Constitution?

I would suggest you get a grip on reality...

[K_Flynn]

Personally, I see little difference between a Marxist ideologue and a Libertarian, as they both require everyone to believe as they do in order for their ideologies to work and there can be no liberty or freedom in that.

The primary difference is that the Marxist will use the power of the gun to force his view on others, whereas the Libertarian will never coerce anyone, but will rather persuade if they can.

Your premise is wrong as well, libertarians do not require others to believe as they do. All they require is to be left alone, i.e. to not be aggressed against.

[Carl]

The primary difference is that the Marxist will use the power of the gun to force his view on others, whereas the Libertarian will never coerce anyone, but will rather persuade if they can.

Your premise is wrong as well, libertarians do not require others to believe as they do. All they require is to be left alone, i.e. to not be aggressed against.

No, my premise is correct; just as with Marxism, in order for Libertarianism to work, it must be exactly defined and everyone must believe in it and practice it with a steadfast diligence.

The overriding factor that Marxism, Libertarianism and Anarchism ignore is the unpredictability of Individual Human Nature. See: Hobbes.


** Or, if you prefer; there are two types of people in the world, those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave them alone.

.

[Nickelless]

I have been in contact with many libertarians and found them to be not that bright.

So anyone who offers unfettered, unquestioned support to statist thieves IS bright? What a crock of crap. Leave me and my family and loved ones alone and keep your hands off of our stuff and let us live our lives as we see fit, not according to arrogant statist mandates. It doesn't get much brighter than that.

[xtremst]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were operating instructions for the Federal Government ONLY not the member states!

http://www.leegovwatch.com/NUKE/modu...der=1&thold=-1

[xtremst]

So anyone who offers unfettered, unquestioned support to statist thieves IS bright? What a crock of crap. Leave me and my family and loved ones alone and keep your hands off of our stuff and let us live our lives as we see fit, not according to arrogant statist mandates. It doesn't get much brighter than that.

A little about the Marxist Inposter in the White House. The biggest coup since The Cambridge Four.

http://www.leegovwatch.com/NUKE/modu...4f4070a8e910c5

The Cambridge Four: http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition...ridge-four.cfm

[Strawboss]

Presidential oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God".

Federal Judiciary oath of office:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God".