The United States Constitution is a fraudulent document, and proof that the founding of the "United States" was a coup d'é·tat. The Constitution is a document of unlimited power, and is completely at odds with the Declaration of Independence, which is a document of freedom and rights. The Declaration of Independence explains that people are endowed by their creator (not the government) with unalienable rights. The purpose of a government is to protect those natural rights. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to ABOLISH THE GOVERNMENT. That is exactly what the Declaration says. The Constitution, written and secretly adopted 13 years later, says the exact opposite. The main body of the Constitution does not say 1 word about rights. The word "rights" is not in the body of the Constitution, although the word "power", i.e. the power of government, appears 47 times, either explicitly or through inference. It grants the newly-formed super-state the power to tax, to declare war, to borrow money, to conscript (enslave) soldiers, to regulate commerce, and to overrule any state law with which it disagrees. The original 1789 Constitution is so obviously NOT what the American revolutionaries fought for, and the American people were so clearly ready to fight and overthrow the fraudulent leaders of the "United States", that something had to be done. Two years later, in 1791, Madison wrote the "Bill of Rights", at Amendments 1 -10. The Bill of Rights was written to subdue the angry American peasants who realized that their country had been stolen from them a mere 13 years after they fought for it. While the Bill of Rights does set forth "rights", the first thing to notice is that, unlike the unalienable, natural and creator-given rights contemplated in the Declaration, "rights" now appear to be granted by the United States Government. A moment's reflection shows that with the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution became fatally at odds with itself. To take but a few obvious examples - The Fifth Amendment promises that property shall not be taken for public use without compensation. How can that be squared with the power to tax? It also promises that a person shall not be deprived of liberty without due process. How can that be squared with the power to conscript? The Constitution begins by saying "We the People of the United States ....". That phrase is pure fraud. It clearly implies that the people of America, either directly or through their representatives, approved of the Constitution and agreed to be bound by it. This is false. The People of America in 1789 had elected representatives, in each of the then existing 13 states. That is NOT who ratified the Constitution. It was very well known and understood that the people of America DID NOT WANT a federal government. That is why they adopted the Articles of Confederation, which was a treaty between the states. Knowing the American people loved freedom and would never approve of a constitution granting a federal government unlimited broad powers, a secret cabal of like-minded federalists was convened and named the "Continental Congress". James Madison wrote up this monstrosity with an eye toward eventual world domination, of the same type as so many tyrants that came before. Indeed, the U.S. government was more all-powerful and tyrannical than the British government the people had bravely thrown off in 1776. Many parts of the Constitution are clear enough, and they clearly grant unlimited power to tax, borrow, spend, and to kill people. Other parts are so vague that they can be interpreted to mean basically anything. The U.S. is "authorized" to "promote the general welfare". What the hell does that mean? Or, rather, what doesn't it mean? "To ensure domestic tranquility". Again, it could mean anything. And so on. And so on. I know how to writer law with precision, and so did James Madison. They wanted the document to be vague and subject to endless interpretation, and they succeeded. Is it any wonder that we are here two hundred forty something years later, and Supreme Court Justices are STILL ARGUING about what the thing means? Like all of the mountains of "law" they have piled on us ever since, it means whatever a judge says it means. There is no law. A law can be struck down and ruled unconstitutional if it is "void for vagueness". The legal standard is that a law must be sufficiently clear so that a person a average intelligence can know what conduct is prohibited. In recent Supreme Court cases "U.S. v. Johnson" and "Sessions v. Dimaya", state law statutes were thrown out as unconstitutionally vague, for exactly that reason. With that in mind, how can the Supreme Court then turn around and have another 5-4 decision on ANYTHING? If the most learned legal minds in the land cannot agree on what some part of the Constitution means, then it should be struck down, ripped out and done away with. That will never happen of course, because the idea is to control all people, not to protect your rights. If you think the Constitution exists to protect your rights, you must have it confused with eh Declaration, which unfortunately has no legal force whatsoever. Good grief. People, we've been had. And it didn't just happen with C-19, or BLM, or 9-11, or Bailouts. The fix was in from the get-go.
top of page
bottom of page