Is the United States a Corporation?

[Keith Broaders]

 

A nation or a country is the name given to identify a particular group of people and the place where they live. Every country has a governing body that is a legal fiction created to control the people or to protect the rights of the people.

Like a corporation a government is an artificial person or a legal fiction and has no inherent rights. Lawful governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Many patriotic Americans try to explain how our government has gone astray by asserting that the United States became a corporation in 1871.

What they fail to realize is that virtually every country in the history of the world has been an legal fiction created by a group of individuals to control the people of a nation and their wealth.

When a government or a corporation is controlled by the financial elite the vast majority of the people become debt slaves to the banking institutions.

According to our founding fathers, our government was not created to a  government of, by and for the people. It was not created to benefit the few

The Constitution was written as a rulebook to govern the government and to prevent its abuse of power. The people in each of the states created their own government and transferred a portion of their sovereignty to their state government. The authority granted to their state governments was revokable any time by the voice of the people

The representatives of the people from the states then created a national government and granted to that body a list of enumerated powers. Any power that was not granted to the government was to be retained by the states and the people.

Our government (corporation) has been infiltrated by bankers, lawyers and corrupt politicians and they have seized control of the government of the United States.

When agents of the bankers write unconstitutional laws, the nation that was created to promote liberty has become the author of tyranny. The people that were to be the masters have become the slaves in a land that once was free. We are the employers and those that we elect are to be our servants.

The only way to restore the rule of law is to expel all of the government officials that have been masquerading as public servants. Virtually ever elected official as well as those that have been appointed are enemy agents and need to be terminated.

Does it really make any difference if the UNITED STATES is a corporation or it is simply controlled by corporations?

 

[Steve Belttari]

The 10th Amendment

"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."

In this case "power" does not mean the same as a “right" as defined above. What this does is simply state that any disputed territory of authority are States powers or the peoples power. This amendment actually reaffirms that the people will always have last say on how they are governed through either the States or their individual or collective legal authority to do so.

Now the Constitution is complete, it is legal and enforceable but only by the people and not the central government nor even State government. From local to national governments, the people will always have the last say, and if they don't then the Constitution has a legal remedy, if fact several legal remedies, and Article V is one of those legal courses the people may take.

Article V actually offers four ways to amend the Constitution and just to clarify things, amendments do not change the Constitution, it corrects it. The proposal before us to consider is simple and this is how it works; the people of the local and county districts partition the State legislators of their State to call a State convention at which time an Amendment is proposed and agreed upon. That proposal is the 28th Amendment which would repeal three offensive and Un-Constitutional amendments, the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. Once ratified by the delegation of the three-quarters of the States legislators it is taken to Congress and presented as Constitutional Law. These processes need no Congressional, Presidential or Supreme Court approval.  The people would have spoken as is their sole right and power to do.

In the real world of today our Constitutional Republic is on the brink of extinction. The question each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves and our neighbors is this:

Do We change the course for all the generations to come and restore our Constitution, or do allow them to be bound by the very inherent despotism our Founding Fathers clearly defeated over 200 years ago? It is We the Peoples’ Choice and not the governments.

     This is from New Federalist Papers # 4, I think it does a good job of teaching the 10th Amendment and showing where we are at right now-"In our real world of today our Constitutional Republic is on the brink of extinction".  We have to turn things around from where we are at, not where we wish we were at, it is up to the people to enforce the Constitution and Article V/28th Amendment does seem like the legal remedy.  One other thing, the word "partition" obviously is supposed to be petition, just thought I would point that out.

[Mangus Colorado]

Steve good post and after many years of reading and research I found no other proof positive way to Correct errors. See Federalist 43 and 85.

The Constitutionality of a Limited Convention: An Originalist Analysis

Michael B. Rappaport 

University of San Diego School of Law

April 6, 2012

Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 81, p. 53, 2012 
San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 12-084 

Abstract:      

This article revisits the classic question of whether the Constitution allows limited conventions. The Constitution provides two methods for proposing constitutional amendments: the congressional proposal method and the convention method. Under the convention method, when two thirds of the state legislatures apply for a convention, the Congress is required to call for a “Convention for proposing Amendments.” An issue much debated over the years has been whether the state legislatures can apply for a limited convention – either a convention limited to proposing an amendment on a specific subject or, even more restrictively, a convention limited to deciding whether to propose a specifically worded amendment. A long line of leading constitutional scholars, such as Bruce Ackerman, Alexander Bickel, Charles Black, Walter Dellinger, Gerald Gunther, and Michael Paulsen, have argued that the Constitution does not authorize limited conventions. 

In this article, I argue that the Constitution’s original meaning allows for both types of limited conventions. In making this argument, I supply the first rigorous account of how the original meaning of the constitutional text permits such limited conventions. In particular, I show, based on evidence from contemporary dictionaries, from other parts of the Constitution, from conventions existing at the time, and from other evidence of word usage, that the original meaning of the Constitution’s phrase a “Convention for proposing Amendments” includes both limited and unlimited conventions. I also show that the Constitution’s authorization of state legislatures to apply for a “Convention for proposing Amendments” allows them to apply for limited conventions. Finally, the article critiques the leading theories arguing for the contrary view, focusing on the work of Charles Black and Walter Dellinger.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 57

Keywords: constitutional convention, constitutional amendment, originalism

Accepted Paper Series 

[Mangus Colorado]

Steve I do use FF&R a lot but am finding that more folks than not do not understand and they do not read well.

[Steve Belttari]

     Magnus, I do read a lot and when I was reading the link I had to go back to the beginning to figure out FF&R, which was no big deal for me, but for those who do not read well and are trying to become more informed, it would make it easier for them, just a suggestion. 

[Byron Dale]

Steven what is your website?

[Byron Dale]

Steven I like the way you think.

[Mangus Colorado]

The Constitution is a LIMIT on government and has little effect over States or individuals if you exclude the continual usurping and expanding powers through changing the meaning of words and phrases. It would be good if more American read our true history and that ACTUAL CONSTITUTION rather than following some people with axes to grind or books, DVDs and speeches to be sold.

Here is what The Sovereign State Republics formed in the meaning of 1828 Webster Dictionary.

COMPACT, noun An agreement; a contract between parties; a word that may be applied, in a general sense, to any covenant or contract between individuals; but it is more generally applied to agreements between nations and states, as treaties and confederacies. So the constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States; a national compact Or the word is applied to the agreement of the individuals of a community.

The law of nations depends on mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, etc.

In the beginnings of speech there was an implicit compact founded on common consent.

COMPACT, verb transitive

1. To thrust, drive or press closely together; to join firmly; to consolidate; to make close; as the parts which compose a body.

Now the bright sun compacts the precious stone.

2. To unite or connect firmly, as in a system.

The whole body fitly joined together and compacted. Ephesians 4:16.

3. To league with.

[Ronnie Gavarian]

ok, but our government is forgetting about the sovereignty of the States, so now what?

 

[Jim Delaney]

State Nullification.That's what.

But, among the States' implied (not enumerated) powers is secession. Let's try civil disobedience, then State Nullification and, if both fail, all of our Founders' remedies should, of course, be on the table.

[Ronnie Gavarian]

I just left a post to someone else's reply regarding this same matter.  In New York, there is no chance of that whatsoever because the Schumer sycophants outnumber the "normal" people here.  No matter what we do, it almost seems as if we're damned from the start.  Why would the politicians in New York secede from the union?  That's like saying you're going to stop the gravy train from pulling into the station.  From the top down, in this state, there is major corruption on every level.

[Jim Delaney]

Then we move to another State which honors its constitutional authority.

[Byron Dale]

Take a look a the Balance of Powers Act.