Are Constitutional Violations a Crime?

[Keith Broaders]

If a Senator or Representative votes in favor of legislation that violates provisions of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, has that individual committed a crime and should they be punished or removed from office?

Please post your comments in the section below.

What is Your Opinion?

 

 

[Terry Trussell]

Jon, the wisdom and insights of our founders and framers, as evidenced in the writing of our Constitution is obvious and clear. Their aversion to a democratic form of government (per the French Revolution) is apparent in the careful wording of their definitions and restrictions. That is why they gave us a democratic Republic. Also apparent, are your concerns over omissions and errors you see in the original Constitution. I, too, have concerns--although not from your same perspective--but over the process and perils of tinkering with the document. Flawed as it may be, putting its revision in the wrong hands could provide a fatal blow to our republic. How do we protect ourselves from the evil-intended and incompetent? There are so few (if any) in government and academia, today, we could trust with such an undertaking.

[Jon Roland]

Any hope for reform depends on enough of is getting behind a single set of proposals and not letting anyone else change them until they are adopted. We have to control the language of any reform.

[Pat Fields]

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)

Since as late as 1968, all State office-holders and 'voters' (not Electors) have been re-qualified as 'citizen of the United States'. An historic inquiry will reveal that before this 'trend' began, State Constitutions qualified such inhabitants therein as 'Citizens of a (respective) State'.

“There are, then, two classes of citizens; one of the United States, and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia”. [Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 790, 791, 160 Ala. 155]

"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative." (Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20)

Because ALL politicians conduct their affairs under jurisdiction internal to the District of Columbia city-state, they're acts are free of any Constitutional restriction per ...

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” – Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2

So, any notion that a 'representative' is obliged to any Constitution is contingent on what jurisdiction such official is acting under.

[Terry Trussell]

Pat, I would appreciate clarification on a few points: 1. Is the United States of America, as it functions today, a private corporation? 2. How is 'citizen' defined? 3. How can a citizen of a country, be a citizen of a government? 4. Do the citizens of a country/government 'own' that country/government, and if not, why not? And if not, who does?

"Because ALL politicians conduct their affairs under jurisdiction internal to the District of Columbia city-state, they're acts are free of any Constitutional restriction per ..." --by 'ALL' I assume you mean federal, and not state or local? And if they are federal-level politicians, your bold-faced emphasis in the reference: "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States"; is confusing to me: does that phrase remove ALL Constitutional authority from that District? If so, that makes Congress the effective 'Monarchy' of it's own private land? Then the people who live within the District are effectively 'property' of the 'Congress-King'? (Could be the reason DC car tags contain the "Taxation Without Representation" slogan.)

Please accept this as a serious inquiry, not a challenge. I'm really trying to understand and will appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks.

[Jon Roland]

First, all governments are corporations, and always have been, since a bunch of village elders gathered under a tree to make decisions for their community.

Monarchies, and some aristocracies, may be formally "private" corporations. But not necessarily. In England after Magna Carta the king was reduced to the holder of an office rather than the owner of the country, especially after the reforms of Simon de Montfort eventually led to parliamentary rule, after a couple of civil wars. But England tried to act like a private owner of the American colonies, which led to the American Revolution and the Constitution, which established the U.S. as a public corporation.

Forget all the nonsense about creating a municipal corporation for the District of Columbia. That had no effect whatsoever on the legal character of the United States.

Now one can argue that a negligent public has allowed big money interests to gain too much influence, so that they have turned the U.S. into a private corporation they control, but that is not a formal, legal change. That is just dereliction on the part of the people, and they can change it whenever they get aroused and organized. That is our job.

A "citizen" is a person who has certain rights and privileges, that go beyond what he has as just a person, with respect to the nation and the government. He has the rights of a "denizen" to remain in the country and return to it, and the privilege to vote and hold office if he meets certain other qualifications.

Strictly speaking, one is not a citizen of a government. That is just sloppy language.

The people, taken together , own the land of a country. "Government" is just a collective word for "government officials", so it makes no sense to talk about "owning" those. As members of a society in possession of a territory (a state) they "own" a right to have a voice in ratifying and amending a constitution of government, and in selecting its officials according to law. But just as members of a church may own the church building, even though members may join or leave, they don't get pieces of the building if the church dissolves, or even shares of the proceeds of selling it. More likely that would all go to creditors.

[Terry Trussell]

Jon, you've made your point very clear. With your definition of 'citizen', I have another question: at what point do citizens of a country, become 'property' of their government? My sense is that when they allow the bureaucrats in their government to mortgage their lives and wealth to others, and we are well past that point.

[Jon Roland]

Citizens of a country, as members of a society, bind themselves to take risks or even sacrifice themselves to protect the other members, but that is not being "owned" by them. The only way persons can come to be "owned" by government (officials) is if they allow the officials to become the masters, which formally they are not but increasingly seem to be in practice. But we still have options for turning that around if enough of us get on with it.

[Terry Trussell]

Jon, that is exactly why I am placing so much faith in OAS. You can see from all the differing opinions in this forum, why there is division on every front. That is also why I am so excited to have someone (Col Riley) step forward, set a date, and make specific, limited demands. I also agree with you on our options for turning this around--we need people, lots of people, united for a single purpose. If we can accomplish just one key objective (removal of prime miscreants from office) we can work on the balance over time. It is also my firm belief that we must use force multipliers in the form of PsyOps, press relations, blogs, publicity, social media, rallies, talk shows, and whatever else we can muster. We could put ten million bodies in DC for six months, and if the rest of the country never finds out we're there, we will fail.

[Pat Fields]

If I might respectfully interject ... the citizen isn't Property, a fictional alter-ego created by government, is its Property, The citizen is then presumed, cajoled and bullied to 'breath life' into that fiction by speaking and assuming to act ... in its stead. This is the ubiquitous 'Person', made liable in all Internal Statute and Code.

“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process …” --Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

[Michael D. Small]

I tis my understanding that all State Constitutions (though slightly differing) mirror the Organic Constitution.  

I hear you when you say a person operating under the State Constitution is different than when operating under the Federal constitution and this makes sense because states are to be Sovereign Republics with their own Governors (Presidents) and their own governments, likewise mirroring the Federal Government.  Simple Copy Cat to insure the Sovereignty and justice to the citizens. 

Yet, we have not been sovereign citizens since the Act of 1871 compounded by the 16th Amendment where a Private Corporation was authorized to fraudulently tax citizens across the borders of their own countries (States/Republics).  When Tyrants Rule!

[Pat Fields]

Michael, remember ... Independence was declared 1776, whereupon the States constituted their particular governing administrations. Only AFTER then, did they constitute a Trust Administration (general government) for their Federation, So, the original State Constitutions served as models for what was drafted in 1787 ... eleven years later.

In 1791, to enforce the 'Whiskey Tax', Washington asked the Congressional Senate for permission to lay a separate federal jurisdiction over their States, to operate under. That request was granted.

In 1871, the 'Government of the District of Columbia' was instituted as a totally separate Municipal entity from the States ... AND ... the 1787 Trust Administration. So, as a, then, fully independent entity with the 'dignity' of a State in International Law, it began using Washington's 'Whiskey Tax' district jurisdictions to start all the usurpations we're suffering in STILL INCREASING degrees.

Now, the State Legislatures colluded in this crap by surreptitiously shifting their affairs under those 1791 Federal 'District' jurisdictions and by 1968, all the states had re-qualified office-holders and 'voters' in legal status as 'citizen of the United States', which put EVERYONE under DC municipal jurisdiction.

The 'bright spot' is that folks are Of Right to expatriate that status foisted on them and set Documentation into the Public Record, of their Free Choice to re-define themselves as State Citizens, and re-situate themselves in Lawful Permanent Domicile of their States as 'originally and ordinarily' defined.

A 'State' is properly and essentially ... A People ... inhabiting a bordered Territory completely separate from whatever administrations of governance they devise. So, the 'Great Object' to be sought is to re-merge into THAT 'social membership'. The reason being that The People are the Supreme Sovereign Power of their State.

[H. Gregory Badger]

So, darkness was insinuating itself into the young America even as it began.

 

"The children of darkness are more diligent than the children of Light."

 

Our enemies laugh at your logic, true as it is, because there are so many who cannot comprehend it.