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?

 

[Ronnie Gavarian]

I believe we do all know that and that is why everyone is on this forum and thousands more like it

i

[Jim Delaney]

Nullification is NOT prohibited by the Constitution and is, therefore, and by definition, a reserved constitutional power of the States. Frankly, I couldn't care less what a litany of demonstrably fallible judicial oligarchs in federal employ might have "ruled".

The Founders/Ratifiers are THE experts, and, in the final analysis, We the People are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional.

We've got to get away from the notion, foisted upon us by a federally-dominated education system, that the feds are supreme or that, in particular, nullification is not a vested power of the States. Jefferson described it as "the rightful remedy" and Madison endorsed it when all other remedies failed to properly check federal excesses.

As for the Cooper v Aaron ruling, it makes sense since the 14th Amendment is considered to be part of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. (That said, don't forget something you'd mentioned in a previous comment that it remains extremely doubtful that the 14th was legally ratified. But, that's another matter.)

[Byron Dale]

Well said I agree this is the thinking that we need.

[Mangus Colorado]

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/mangus-colorado.html

The point being made is that Nullification is not in the Constitution and therefore not permitted by the Supreme Court . . the Nullification process has not been allowed a single time in the courts. 

If the States have tried to use the unnamed power and have failed then how do we sell the idea to a knowledgeable public? To that end I went the Repeal way as it is simple, short [20 words] safe and sure. It returns the money and power to the States - the Federal Government is left small, weak and LIMITED.

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/mangus-colorado.html

Print this out, email it to your friends and all of your State Legislators. It can change the game. Just as the 21st repealed the 18th using STATE CONVENTIONS . . all done in 288 days. 288 days to Restored State powers.

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/blk--white-trifold-broch...

[Jim Delaney]

If a State permits federal excesses by its own failure to exercise its 10th Amendment authority to nullify, then the State and the overreaching federal court are complicit in violating the Constitution. We can't justifiably lay responsibility for this breakdown in law and order on the court alone. Put another way, if a State is unwilling to assert its constitutional authority to nullify then it is effectively surrendering that authority.

The Constitution is but a piece of paper. It cannot defend itself. It's a tool for governance whose provisions must be exercised. ("Use it or lose it").  IF a State actually asserts its power to nullify unconstitutional federal acts, the balance of power between the States and the central gov't would be intact.

Again, if a State yields its authority to an overreaching federal judiciary, then the principal culprit is the State. At that point, it is necessarily left to the People to enforce a remedy.

[Mangus Colorado]

Jim,

you have found the issue - the States have been bribed with our own tax money - medicaid, unemployment, EPA rules, and hundreds of other ways. How does a State now say no when they took the money - the courts might treat the payment as a contractual agreement.

We have no way to nullify and enforce the actions. If 38 States do the nullification and the paper is identical voted and passed by the State Legislature then it is a Article V action and can be enforced.

The PEOPLE are to blame for WE voted those into office that have buried us in a situation where the Federal Central government is SUPREME in all respects - so says the Courts and the Legislature.

[Jim Delaney]

Then the God-given and constitutional remedies endorsed by our Founders must no longer be ignored, and must be vigorously pursued. Except for hope and prayer alone, there would be no other option.

[Mangus Colorado]

Jim.

here is a 100% detailed way to get it done but the people must buy in to the idea and push it through their legislatures . . the plan will work but all must get to work no more talk - action time.

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html

[Christopher A. Brown]

This is the best series of posts on the site relating to constitutional intent and nullification.

I side with Jim because there are two points in support of nullification. One is that the states created the constitution, and the other is "powers not enumerated, reserved to the states" of the 10th.

Magnus has very completely and accurately defined the federal position as it is related to nullification.

The point about the federal control over the educational system needs to be constantly considered if state acquiescence is supposed. Particularly when issues of prime constitutional intent directly effecting the people in a daily basis.

Magnus wrote:
--"There is a 100% detailed way to get it done but the people must buy in to the idea and push it through their legislatures"--

This is the structure of the entire point I've been trying to make here and the federal control over education is heinously guilty of removing the people's awareness of constitutional intent.

The injury is deep and dangerous to the future of humanity on this planet and MUST be reversed/healed.

I am absolutely certain that the people will "buy into the idea" that the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Anyone who does not, cannot serve the people, meaning it is an absolute test of encumbents and candidates. Therein, and the fact that 2/3 of the states had applied for an Article V in 1911 and congress violated the constitution by not calling a convention, justifies elected delegates to a convention in every state.

I prefer revising to amend because it reduces the size and complexity of our contract.

I've been able to improve my grasp on the issues of the 14th by reading these posts and can see that exceptions to states actions need to be made OUTSIDE of those rights which impact the people on a daily basis

Probably the only reason it has stood is because of the people's appreciation of "equal protection of the law".

All things considered, if we need to restore constitutional government under the 1787 constitution, we must reach out on all directions to the people and compensate for the heinous act of misinformation that federal control over education has perpetrated.

Once people accept that free speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood, and realize that the 1st amendment as it is, DOES NOT serve that purpose, and are appraised of preparatory amendment to Article V, or its repairs to our political system, they will accept and support Article V as they have never supported anything before.

Of course the federal is so infiltrated and corrupted that they will never call a convention, 38 states must hold conventions addressing preparatory amendment and an absolute LIMIT for the convention to the three amendments which return adequate constitutionality to the people of the land, to be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."

Perhaps a forth amendment, mandating a people's test of themselves, to assure they do know and can agree upon constitutional intent, as far as that which directly effects them on a daily basis, BEFORE the convention continues on to further amendment.

At that point the complexity of those issues which do not effect the people on a daily basis, but do over years and generations can be properly considered because the people will have the purpose of free speech serving them, with a secure vote and fair campaign finance to interface with the political system.

[Christopher A. Brown]

As to enforcement, the federal infiltration will be ended, abolished. With the kind of unity this scenario will create, cannot be resisted. The guilty infiltrators wil have fled the land about the time 38 states begin convening elected delegates.

[Mangus Colorado]

Chris,

There is no need to hold "CONVENTIONS" as the Legislatures can appoint themselves in full session as the Convention by voting on a "SINGLE" AMENDMENT in all 50 States. If 3/4 or 38 State Legislatures vote to approve it is sent to the Congress for them to serve a "CLERICAL" function of "SHALL" SEND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MANY STATES FOR A VOTE TO RATIFY.

This is the proposed 28th amendment that would repeal the 14, 16, and 17th amendments. This is the same process that was used to Ratify the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th [prohibition] -

Amendment 21 - 18th Amendment Repealed

Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 2/20/1933
Ratified 12/5/1933
History

21st Amendment
It would be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment was completely ineffective. It would also be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment caused the lawlessness embodied by people like Al Capone. The 18th Amendment did reduce alcohol consumption in the United States, and it did not cause organized crime. In the Prohibition era, alcohol consumption (measured in gallons of ethanol consumed) dropped to an average of less than a gallon per person per year, down from two and a half gallons in 1915. And organized crime existed before Prohibition, and existed after it, too.

That having been said, the Prohibition era did have a certain sense of lawlessness; the very fact that consumption was not eliminated is testimony to that; and the fact that organized crime manufactured and distributed the bulk of the illicit alcohol of the 1920's and early 1930's is evidence that gangsters were aided by Prohibition. Enforcement was spotty, with stills and speakeasies popping up in every population center. Over-zealous police and federal agents violated civil rights when searching for and destroying the paraphernalia of alcohol. While most Americans respected the law, were in favor of the law, the shine of "dry" began to wear off, especially as the Great Depression set in.

A movement began to form to repeal the 18th Amendment. Prohibition of alcohol was seen as an affront to personal liberty, pushed on the nation by religious moralists. Alcohol was also seen as a source of revenue for the local and national governments. The effort to elect "wet" legislators was as grand as that to elect "dry" ones almost two decades earlier. The Congress passed the amendment on February 20, 1933 (288 days). It mandated, for the first time, that conventions of the states were to vote on the amendment, rather than the legislatures, feeling that conventions would be more apt to vote to ratify - and they did, quickly — the ratification process was complete on December 5, 1933. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, the first time an amendment had been repealed by another.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I think I see your point which is legalistic rather than social.  It seems to reinforce my point if you consider constitutional intent.

Americans cannot discuss the fundaments of constitutional intent functionally.

I certainly do not feel that legislators then, or now, knew constitution intent.  Meaning that the people need to elect delegates because the legislators are corrupted to a degree that prevents this from happening "shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution".

And, the people need to use a new paradigm which is NOT created or controlled in any way by the infiltrations of the federal or state governments which created the problems we now contend with.  Of course this an ideal, but we cannot give up on that.