| Subject: 10th Amendment - Re: House candidate drops bid so she can expose Obama |
Author:
Ed L - via email
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07:58:59 08/30/10 Mon
10th Amendment - Re: House candidate drops bid so she can expose Obama
Hi, Jackie,
There is no doubt that Miki Booth has the courage of our founders. But, there is a matter that I believe needs clarified and that is the 10th Amendment. As Ms. Booth states - and thousands of others have stated, including officials I have dealt with that use it to establish their imaginary plenary power over the people - , the 10th Amendment says that "*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."
*I believe the people have been misled by politicians, attorneys (actually agents for the government as they are created by the government), Constitution experts, and other well meaning but quite wrong people that are deluded by propaganda used to dumb down our people.
If one checks older handbooks of the English language, such as Brown's, one finds that a comma has great significance and can totally change the meaning of a statement or phrase within the statement. In this case, the founders could have written, ./..nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people/.
But, they wrote "...nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively*, *or to the people."
Do the two statements mean the same? Not according to the usage of a comma.
Also, what is the meaning of a "State"? Did the founders state, "the States' government"?
There are just a couple of additional concepts I need to enter in to make my point is the foundation of America and human freedom - that is, the freedom of the American people.
Freedom/liberty both mean "not under government control".
"Private" means "not under government control".
The first ten Amendments overall are "The Bill of Rights", which delineate exactly what no government can interfere with. The most important in my mind is the 9th Amendment in a sense since it prohibits government from interfering with any inherent, unalienable right /*whether enumerated or not*/.
So, first, what does /*inherent and unalienable */mean to we allegedly free American people? The answer is not complicated at all, and every enforcer of de facto law (de facto meaning a government that has taken over by force), meaning legislators that make de facto laws, armed and dangerous cops that are not of the people, by the people, or for the people, attorneys, judges (that are largely now from the attorney pool), and the damnable so-called "prosecuting attorneys". All are in essence "domestic terrorists" using coercive measures to force compliance. But, that is another story.
Anyway, freedom of the American people actually means that we can do anything we want (rights whether enumerated or not) so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others. In other words, our rights end where another's rights begin.
Lastly, our founding document - and God's laws as reflected in the Declaration (the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them)
through this and the phrases on equality and the term "unalienable", declares our Law.
Governments are established as the Declaration clearly states in easy to understand language, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... "
In other words, government exists to secure our rights. Government governs itself and its creations (corporations, some associations, etc) but does not have the authority to regulate the people and the free expression of their rights. The Constitution for the united States of America was written in part so as to limit government to only the authority given to it by the people.
Now, since you do not have the authority to regulate your neighbor, or demand a fee to travel on the people's roads, or to arrest for violations based on Bills of Attainder, or go over and demand his property so you can give it to another, etc, then you nor the whole of the people can regulate your neighbor's property, which includes the free expression of his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
"State" means people living in a given geographic area with common mores, morals, values, etc. Without the people, states do not exist, only land and whatnot exists, usually called "territories" or wilderness areas or some such other term indicating in part that if people live there, they are not organized into a state.
So, since government cannot regulate the free expression of rights, which are of untold numbers as any endeavor that does not interfere with the rights of others is okay, then the authority not granted to the federal government cannot possibly mean that the authority to regulate our people reverts to the state's government.
The comma usage between "States, or the people" means that "or the people" is defining the the term, "States".
The complete authority of the state governments is given in the Constitution for the united States of America, and by our Law established by the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" (lower case as in the actual document).
Hence, what Congress cannot do (no other part of government has law making authority), neither can State governments, including the out of control local governments that are in fact chartered corporations created by the State governments with absolutely no authority over our property and rights. These corporations have so proprietary interests in us or our property.
(/As point of interest, those corporations known as local governments also do not own property - the people own all public property. It is the duty of local government to maintain the public's property and to place fees on corporations using our property, such as our roads for commercial gain, or holding meetings in our buildings, or using our court rooms and buildings (and officials, I might add) to settle disputes between corporations, etc./)
The gist is that since we are the sovereign (also established by the Declaration, which I forgot to mention). As such, we are supreme to government. In their official capacities, government officials (persons in law) are not equal to the we people, but in their private capacities they are.
In their official capacities, they are subservient to us, the sovereignty. They are created by us and the created can never be greater than the creator.
Thus, powers not granted to Congress revert to we people, who are by definition the "States".
Best regards,
ed lewis
PS One more important point. The Constitution is not the federal constitution, as in the Constitution of the United States. It is our constitution with its proper name being "The Constitution for the united States of America." Its intent is to limit government and grant it authority that must never interfere with the rights of free people, and to limit all other officials to the same limitations (See Article VI, our Constitution, Sections 2 and 3).
The PREAMPLE states it thusly, *"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, 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."
*
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
