• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Crisis

LOL, its not the parties it's the decision. Can't have a constitution with agents that keep trying to divert the focus and misrepresent. As if the social opinions of a dumbed down, manipulated society can dismiss an ideal vital to defense and enforcement of the constitution. Maybe Russians like your perspective.

There was no decision. It's still pending as far as I know. It's kind of clear you want things a certain way and don't care for the niceties of the judicial system. Probably pointless to continue. Have a good one.
 
There was no decision. It's still pending as far as I know. It's kind of clear you want things a certain way and don't care for the niceties of the judicial system. Probably pointless to continue. Have a good one.

So blatantly erroneous misrepresenting the fact that the last pleading is opposition to a motion to dismiss and the court is refusing to make a decision. http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf That is denial of access to a court. Normal when challenging government.
 
ever hear of the act of 1871?. Congress has been a scam since then.

The fact that they are not acting on the many constitutional or law violations of trump and allowing the environmental damages is a government destruction of unalienable rights.

Sovereign Citizen Alert
 
Hmm, not a word about congress failing to count applications for an Article V convention. Indicating you have no interest in the unlawfulness of congress.

CHRIS A BROWN, have you filed your UCC-1 STATEMENT yet?
 
So blatantly erroneous misrepresenting the fact that the last pleading is opposition to a motion to dismiss and the court is refusing to make a decision. http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf That is denial of access to a court. Normal when challenging government.

According to this document, which is an opinion piece by one man, the suits were dismissed for lack of standing.

The 35 states that have asked, over the last 100 years, for a convention most likely would have standing to bring this suit. Have any of them? If not have you considered why? Could it possibly be because there's nothing there?
 
Hmm, not a word about congress failing to count applications for an Article V convention. Indicating you have no interest in the unlawfulness of congress. This factor puts your opinions in question and classrooms do not teach about the act of 1871 at all and you've already admitted your experience does not include knowledge of the act of 1871.

This was assembled under the direction of Daniel Sheehan a constitutional scholar.

“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.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Our founding fathers wrote the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence as protection for our inalienable rights as free people, yet since 1871 our rights have been systematically stripped away. And in its place, an illusion of freedom was created by those in power in order to avoid civil unrest while keeping us all living in servitude to a militaristic corporation. Unfortunately the truth shows us that we have in fact surrendered our freedom willingly through our silence and ignorance. Once a symbol of freedom and hope, the Constitution has been disregarded by a government who have replaced the Republic with a democracy. Most people are unaware of this because they simply do not know the truth.
To understand what happened to America, we must go back to the year 1871 and relearn what was never taught to us in school.
THE ACT OF 1871
On February 21, 1871, the Forty-First Congress–also known as the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62–passed the Act of 1871: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” Without constitutional authority, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is literally a piece of land that extends out for only 10 miles. But why?
After the Civil War our nation was essentially bankrupt, and America was very vulnerable to European interests. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a strategic maneuver created by the international bankers to gain a stronghold on America. Knowing that the nation was in financial trouble, Congress made a deal with the Rothschild’s of London thereby incurring a debt. As we know banks do not lend money unless it is in their best interest, so the Crown of London created way to gain control of the United States. Thus the Act of 1871 was passed, and THE UNITED STATES corporation was born.
Note the capitalization; this is very important. Now owned by foreign interests, this corporation obliterated the original version of the Constitution with the Act of 1871. Our beloved Constitution was defaced as the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of”. The original Constitution was written in this manner: “The Constitution for the united states of America” is now changed to: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”... a corporate constitution. This constitution operates in an economic capacity, and has been used as a tool to fool the People into thinking that it is the same Constitution created by our Founding Fathers. The capitalization of names on legal documents may seem minor, yet have major impacts on each generation born in this country. What the Congress did was create a constitution for the corporate government of the District of Columbia, and not that of America. This corporate constitution serves outside of the original Constitution. It does not benefit the Republic nor its people, yet serves only to benefit the corporation. Rather than having inalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we now have ‘privileges’.​
Your credibility becomes questionable because you bring this all up now in light of Trump, and not before under Obama. You're nothing but a Trump hater looking for an excuse to mobilize something against him. Saving the Republic is just a cover story.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
According to this document, which is an opinion piece by one man, the suits were dismissed for lack of standing.

The 35 states that have asked, over the last 100 years, for a convention most likely would have standing to bring this suit. Have any of them? If not have you considered why? Could it possibly be because there's nothing there?

Can you explain why the gold fringed flag flies in courts and government offices in all states and cannot be removed despite the fact that it is not described in Title 4 of US code?
 
Your credibility becomes questionable because you bring this all up now in light of Trump, and not before under Obama. You're nothing but a Trump hater looking for an excuse to mobilize something against him. Saving the Republic is just a cover story.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I've been bringing this up since about 2005. Where have you been?
 
Can you explain why the gold fringed flag flies in courts and government offices in all states and cannot be removed despite the fact that it is not described in Title 4 of US code?

Because judges like gold fringed flags.

What you're peddling is utter nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the US code that renders any significance to gold trim on a US Flag. It is decorative, nothing more.
 
Because judges like gold fringed flags.

What you're peddling is utter nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the US code that renders any significance to gold trim on a US Flag. It is decorative, nothing more.

Cognitive distortions of all or nothing thinking generally come from agents.

Exactly, its is not mentioned, so sincere and informed Americans should not accept it when it is linked to a military flag. But that might be okay with you.
 
Cognitive distortions of all or nothing thinking generally come from agents.

Exactly, its is not mentioned, so sincere and informed Americans should not accept it when it is linked to a military flag. But that might be okay with you.

Agent? Well I did have a dyed in the wool, for real socialist over for drinks Friday night so you might have something there. Though I did disagree with just about everything she said.

So here’s the thing. If something isn’t defined in law you don’t get to make up a definition. If you want to prove that a fringed flag is a sign of a Admiralty Court and flying it over a court house indicates martial law you need to point to laws that actually say that. If you can’t do that as we say in the Bronx “ya got nuthin.”

So it’s a beautiful Sunday morning in my part of the world and my pals Ivan and Vlad and their wives Yulia and Katerina are coming over for a bbq so I need to go prep my reindeer steaks and ice the vodka. You might do the same Comrade Brown the fresh air might clear away those cobwebs.
 
If something isn’t defined in law you don’t get to make up a definition.

Written like a true infiltrator mis representing the facts of the 9th Amendment. The people can define whatever constitutional intent serves their safety, security and happiness. You misrepresent that "I" alone might try and do this. I propose that a majority do this, but you do not want that, so ignore the law.

Agent? Well I did have a dyed in the wool, for real socialist over for drinks Friday night so you might have something there.

If you drink spirits, your spirit is dulled therefore your opinions are automatically upon inferior subjects with inferior perspective.
 
Written like a true infiltrator mis representing the facts of the 9th Amendment. The people can define whatever constitutional intent serves their safety, security and happiness. You misrepresent that "I" alone might try and do this. I propose that a majority do this, but you do not want that, so ignore the law.


If you drink spirits, your spirit is dulled therefore your opinions are automatically upon inferior subjects with inferior perspective.


I think you are misrepresenting the ninth amendment, The Ninth Amendment as designed to prevent the expansion of federal power seemingly implied by the listing of prohibitions within the Bill of Rights. In other words, if the rights were not expressly prohibited from government infringement then those rights not list were at the mercy of the federal government. This is what the Ninth Amendment was to prevent. It is up to the PEOPLE to define those "certain rights" retained by the PEOPLE, not the person.
 
I think you are misrepresenting the ninth amendment, The Ninth Amendment as designed to prevent the expansion of federal power seemingly implied by the listing of prohibitions within the Bill of Rights. In other words, if the rights were not expressly prohibited from government infringement then those rights not list were at the mercy of the federal government. This is what the Ninth Amendment was to prevent. It is up to the PEOPLE to define those "certain rights" retained by the PEOPLE, not the person.

I wrote the people define the rights not the person.

Here is the origins of it, it is called the "reserved rights" doctrine.

~~~~~Prior to 1871 the United States participated in a treaty making process with the First Nations because this technique was the obvious "legal" answer to westward expansion. Treaties, as defined by the Supreme Court did not incorporate a "grant of rights to Indians, but a grant of rights from them." Originally treaties were contracts between sovereign nations and accordingly were "the supreme law of the land." If Wasichu wasn't smart enough to think of everything he wanted and get same into the relevant treaty then "any right not expressly extinguished by a treaty...is reserved to the tribe." This is known as the "reserved rights doctrine." (Pevar)
As time, disease, despair, genocidal activity, public opinion and overwhelming superiority in terms of combatant bodies took their toll, the need for defining the First Nations as sovereign passed. "It was at this point that an effort to reconcile official terminology with the semantics of the general public began to emerge" and the "word 'tribe' completely [displaced] the word 'nation' in the legal discourse [which] lead to congressional termination of treaty-making with Indians in 1871." (Churchill) The First Nations:

"...at one time had had enough power to make a favorable cession of lands a diplomatic triumph for the United States. But from the early nineteenth century on, perceptive men had seen the incongruity of treating Indian tribes as equals, and as demands for reform in Indian affairs grew during and immediately after the Civil War, the treaty system came under increasing attack." (Prucha)~~~~

It is the tool for societal adaptation. We do not survive if we do not use it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom