Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule

[Richard_Parker]

One time I was riding the bus. A man was sitting in front of me by himself next to a window. He was ranting about the relationship between surgical procedures and astrology. At a stop, another man got on and sat down next to him. I grimaced as the window man turned to him and began to explain this entire theory of how powerful political figures got all the best astrologically-aligned surgical timeslots.

And then…the second man turned to the first and started telling him how Dick Cheney had kidnapped him and inserted top secret DNA strands into his anus.

And I felt all was right with the world.

[Procrustus]

What’s the debate here? Can anyone fugure it out? Is the OP for or against “the rule of law” and what dipoles that even mean?

[Josf]

Human Action wrote:

A strong national government is in no way less conducive to the rule of law than strong state governments are.

That is the position stated by the criminal Federalists who were known as frauds when they perpetrated that fraud they called a Constitutional Convention.

So the division here is:

1. Rule of Law represented by those Called Antis during the time between 1776 and up to the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party whereupon the label Anti-Federalist was no longer the political currency then in use generally. Inclusive in this group are those currently working toward spreading the information uncovered by those who were called Antis.

2. Criminal Rule represented by those who falsely called themselves the Federalist Party, as those members volunteered to join that group in order to establish an involuntary association to replace the voluntary federation that existed between 1776and 1789. Inclusive in this group are those whose words add validity, or credit, to the idea that an involuntary association is a form of Rule of Law; which it is demonstrably not a form of Rule of Law.

The first move from voluntary government of the people, by the people, and for the people was the move from basing funding on land mass to the funding method of basing proportion of funding on individual people capable of producing anything worth stealing.

I have to get to work at this point, so my part in this Debate is postponed.

[Czarcasm]

Before you go, would you mind answering the question posed in post #26?

[Human_Action]

@Josf

Human Action wrote:
That is the position stated by the criminal Federalists who were known as frauds when they perpetrated that fraud they called a Constitutional Convention.

How was it a fraud?

@Josf

So the division here is:

1. Rule of Law represented by those Called Antis during the time between 1776 and up to the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party whereupon the label Anti-Federalist was no longer the political currency then in use generally. Inclusive in this group are those currently working toward spreading the information uncovered by those who were called Antis.

The rule of the law is a) older than the anti-Federalists, b) exists in places other than the United States, and c) is a damn sight better now than it was in 1776.

@Josf

2. Criminal Rule represented by those who falsely called themselves the Federalist Party, as those members volunteered to join that group in order to establish an involuntary association to replace the voluntary federation that existed between 1776and 1789. Inclusive in this group are those whose words add validity, or credit, to the idea that an involuntary association is a form of Rule of Law; which it is demonstrably not a form of Rule of Law.

The Constitution was passed by the Continental Congress. It was no more or less voluntary than any other act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation. Do you think that every act of Congress was unanimous?

@Josf

The first move from voluntary government of the people, by the people, and for the people was the move from basing funding on land mass to the funding method of basing proportion of funding on individual people capable of producing anything worth stealing.

I have to get to work at this point, so my part in this Debate is postponed.

Funding based on land mass is a stupid idea, and still results in funding coming from individual people.

[DrCube]

Josf, can you describe in one sentence what the topic of this debate is? Can you articulate the point? Do you realize the poster you quoted was actually spouting gibberish in order to make fun of (or rather, draw your attention to) the incomprehensible gibberish you are posting in this thread?

I’m not making any accusations, but I’m not entirely convinced you are human. You sound like a robot attempting to write vaguely in the style and vocabulary of a typical GD poster, but without the form, structure or coherence. Is this what you’re going for?

I’m not trying to flame you, man, because I still have hope that you’re just a misguided human who needs some help. Don’t try and be flowery or grand here. Just write simply, clearly, and use as few words as possible. Because we’re 33 posts into this thread and I can only guess that it has something to do with Federalists and/or the Constitutional Convention. I don’t know what the question is nor what side you’re on.

[Grey]

Let me try:

The US system of government, as laid out in the constitution, is based on fraudulent actions taken by the Federalists and so is illegitimate.

I mean it lacks incoherence or walls of text but you know how it goes.

[Trinopus]

@iiandyiiii

. . . We exist as a resonance cascade. The quantum matrix is aglow with bio-feedback. Consciousness consists of a resonance cascade of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a redefining of the ethereal. . . .

You have a promising future in astrology!

[Procrustus]

@Grey

Let me try:

The US system of government, as laid out in the constitution, is based on fraudulent actions taken by the Federalists and so is illegitimate.

I mean it lacks incoherence or walls of text but you know how it goes.

That could be it. But, if that’s his beef, what’s the point? Assuming he’s right, I don’t have a clue what he intends to do about it. How many countries have “legitimate” governments? Most came to power through war or some other sort of questionable actions. “Legitimate” or not, it’s what we got.

[iiandyiiii]

@Trinopus

You have a promising future in astrology!

Trinopus, throughout history, humans have been interacting with the galaxy via four-dimensional superstructures. We are in the midst of a non-local unfolding of health that will open up the stratosphere itself. Reality has always been beaming with adventurers whose brains are baptized in joy.

[Bryan_Ekers]

It all makes perfect sense. Justhink about it.

[Josf]

2sense counter claims:

They weren’t falsely called the “Antis”. The terms were coined before 1787 when those who supported strengthening the federal Congress were called “federalists” and those who opposed it were called “anti-federalists”. It’s not a description of their opposing philosophies where, yes, the antifederalists did prefer a system more federal than the federalists, but rather describes their relationship with the central government under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

That is counter to this:

“There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”

A baseless counter claim (baseless since it is offered as opinion only) is counter to a well established fact offered reasonably by the author of the quote above, but that well stated matter of fact is one of many testimonies offering the facts that matter on this specific topic.

The original use of the terms dividing two groups as so called Federalist and so called Antis is offered in the public access record, including the words quoted above, leading to the Federalist Party, which included George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams.

The Federalist Party was behind the fraud that became known as the Constitutional Convention. The frauds were called out during the fraudulent Constitutional Convention, leading to the formation of people, such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, and the Sixth President of The United States of America in Congress Assembled: Richard Henry Lee, to oppose the Nationalization/Consolidation of the existing voluntary federation. The opposition to the Nationalists, who were working to remove the voluntary federal agreement, were called Antis because they were against the false federalists.

That is a well established fact, offered in the quote above, and a counter-claim is offered by a forum member here and now. The end of federation with the British is explained well enough by John Adams when John Adams was still working for the federal cause. A little bit federal is like a little bit pregnant, or a little bit dead.

2sense counter claims:
“Not all Federalists were nationalists let alone monarchists. Many hoped to strengthen the government under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union without basing a government on the People themselves. But such efforts appeared doomed given the unanimous ratification requirement and so they supported the Constitution as the best possible reform, illegal though it may have been. Certainly there were plenty who were committed to limiting the power of the states, particularly the power of states to take the side of debtors, and even some who wanted a return to the monarchy. But not all.”

Federalists (true by the meaning of the word) included Patrick Henry and George Mason, they were called Antis. There are many examples of those who switched sides like Sam Adams who was for the federal (voluntary) idea (Rule of Law) and then he switched sides during the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion. John Adams, similarly, was for the federal (voluntary Rule of Law) idea during the formation of the actual federation between 1776 and 1787, when speaking along those lines, such as the quote already offered, but his true color was evident in other writings during that period, and decidedly on the side of Criminal Rule was John Adams when he led the actions that are recorded as The Alien and Sedition Acts. Those same Criminal Orders (to be obeyed without question) were the same actions that led another individual named James Madison to abandon the false federal Party and join the so called Antis with his participation in the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party and such actions as those recorded in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

When people form federation they do so without resort to criminal deception. The use of criminal deception effectively removes Rule of Law from the equation; and that is a well established fact of law, established by all competitive processes whereby deception is not the rule, not the exception, not a part of law. Where deception is the rule, not the exception, is clearly where those championing said deception are perpetrating fraud, Some criminals perpetrate fraud as mere fraud, having no intention to cover up their fraud with false claims of legality, while other criminals have learned how powerful their fraud can be when their fraud is perpetrated under the color of law. That is not new.

“A good point. The United States under the Articles doesn’t get the credit they deserve. They successfully made alliances in Europe and defeated the greatest maritime power of the age. After the war they were able to organize the national domain via the famous Northwest Ordinance. If the Constitution had failed to be drafted or ratified the states might well have continued successfully for who knows how long? The US might not be the world empire of today but those Americans might well have been freer and happier. And more of those we went on to conquer might have been thankful as well. Or not. We don’t know.”

A source of information pertinent to the topic of discussion is useful at this point.

Here:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35

In this corrupt and lawless manner, Congress, instead of taking care to preserve the trial by jury, so far as they might, by providing for the appointment of legal juries incomparably the most important of all our judicial tribunals, and the only ones on which the least reliance can be placed for the preservation of liberty have given the selection of them over entirely to the control of an indefinite number of state legislatures, and thus authorized each state legislature to adapt the juries of the United States to the maintenance of any and every system of tyranny that may prevail in such state.

Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hand of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States.

There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.

Note the words written into the Articles of Confederation here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=127

“Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.”

When the Criminal Federalists took over they took steps to supposedly raise themselves above the laws they claim to be their source of authority. That is typically called treason, or usurpation, or merely fraud, or malfeasance, or tyranny, or despotism, or any label that accurately accounts for the fact that the criminals make the laws they enforce on other people while they afford themselves the power to do whatever they want whenever they want with impunity. The criminal Federalist Party was accused of working to get rid of trial by jury.

Here, in the formation of the true federation, are words offering pertinent information:

On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.”

Elliot’s Debates Volume I page 44 (page 60 in pdf)

[Josf]

Human Action asks:

“How was it a fraud?”

Examples of competitive answers to the question include:

http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm

With this view a convention was first proposed by Virginia, and finally recommended by Congress for the different states to appoint deputies to meet in convention, “for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation, so as to make them adequate to the exigencies of the union.” This recommendation the legislatures of twelve states complied with so hastily as not to consult their constituents on the subject; and though the different legislatures had no authority from their constituents for the purpose they probably apprehended the necessity would justify the measure; and none of them extended their ideas at that time further than “revising and amending the present articles of confederation.” Pennsylvania by the act appointing deputies expressly confined their powers to this object; and though it is probable that some of the members of the assembly of this state had at that time in contemplation to annihilate the present confederation, as well as the constitution of Pennsylvania, yet the plan was not sufficiently matured to communicate it to the public…

Also:

The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

And:

But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.

Those last 2 are from Luther Martin a member of the Con Con.

Human Action claims:
“The rule of the law is a) older than the anti-Federalists, b) exists in places other than the United States, and c) is a damn sight better now than it was in 1776.”

Here is a modern claim from the opposition:

Argus tell us: How the FBI solves its cases

“Occasionally an agent subpoenas a document, and if things get boring a couple of honkies with the collars of their topcoats turned up and wearing snap-brimmed fedoras and imitation Porsche sunglasses corner a witness and scare the living shit out of him. But they don’t engage in detective work. They are merely getting things set up to make a deal.

When the Criminals took over they wasted no time in enacting their Judiciary Act so as to make good their promise to themselves that they would have the means by which they can extract all wealth from anyone who dared to make it.

That was done before the Bill of Rights managed to be printed into the official record.

The Constitution of 1787 is written in fraudulent legalese. The criminals who took over made slavery legal in every single State in the former federation, thereby destroying all the work already done to enforce moral law against such barbarity, including the already outlawed criminal slave trade in Rhode Island here:

http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_15.php

The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

Further information offered by Human Action:

The Constitution was passed by the Continental Congress. It was no more or less voluntary than any other act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation. Do you think that every act of Congress was unanimous?

Unanimity of the whole country is exemplified in Trial by Jury according to the common law, as experience provides those who care to know. The idea is “trial by the country” and that is the means by which consent is offered when orders are written by those who are hired to protect and serve the people. In order to punish anyone there is a requirement of unanimity; and that means, in demonstrated fact, that any individual can nullify any effort to punish anyone; all it takes is one jurist (one representative of the whole country) to acquit someone accused of wrongdoing.

The point of this Topic includes the idea that it might be a good idea to hold to an accurate accounting those people, those times, and those places whereby criminals gain criminal power posing as the law. In Elliot’s debates, for example, there was the time when it was written into the Articles of Confederation the process by which the federal government was funded according to the land mass of the states.

Here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

Slave traders in the North and South were very powerful people due to the profits they managed to accumulate by their use of that criminal process. Those slave traders infested the early formation of the federation, that is clearly evident, as explained by Thomas Jefferson when he recorded notes on the Debates during the formation of the federation, and the subsequent Consolidation.

Added to the slave traders infesting the Rule of Law effort were the frauds who gain power through a process known euphemistically as central banking.

The central bankers and the slave traders infesting the early formation of the federation were opposed by the actual proponents of Rule of Law. Knowing who was on which side was important then as now. Those demanding blind obedience to any order, without question, confess which side they are on, while those demanding Rule of Law unanimously credit trial by jury as the palladium of Liberty, in the official record. Criminals do not openly claim that they are criminals; fraud does not work that way in point of fact.

Further information offered by Human Action:

Funding based on land mass is a stupid idea, and still results in funding coming from individual people.

Here is information that may explain why something that appears to be “stupid” is merely a matter of well established fact:
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/richard-henry-lee/

The sale of land was the primary source of revenue to repay the war debt.

The larger States require more expenses due to a larger area required for defense. Cut the State in half and now there are 2 votes in the federation, and roughly the same amount of costs paid by those people in each State. Put 2 small States together, and now where there were two there is now 1 State commanding only 1 vote, and the State has to pay as much as the people in 2 States combined. The thinking was thought at a time when the thinkers were dealing with the issue of Rule of Law, so the idea that Slavery was “legal” was a cartoon, and people knew this at the time. So the idea claimed to be “stupid” by this forum member is an idea that solved many problems including the controversial slavery issue. That same controversial slavery issue returned to rear that ugly head when the next wave of congressmen threw out the existing method of proportioning costs per State, and threw in the whole can of worms involving white men gaining profits from subsidized slave trading; causing distortions in the labor market, causing free men to compete with legalized, corporate, slave plantations. That same problem exists today as slave labor is used to drive out independent producers.

Stupid compares competitively to ignorance. One is a choice to remain ignorant.

That is explained well here:
http://anonpress.org/spencer/

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

[tomndebb]

@Josf

My part in this Great Debate is offered here and now in the form of an intention to discuss the obvious membership of one side known as the Federalist Party, which are knowable as the criminals, and the obvious other side, which were falsely called the Antis,

I can back up my viewpoint in great detail, and my hope is to avoid any character assassination aimed at me personally by those who exemplify their side.

This thread has been open for more than a day and you have not come close to explaining why you cast the Federalists as “the criminals” (or even what you mean by the term), or why you claim that there is a falsehood in declaring “Anti-Fedaralists” as “antis.”

You express a specific desire to not having the thread turn into a personal attack, yet your posts dance around the topic without ever addressing it.

I do not want this thread to turn into a personal attack, either, so I am giving you a few hours to post a coherent explanation of what you mean. Define your terms; explain your logic; set forth a thesis. If no coherent debate emerges in a while, I am going to close the thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[Josf]

MODERATOR,

Already offered:

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

That explains the difference between the true federalists and those who called themselves Federalists.

If you feel the need to close the thread, then you need no more inspiration to do so than your feelings. I won’t waste another minute of my time on this forum if this thread is closed for any reason whatsoever.

You allow flame starters to infect this thread and then you threaten to close it because you blame me for failing to measure up to your standards?

[tomndebb]

You know, if you simply wished to debate whether the Federalist or Anti-Federalists had the better arguments to accept or reject the Constitution, you could have done soin a more straightforward manner than nattering on about “criminals” or posing Conspiracy Theories that imply that some sort of Federalist cabal survives to this day.
(And posting blatant errors such as the claim that Rhode Island was compelled to accept slavery within its borders will not help you persuade anyone of your position.)

[Procrustus]

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy.

What makes you think this? Why is your “national” government better (or are you saying worse) than what you call a “league or confederacy.” And, to repeat my earlier questions, assuming you’re right, what do you propose we do about it?

[Bryan_Ekers]

So is Canada (a constitutional monarchy with a federal government and numerous provincial governments) more federalist or less federalist than the United States (a constitutional republic with a federal government and numerous state governments)? And since the capitalization of the term seems to be significant, is Canada more Federalist or less Federalist than the United States?

Basically, fill in this chart:

                    CANADA   UNITED
                             STATES
                   ┌───────┬───────┐
federalist         │       │       │
rating (1-10)      │       │       │
                   ├───────┼───────┤
Federalist         │       │       │
rating (1-10)      │       │       │
                   └───────┴───────┘

And then perhaps we’ll have a better understanding of your position.

[UltraVires]

Lemme try:

During the ratification debates between the federalists and the anti-federalists, the anti-federalists were right. In fact, they should not have been called anti-federalists. It was wrong and illegal to completely scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace that document with our current Constitution.

It would have been better had we listened to the Anti-Federalists.
…OP, does that accurately state your position? Please use simple words; talk to me like a 10 year old who just studied the ratification debates in social studies class.

[Czarcasm]

@UltraVires

Lemme try:

During the ratification debates between the federalists and the anti-federalists, the anti-federalists were right. In fact, they should not have been called anti-federalists. It was wrong and illegal to completely scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace that document with our current Constitution.

It would have been better had we listened to the Anti-Federalists.
…OP, does that accurately state your position? Please use simple words; talk to me like a 10 year old who just studied the ratification debates in social studies class.

I think he’s going just a bit further than that, considering he’s quoting from Spooner in a previous post:

There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.

His position seems to be that the “wrong” side somehow won the political battle illegitimately, therefore the current government(and the court system therein) is today illegitimate.
Is this correct?