What exactly was the fraud? The representatives who were “lured” to the convention were the same representatives who drafted the document that was then ratified by individual state legislatures.
You seem to argue that those who sought a more centralized government were criminals, implying that they must have stolen the the drafting convention and/or the ratification process. This, of course, ignores the facts: the topic was thoroughly and vigorously discussed at the time; the opponents succeeded in having their most serious objections addressed in a Bill of Rights; and that rather than accounts of the debate being suppressed, the original writings by both sides have been preserved, kept freely available for all to study, and subjected to 225 years of research and analysis.
“By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place.”
That sentence is a sound bite. The workings of deception to those who are deceived may appear to be too complicated and gibberish sounding.
The initial fraud was exposed by many people, some already quoted, and here again is further testimony offered and published after the gag order was lifted:
Those who became known as Antis included those who were led into a room under the false claim that representatives were going to amend the existing federation.
If you, or anyone else, has a counter-claim that is counter to those so called Antis, such as Martin Luther above, then your word is in opposition to their word.
The resolution did not itself purport to ratify the Constitution, but simply to recognise that the States had done so.
All that Congress did was forward the Constitution to the States for ratification, and then receive back the necessary number of ratifications to bring it into force. Under the terms of Article VII, Congress’ consent was not necessary to bring the Constitution into force (nor could Congress have blocked it).
The Congress under the Articles of Confederation did not have any role in the ratification process, other than the administrative role of forwarding it for ratification, and then duly noting that the necessary number of states had done so. In other words, if Congress had done nothing, the Constitution still would have come into force. Noting that the number of states necessary under Article VII had ratified is not the same as itself ratifying.
The Congress then took the necessary administrative steps of fixing the dates for the appointment of electors, for the meetings of the electors; and for the reception of the votes of the electors for the president.
in other words, by the time of this resolution being passed, the Constitution was in force. No action was needed by the Congress to bring it into force (and conversely, the Congress could not take any action to block it).
If you disagree with this analysis, could you point out the provisions of the Constitution which gave the Congress under the Articles of Confederation any role in the ratification process for the Constitution?
If your point is such that Debate resulted in compromise, then how do you measure said compromise?
Sure the Bill of Rights was officially said to amend the so called Constitution of 1787 (a fraudulent document), but that was after the enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
If someone were to listen to and understand the situation explained by Leonard Richards in the following link, then it might occur to someone to note a division along Rule of law versus Criminal Rule that I can offer in my own words to add to the words already offered in the links provided earlier and again now.
The Trial by Jury process was unanimously declared as law in America when the original federation (not the fraudulently enacted nation state) and there are examples of such proceedings as such:
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE, 1 U.S. 35 (1778)
And:
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Both are examples of due process (Rule of Law) before the Judiciary Act of 1789.
From the 1788 case:
“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
So the compromise is that you (the criminals) get to operate your courts while we the defenders also operate our courts?
The criminal British operated a type of court before, during, and after the criminal British perpetrated the War of Aggression that inspired the formation of a voluntary defensive federation. Those courts were called by various names including Equity, Exchequer, Chancery, Admiralty, and Maritime Courts. Those different types of courts were not courts that worked according to the common law process explained in various versions of Bills of Rights. Those courts were debt collection courts and those accused of failing to pay a debt were assumed to be guilty of a crime and punishment was determined by a judge in any case. The presumed to be guilty debtor was summarily punished for the supposed crime of failing to pay the supposed debt. Fact and law was commanded by an individual judge. That is a form of Criminal Rule which is divided from the Revolutionary idea of Rule of Law.
So the Debate led to compromise. Common law trial by jury would be offered along side those courts that were authorized into force by the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. The problem of such a nefarious arrangement is explained by many people who Debated, but lost their power to the “winners” of the Debates, despite loosing their power they did not stop offering common law trial by jury remedy, and despite “loosing” Debates they did not stop offering warnings as to what happens when the frauds employ their legal fictions in the form of these other types of courts.
The volunteers who took up arms against the British criminals perpetrating the crime of War of Aggression also volunteered for jury duty and common law worked at least in those examples just linked. Who, during the Revolutionary War period, was subject to British Run Admiralty Debt Collection type courts? The answer may be found in actual remaining court cases somewhere; but the point is that the enemy was clearly known to be the British and their insistence upon their subjects paying debts to said British was understood to be a fraudulent claim of authority.
The explanation offered in Leonard Richards lecture (linked again above) explains in part how the legal fiction debt collection process worked on people in Massachusetts.
So how did the debt collecting courts change from British (criminal) Rule to Massachusetts (criminal) Rule almost seamlessly? The details of how it was done include those details explained by Leonard Richards.
So the compromise spoken of can be illustrated as someone might compare all those words in the Judiciary Act, read them all, try to understand the meaning of all those words, and then compare all those words to the Bill of Rights.
Then compare the words in the Articles of Confederation explaining the extent of the court powers of the federation when it was a federation based upon voluntary association. The voluntary association meaning is offered by John Adams again:
So there are people who invest everything they had into getting the British criminal aggressors driven out of the country, such as Luke Day, Daniel Shays, and thousands of others in Massachusetts, and they return to home after the British criminals retreat and surrender, and they return to economic business to find that there is no Gold in circulation. That is part of the deception if you care to know, as the process is known as Gresham’s Law. That may be off topic. Those veterans of the Revolutionary War find aggressors at home seeking to imprison people for failing to pay a debt. People are hauled off to a so called court. How does that stack up to this:
“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
Again: how does the Judiciary Act of 1789 compared to the Bill of Rights? Are the two processes the same thing? Is one process any easier to understand, to follow, to employ, compared to the other one? Who benefits from one or the other?
More to the point is to point out how does anyone accuse any one of the so called authorities of any wrongdoing, such as breaking the peace? What is the process by which criminals in office are accounted for and their power is removed?
If there is no remedy offered then the standard response is armed rebellion as the debt collectors (so called) march into town to enforce what they consider to be a debt that must be paid without question.
Words are published here:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
How does that compare to the Declaration of Independence?
Is the compromise you speak about such that so long as a criminals go unaccounted for they will continue to perpetrate any crime they wish upon anyone, and therefore the compromise is to look the other way?
The criminals can collect their debts so long as the victims fail to understand that they have at their disposal a remedy?
The criminal British routine of extracting wealth through fraudulent counterfeit money printing and war of aggression for profit can be copied in America and used by the “government” agents who know how to employ that routine so long as those same government agents publish a Bill of Rights that they ignore even before the amendments are added to the fraudulent Constitution of 1787?
That is a compromise?
The battle between Rule of Law on one side (division) and criminals enslaving people on the other side can be called a compromise when the criminals get their way?
So, if that is so, the idea is to accept the legitimacy of the original “compromise” during the publishing of the Declaration of Independence; when slave traders got their way and the words publicly accounting slavery as a crime was removed from the document? Is that an example of a perfectly acceptable compromise, so long as we are white males?
Congress forwarded the Constitution for ratification, certified the ratification, and passed a resolution that amounted to “Everything looks fine, we’re ready to go.” How can this be the start of an “involuntary union”, when Congress - not just the Federalists, not just the Convention delegates, not just the state Conventions and legislatures - responded to the new Constitution in this way? This is my point.
Again you use the terms “fraudulent” and “criminal.” I don’t wish to bog down this discussion getting into arguments about the definitions of words, so I’ll explain my point one last time, and then shut up.
There was no fraud, there was no crime.
Delegates from each state met to amend the Articles of Confederation. After a free and open debate --as documented in the very documents you keep citing – they proposed a radically different structure, and the document which outlined this new structure was then submitted to the states for ratification.
After more free and open debate, the new structure, and the document which outlined it, were ratified by all the states. Recognizing there were points that needed to be ensured in writing, the states then debated and ratified a number of amendments, which continues to take place today.
No fraud. The Constitution was submitted and openly debated.
No crime. The ratification process was duly followed.
It appears that the point of this thread is that,
[ul]
[li]a group of European immigrants to North America, having stolen land from the indigenous people in order to set up a European style society,[/li][li]and having engaged in a war of treason to separate from their government in order to establish a separate government,[/li][li]then, finding that their charter was not sufficient to their needs, convened a meeting to consider changes to that charter which resulted in the proposal for a new charter,[/li][li]however, notwithstanding the theft and treason that preceded the desire for changes to the existing charter, since the proposed new charter was not the purpose for which the meeting was convened, the proposed new charter is “criminal.”[/li][/ul]
The delegates to that convention, did overstep their actual instructions, proposing a new charter. Of course, the new charter was then debated publicly throughout the entire nation resulting in the majority of voting citizens agreeing to the proposed new charter, rendering declarations of fraud or “criminality” as so much bushwa.
Because the delegates to the convention overstepped their initial instructions, and ignoring the fact that the electorate actually agreed to the proposed change in charter after public debate, (and pretending that the initial land theft and the treasonous separation never occurred), the OP declares that the entire government and all its actions are “criminal” and, therefore, all laws legislated under the new charter for the past 228 years are invalid.
(There is the sidebar, of course, that the proposed change in charter was the result of a “Conspiracy.” This despite an utter lack of evidence that that any “conspirators” managed to arrange for the twelve states who sent delegates to send specific delegates who would seek to overthrow the Articles of Confederation–or even without any proposed method by which such a “Conspiracy” was to be managed.)
The divisions exist because the criminals rule in time and place.
When criminals rule in time and place those criminals create the division as people are then divided into criminals and victims.
That division creates a demand for an effective defense against the criminals who rule with criminal rule.
Those who care to know, find out how criminals rule.
The point of this thread already stated is to point out how the American experience was, and is, a useful example of the division along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
Well stated by John Adams during the writing of a Declaration of Independence: those who are federated are part of a voluntary association.
That explanation of Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule is expressed in a Declaration of Independence, and those words offer (anyone caring to debate the topic) a clearly expressed division caused by the criminal British, and if anyone has any doubts about the criminality of the criminal British Rulers, then a Declaration of Independence offers the official American Federal Statute #1 detailing the crimes perpetrated by the criminal British. But, and this is part of the already working Topic, why did someone (or some group) strike out the “reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa” from the Declaration of Independence, even while the federal officers at the time outlawed the criminal slave trade in the new federation?
So…if anyone has any doubts as to why American RULE suffered division within, division that continued along the same or similar lines, as warned by those against the Consolidation effort, leading into Civil War, then the words of Thomas Jefferson explain (for those who care to know) the criminal British rulers crimes known as slavery, written in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, and then added to the crimes perpetrated by the criminal British there are words that explain how the criminals in the North and South of America were guilty of the same crimes called slavery. Why was Thomas Jefferson calling a spade a spade when The British perpetrated the crime of slavery, but when people in the North and South perpetrated the same crime, the wording chosen is less culpable?
Those who are divided right now are divided for similar reasons; or (and this is the point of the debate in part) other reasons now divide people along the lines of Rule of Law (voluntary association effectively preventing injury done to innocent people by guilt criminals) and Criminal Rule where criminals rule by criminal deceit, criminal threat of aggressive violence, and criminal aggressive violence.
It is not difficult to understand when the criminals start ruling as the criminals, since as a rule, not an exception, criminals don’t follow their own laws that they promised to follow during their fraudulent campaigns to gain power, and once in power, they enforce obedience without question from their subjects. Criminals create master/slave associations out of what occurs naturally among people, which are voluntary associations.
Federal association is association by the consent of those federally associated and the moment a member begins attacking other members is the moment the association is no longer federal. A master/slave, criminal/victim, despot/subject, association never existed among free people in liberty, the moment criminals begin perpetrating crimes is the moment the relationship is no longer federal, no longer mutually defensive.
The abuses suffered by slaves at the hands of slave masters is often suffered too long, and then it is often too late for peaceful defense once the slaves finally, too late, set themselves free, which is the meaning offered in the Declaration of Independence.
A return to a federal association is often cause for yet another, and yet another, attempt by criminals to divide and conquer the free people federated for mutual defense against criminal rule as criminals work their trade of criminal deception (known as fraud and libel), criminal threat of criminal violence (known as extortion, malfeasance, breaking the peace, treason, etc.), and criminal aggressive violence including War of Aggression.
If someone feels the need to redefine the intended meaning of this topic, in their own choice words, then they are by their will, redefining an existing meaning that is already offered, and they are, in that way, dividing an existing topic into another topic of their own construction.
As the Articles of Confederation existed as a federal statute, written in plain English, including the words 'perpetual union," those words were then discarded, just like this OP, and a new construction of new words were put in place.
Where the original intent is open, honest, free discussion in Liberty, in place was placed dictatorial powers commanded by dictators upon their targeted subjects.
If that is not seen, then the failure to see it clearly accounts for something called deception.
Deception is not deception without people who are deceived.
In the words of John Adams: “we had always been independent of them,” applies to free people in Liberty in relation to those who seek to enslave free people in Liberty by any means.
Closing the thread because the Moderator constructs his (or her) different version of the meaning of the OP, so as to “justify” closing it, is as welcome to me as any other reason for me to keep looking for free people in Liberty where they speak their minds freely and without twisting words into counterfeit versions of the original.
Divisions = Where once people were honest and helpful in mutual defense a division occurs when some people resort to deception as a rule.
Divisions along… = The word “along” is chosen to connect the word division to the specific divisions relevant to the Topic
Divisions along Rule of Law… = Free people defended mutually in Liberty are still divided but they are divided along many competitive paths where no one infringes upon anyone else without offering remedy of some kind in cases where infringement may accidentally occur.
Divisions along Rule of law versus… = The words “versus” is chosen to align Rule of Law in opposition to what opposed Rule of Law.
Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule = Criminals issue criminal orders as a rule, and as a rule those criminal orders must be obeyed without question, and that type of Rule is directly opposing Rule of Law whereby people are voluntarily federated for mutual defense against harm done by, guess who…criminals.
Excising the one concrete claim in that wall o’ text…
You can either have a free, voluntary union, or a perpetual union that can’t be changed, but you can’t have both. If the states were forbidden from proposing and voting on changes to the federal union, then they are no longer members of a voluntary association. They are hostages.
It would be helpful if you used words as they are commonly understood by English speakers and not those that you’ve either made up or found on a sovereign citizen website.
Could you possibly answer the questions that I have previously posited to you without the need for editorial commentary (fraudulent, criminal, etc.)?
The Articles of Confederation allowed slavery to exist just the same as the Constitution allowed it until 1865. What, particularly, and in regular English, are the problems with the current Constitution that would have been rectified had we stayed with the Articles of Confederation and/or “properly” amended those articles?
Human Action offers opinion couched as fact:
“Excising the one concrete claim in that wall o’ text…”
The tactic above is classic man-of-straw mixed with hyperbole. Why must people resort to deception as a rule?
More opinion couched as fact:
“You can either have a free, voluntary union, or a perpetual union that can’t be changed, but you can’t have both. If the states were forbidden from proposing and voting on changes to the federal union, then they are no longer members of a voluntary association. They are hostages.”
The intended meaning of the term “perpetual” (in context of Rule of Law) can be explained by those who wrote that word into the Statute. The meaning can be interpreted by anyone, anytime, anywhere, after-word.
The quoted words of Human Action are words expressing one possible interpretation of meaning among many possible meanings by many people where people may exist secure under Rule of Law, or people can also offer opinions under Criminal Rule which can be an opinion offered under duress.
If someone claims that the word “perpetual” means “can’t be changed,” then said opinion can work for said opinion maker, for whatever reasons work for that individual.
In the same time period the people involved in writing the Statute with “perpetual” written into the document wrote the following:
Elliot’s Debates Volume 1 page 43 (page 60 in pdf) Date appears to be October 14th, 1775, as the federation is forming to supply the demand for voluntary mutual defense due to the Aggressive War perpetrated by the criminal British.
Then in 1788, before the Judiciary Act of 1789, are the following words reinforcing the words offered on October 14th, 1775.
In the Statute known as The Articles of Confederation (the federation already existed in order to create articles of confederation in the form of a statute) are the following words:
The common laws of free people work to afford everyone the same RULES that apply to everyone without exception; such as: innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Individual opinions concerning what is or is not the intended meaning of the word “perpetual” written into a federal statute, as far as the record shows, have no force by which officers of the law are authorized to punish people. That works when Rule of Law perpetuates. When Criminal Rule perpetuates, then they say pay, and they back up their opinions with aggressive war perpetrated upon their targeted victims, as a rule, not as an exception to their criminal rules.
That is offered here:
Statute #1 is written after perpetual federal officers wrote the October 14th, 1775 acknowledgement concerning due process of law according to the common laws where trial by jury works effectively to defend innocent people from guilty criminals in time and place.
So another individual opinion concerning the meaning of the word “perpetual” is DIVIDED from the one offered by Human Action. Both divided opinions are competitive interpretations of the meaning of the word “perpetual” as the word was used in a second federal statute that came after the first federal statute which came after the acknowledgement that common law trial by jury was the law of this land in America.
Perpetual things perpetuate only as long as people agree to perpetuate perpetual things such as Rule of Law. Criminals perpetuate crime so long as criminals exist as criminals, as those criminals perpetuate crime every time they perpetrate crime, each new time.
Human Action destroys the man-of-straw argument he (or she) created:
“If the states were forbidden from proposing and voting on changes to the federal union, then they are no longer members of a voluntary association. They are hostages.”
Shays’s Rebellion exemplified the duties of free people as explained in the first federal statute known as a Declaration of Independence, when those people were no longer afforded remedy (Rule of Law) as the criminals running the Massachusetts government perpetrated Aggressive War upon those innocent victims, many of whom were decorated veterans of the Revolutionary War.
A claim that “perpetual” means the same thing as Orders that must be Obeyed without question, if that is what Human Action means with his opinion, is divided from, and adverse to, or “versus” a competitive opinion of the meaning of the word “perpetual” when I offer the meaning of the word “perpetual” to mean that Rule of Law, including common law trial by jury, will perpetuate so long as volunteers volunteer to do their duty to solve conflicts peacefully by offering remedy to those who are accused, presumed to be innocent, of any wrongdoing including Aggressive War, or Slavery.
UltraVires officers:
“It would be helpful if you used words as they are commonly understood by English speakers and not those that you’ve either made up or found on a sovereign citizen website.”
I did not invent the word Criminal, and I did not invent the word Rule. If I use the two words instead of Tyrannical Rule, or Despotic Rule, or Monarchial Rule, then I do so for reasons that I can explain. If it is truly helpful then help is offered here:
Divisions = Where once people were honest and helpful in mutual defense a division occurs when some people resort to deception as a rule.
Divisions along… = The word “along” is chosen to connect the word division to the specific divisions relevant to the Topic
Divisions along Rule of Law… = Free people defended mutually in Liberty are still divided but they are divided along many competitive paths where no one infringes upon anyone else without offering remedy of some kind in cases where infringement may accidentally occur.
Divisions along Rule of law versus… = The words “versus” is chosen to align Rule of Law in opposition to what opposed Rule of Law.
Where in those words are any words “either made up or found on a sovereign citizen website”?
You divide from me according to your willful choice to oppose my word choices as I see fit, for my reasons, so the division done here is done by you.
Example:
Pot meet kettle:
The subject matter includes the concept of people in groups, undivided, whereby the Pot and the Kettle belong in one group.
Which group?
The group that works toward debate within the boundaries of the Original Post is one possible group, call them Pots.
Another group that also works toward debate within the boundaries of the Original Post is another possible group, call them Kettles.
Those Pots, and those Kettles, all belong in the Rule of Law group since they remain within the boundaries of the Original Post.
Someone rejecting the intended meaning of the Original Post, someone claiming that their DIVIDED, opposing, “versus,” version of the intended meaning of the Original Post is someone decidedly stepping outside the Original Post unless there are valid considerations that work to bring that opposing interpretation of meaning back into the Original Post idea intended by the Original Poster.
Done.
The division chosen by the one who offers an opposing, alternative, different, opinion concerning the intended meaning of the Original Poster within the Original Post is within the intended meaning of the Original Post, as that effort to divide is an example of Division along Rule of Law versus Despotic Rule.
The Debate between Human Action, Northern Piper, 2sense, and others concerning the question of what is, or is not, within the ideas of Rule of Law, concerning amendments made to any statute, anytime, any place, are Debates that may offer useful information.
To be clear about that information, the individual making a claim can also offer remedy, please, in case any change turns out to be destructive to innocent people.
So please consider that, and then please consider showing where you get the rules governing changes made to any statute anywhere, anytime.
That’s what I said: