Trashing the Constitution

FAME (Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education) ^ | 6-16-03 | Edwin Vieira

[Consort]

The Senate can impeach/remove Supreme Court Justices, but you will never see them impeach and remove five of them at once. And you will likely never see them do any the things you mentioned.

[rightofrush]

An excellent post. This is first article I've bookmarked in months.

[Mulder]

Both feds & states are obviously infringing upon our RKBA's. It will be the tipping point.

The SC has avoided this issue like the plague.

If they rule in favor of the Bill of Rights, that would overturn literally thousands of laws illegally accumulated over decades. It would result in a massive power loss to the politicans, not only through the direct loss of their ability to regulate our Freedom, but also indirectly since crime will decrease and the sheeple will feel less dependent on the politicians to protect them.

Therefore, it's quite unlikely they would rule this way.

On the other hand, if they rule against the RKBA, this would only "make official" something that many of us already realize: that the government no longer recognizes our Rights, only privlidges that they grant. The gov't has now totally embraced this idea, but they aren't yet bold enough to actually come out and say it. Such a ruling would undoubtedly be "the line" for a lot of Patriots.

I don't expect the SC to rule that way either, at least for awhile. But who knows? The assualt on our Freedoms has been escalating at an alarming rate.

[Consort]

Then why did their ruling stick in the last general election or in any other of their decisions?

[Consort]

Under the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the marshal for the judicial district in which the Supreme Court of the United States sat was also responsible for serving that court. A statute of 1867 authorized the Supreme Court to appoint its own marshal.

[DPB101]

I agree with repeal of the XVII amendment. But I do not believe the ultimate answer to anything lies in the political sphere. People have been dead wrong so many times when they thought a change in law would fix society. Look what happened to the Constitution. It was supposed to limit government. It has been used, for a long, long time, to expand government.

The answer is more difficult than winning elections. Minds must be changed. Institutions which mediate between government and citizen must be made stronger and, in many cases, recreated. Posted a thread earlier tonight on the subject:

American (and Un-American) Idols ^

No comments so its a short read.

[Consort]

The marshals and their deputies continue to provide protection to judges, witnesses, and jurors, and they continue to execute the lawful orders of the federal government in the judicial districts.

[rightofrush]

One of these days they are going to push it too far, and we shall see who holds the REAL power in this country, the elites, as they like to pretend, or the people, who the elites pretend matter.

We know who holds the real power in this country, and it isn't anyone that holds elective office.

[tpaine]

DPB101 wrote:

Henry's point was everything would become a Federal case and we would be ruled by judges, that there was no protection against the constitution meaning whatever judges say it means.
He was correct. Past his prime or not when he predicted what would happen.

_____________________________________



Now you're making 'consorts' point.

States are not 'ruled' by the USSC. They are ruled by the political parties we elect.
They could choose to challenge these unconsitutional 'rulings'.
They do not.
-- Nothing is wrong with our constitution. Everything is wrong with our political process.

[tpaine]

Consort wrote:
Then why did their ruling stick in the last general election or in any other of their decisions?

_____________________________________


Because everyone agreed to abide by it, of course.

States, The Executive or Congress could refuse to obey a 'ruling', and we would have a constitutional crisis until it was resolved. -- Most likely by Congress, or by Amendment.

[Ben Bolt]

Now THIS is a must read & a keeper .

[tpaine]

Under the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the marshal for the judicial district in which the Supreme Court of the United States sat was also responsible for serving that court. A statute of 1867 authorized the Supreme Court to appoint its own marshal.
-con-


Any state could refuse to allow a federal marshal to arrest one of its citizens on any number of pretexts, -- throwing the whole process back to the courts..

[tpaine]

Consort wrote:

The marshals and their deputies continue to provide protection to judges, witnesses, and jurors, and they continue to execute the lawful orders of the federal government in the judicial districts.

_____________________________________


You bet, as long as they are unapposed by state officials..
[BTW, key in on the concept of "lawful orders"]

You vastly over-rate federal power & underate that of the states..
And that's just the way our present political system wants it.

[Consort]

Because everyone agreed to abide by it, of course.

That's why my statements stands.

[Jason_b]

From people who are willing to give up their gold coins to buy what you produce. You need to understand that you produce something, that you consume less than you produce, that you borrow or save in order to buy tools that make you more productive than your competitors, that your business expands, that your efficiency allows you to lower your prices, which encourages people to buy what you produce, and that what they spend covers your debts plus interest. Your productivity pays for all your capital investment over time.

If more gold is needed, then it is needed by the economy as a whole, not just one individual borrower, or a bunch, who need to pay interest. And if there is demand for gold, then the miners will sense that demand and open closed mines, and find ways to increase their efficiency, and find new deposits.

There are stories on the web that by analogy, guys stranded on an island, they have a primitive barter economy, a banker shows up, lends them paper money on the condition that they pay it back with interest, with their cabin or hut, clothes, tools, as collateral. The guys always wind up losing their collateral to the banker because though the principal was lent, the interest never was issued. Therefore the guys always owed more paper money than was ever issued, and some collateral had to be surrendered. Eventually, the banker owned all the collateral, every real thing of value that the guys had made for themselves. The guys never saw it coming.

It is easier to see how it works with the island example, but the same thing is happening to the US. US citizens never saw it coming in 1913, that the US would be owned lock stock and barrel by the banks. Our debt just gets bigger, never smaller, and bankrupcy, forclosures are the banks taking the collateral. But it happens because the interest is never issued. The banks don't let the economy become totally destroyed, because then they'd have to start over. But they will let many people hurt and go into poverty. They will loot with taxes those who try to escape the system by saving and avoiding debt and give the proceeds to the suffering: socialism is spawned by paper money, and helps preserve the system for the bankers. The presence of the poor creates enough social tension to make socialism a political necessity even in the US.

So it is most interesting that you were worried about where the gold would come from so that debtors could pay interest. See you really need to worry about where the interest comes from to pay the debt+interest when only the principal is issued as debt, not the interest. The financiers know from the very beginning how it works---it is not an accident this happens. It is only a surprise (a nasty one) to the borrowers.

If that is still unclear, think of it this way. Imagine all the people sitting at the loan desks at all the banks. They are all borrowing money. They will all owe the principal back AND interest. You see how the principal gets into circulation. You tell me. Where are those same people supposed to get the interest? Some will be successful at getting money away from the others and will have interest plus principal to repay. Others will be short and will be insolvent. Their house as collateral will be confiscated. They will become your homeless and socialism will be established to help them. This is your United States of America in debt not following the Constitution. This is not what the founders designed for us. Can you visualize it? Do you get it? Read some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes on the web about bankers and banks.

[tpaine]

Consort wrote:

"-- my statements stands."

I believe I am correct in stating that a majority of the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means.
______________________________________


Nope, your statement 'stands' refuted, --
-- The USSC can issue their legal opinions, but if the 'law' in question is repugnant to the basic principles of our constitution, no one need honor or obey their 'determination'.

This safeguard is part of our 'checks & balances'. -- Which states should be using to protect their powers.

Politically, states lack the will to fight the feds. - Which is a damn shame.
But this is not a fault in our constitution..

[plusone]

Excellent reply, and yes, I have read much about this problem, the non-creation of the interest. Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of the Fed, or central banks in any way. The whole money supply is based on a scam, that to create money, the gov't must issue debt, which is purchased (with freely printed money) by the Fed system. So now, the gov't must repay the debt, plus the interest on the debt. But the Fed created this money at almost zero cost. Why do they need interest? Why can't the gov't just bypass the Fed and issue the money directly, debt-free? It was either Edison, or Ford who said that the gov't can issue a bond, and the bond is good based on the faith and credit of the gov't. Why not then just issue the same amount as money? If the bond is good, why not the cash? Save the interest payments. I would prefer a gold backed currency, but at least this keeps the Fed from making the profit...

[Consort]

You wasted all your "nopes" and "wrongs" for nothing. You lost this one.

[tpaine]

Consort wrote:
You wasted all your "nopes" and "wrongs" for nothing. You lost this one.


Yep, so you claim, without a leg to 'stand' on.. -- No reasoned rebuttals, just visions of 'victory'.
Dream on kiddo.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Mismash of fact and fiction as is usual in these monetary threads. A gold standard is as mythical as the Unicorn and as unattainable as the Holy Grail. When attempted for brief periods it is ditched as soon as it becomes inconvenient which is generally quite quickly.

The interpreters of the constitution is the People? Hilarious. Most can't find their @$$ with both hands and never could. After such statements who could take this guy's rambling with any seriousness?

Then he sets himself and the True Patriots up against John Marshall- gut-busting funny.

And the clown introducing him- 1200 yrs of collapsing fiat money systems? Wonder what systems those were that have escaped the notice of historians? Any clues as to the meaning of that particular bit of babbling?