Freedom freedom free, liberty free freedom free. Got it? We’re the greatest free-est country that has ever existed! Take THAT rest of the world. People wear flag shorts and thongs here we are so stinking free. It is actually probably a violation of the UN charter that we have so much stinking FREEDOM!. We are freedom hoarders. lol
Let me ask you a question. What separates tyranny from freedom?
It’s simple really. Consent or Coercion. The people are either consenting to the government’s authority or they are having the government coerced upon them. In our country the entire supposed basis for our government exercising its authority rests upon the alleged authority of the Constitution. There is NO other basis for its authority.
So the relevant question becomes, have the people in this country ACTUALLY consented to the constitution they tell us is “the supreme law of the land”?
If the answer is yes, then the constitution and all the “law” that properly flows from it have legitimate authority, but if the people have not consented, then the constitution has no authority, and neither does any of the government that flows from it. Understand?
You may laugh at the whole idea because you are so totally convinced that the U.S. of A. is “so obviously” free and the constitution’s authority is “above question”. But have you ever even thought about it beyond the constant repetition drilled into your head from the “Wurlitzer”? I doubt it. But if it really is such a “slam dunk” then it should be easy to prove the constitution’s authority, right? So let’s look.
The law of consent is quite well worked out as you would expect. Consent, in legal terms, means to voluntarily agree to something after being apprised of the terms. Coercion on the other hand means you didn’t want to do it, but you were threatened, tricked or coerced into agreeing. In other words you were made to do it.
Consent is an issue in many things, especially contracts and agency theory. Agency being when you agree to have someone else act on your behalf for some reason. A fancy agency is all the government can really even claim to be exercising. They claim they are our “servants”. Servants to the public. So they are clearly claiming to be our agents when they act supposedly on our behalf, and claim to bind us with their votes.
Think about it. Someone can be “governed” under a dictatorship they didn’t agree to, and the dictator can in some people’s opinion nonetheless, govern “benevolently”. But that still doesn’t make the people FREE.
So where do they even claim to get MY consent to be governed by the constitution or any government set up under it?
When you go to look for answers to this actual question you don’t find anything that makes much sense. Certainly not the “slam dunk” you would expect. Truth be told, they don’t have a good basis. It is a mish mash of vague ideas about a “union” and a “social contract” and “implied consent”. I encourage you to GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF. You should investigate it. I mean this is the entire basis of your supposed “freedom”. Right? So go look into it, you’ll see.
And think about it, you never hear the “conservatives” or the “liberals” discuss it. All they talk about is “getting back to the constitution” or whether it is “in” the constitution and whether the constitution is a “living document”. But all of those arguments just beg the whole question! Where does the constitution get ITS AUTHORITY OVER ME? Where is the evidence that I or anyone else around here has ever actually consented to it?
Certainly the constitution doesn’t have my express consent. Even the alleged scammed up vote on the constitution occurred before I was born. It is impossible to have gotten my express consent in a vote that occurred before I was born. So at best they must try and claim to have something the law calls, “implied consent”.
Implied consent can be read into a situation as a result of actions I take or don’t take when I should. Sometimes it is a bit tricky to know if someone gave implied consent. But in this case is it NOT. Because all doubt is removed in the area of consent and you can NEVER have implied consent if the person speaks up and specifically says that they do not give their consent. So let’s clear that up right here and now. I Don’t consent. lol
And THAT is why there is no method to either consent or Dissent from the constitution or the government it purports to create. None. They are afraid of the outcome. So they make sure people never ask such a basic question.
But there is yet another reason that we don’t need to get into an in depth discussion of whether there was some supposed implied consent. It doesn’t matter if it is implied consent or express consent, ALL consent must be voluntary. And you can’t have voluntary consent unless you are FREE TO SAY NO.
AND IT IS SIMPLY BEYOND ANY DISPUTE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS COUNTRY. The supreme court has specifically held that we can’t leave the “voluntary union”, and I wrote about the case.
So there is no need to analyze whether there was “implied consent” because any consent I “gave” was not voluntary since nobody, including me, has a right to say no to the authority of the government. So…. End of discussion. lol
But there is more. Not only does “consent” have to be “voluntary”, it has to be INFORMED. But there is no way to “give” informed consent to an agent who claims to be the sole judge of the extent of its authority. And the government tells us that the supreme court is the sole judge of what the “agreement”, (the constitution) says. So I can’t give informed consent because I can’t be INFORMED of what powers I am giving them. This is the insanity that passes for “law” and “freedom” in this country.
So I’m sorry, but any way you slice it, there is no way they have any valid consent, express or implied from me, zero.
So now let’s turn to agency law and see if they have an out there.
Unless I am mentally incompetent, Agencies require that I give the agent the authority to act on my behalf. And as I have said, a fancy agency is about all the government could ever even claim to be “for the people”.
So the first problem with any agency theory for the government is once again, consent. In order for Congress or the president to be my legitimate agent, they must first get my consent to HAVE a congress and a president WITH THE POWERS they claim to hold. But once again, their “authority” is derived from the constitution and I have shown you that they don’t have my consent to the terms of that agreement and I have never gotten to vote on it. So any agency created by it is NOT VALID against me.
But you may say, hold on, YOU do get to vote!! lol True, but not on WHETHER there will be an agent appointed, WHAT its powers will be, and HOW it will be appointed!! Those are the critical parts. I only get to choose between the whip and the cane, red or blue.
Let me show you the difference. What if I came up to you and told you that you will now be granted the right to “vote” on whether you wanted me or my friend to be your agent. And, that as your agent we will now have full control of your finances. I suspect you would say , no thanks I will handle my own finances. But what if I then tell you that you don’t get THAT choice. THAT choice has already been made FOR YOU. Like the mob does. Your finances are going to be taken over by an agent. THAT part has already been decided. You are only free to choose or not choose me or my friend, but if you don’t choose, then other people will choose FOR YOU. That is criminal. It has nothing to do with consent or freedom.
But THAT is the choice YOU are given in this country when you vote. Do you want red or blue? The AGENT has been forced upon you. This does not create a VALID agency. THAT type of “agency”would never withstand any legal challenge as the legitimate appointment of an “agent”. It is absurd. You have to FIRST agree that you WANT an AGENT, YOU MUST AGREE TO THE POWERS THAT THE AGENT WILL EXERCISE ON YOUR BEHALF, and you must agree to the manner of appointment for the agent. You don’t get any of that because we never get to vote on the constitution ITSELF.
There are other problems with the “agency theory” as well but I won’t bother to get into them all for reasons of space. Suffice it to say that having a “secret vote” where nobody knows who voted for which agent and only the agent counts the votes, and then the agents claim to not have any liability to any of the specific “principals” i.e. voters, creates a LOT of problems. Creating an agent with “secret principals” has strict requirements of liability and accountability. Just think about it. You can’t have both the agent and a secret principal claiming no responsibility for anything the agent does, yet purporting to bind all sorts of other people to the arrangement?? THAT makes no sense and is not recognized in the law. Yet nonetheless that is what our “government agents’ claim is the law. Are you getting the picture?
Another red herring argument the apologists make is that we the people have somehow “waived” any objection to the system by voting, or even by just living here! It is absurd. Waivers have to be knowing AND VOLUNTARY, meaning you must be able to say NO to the waiver, so the same consent problem. Further, when were you ever apprised of some imaginary right to opt in or out? Never, because it doesn’t exist. Thus you have never KNOWINGLY WAIVED ANYTHING.
But even more importantly, waivers only operate once some THING already IS THE LAW. Do you understand? Take the mob “finance example” I gave above. If I presented you with that choice and you went ahead and “voted” for me just so I would leave your house have you “waived” your right to stop me from taking over your finances?? lol Of course not. Why? Because I had no authority to put you to such a CHOICE. Before I can argue waiver I have to be able to FIRST show that I had a right to put you to such a choice. And so does the government. By making the waiver argument the apologists once again try and assume away the heart of the argument regarding the very basis for the government’s authority!
Finally, in order to get around the sticky problem of so many people clearly stating that they DO NOT CONSENT, and thus the government being exposed for the blatant coercion that it is, the apologists claim the consent (by vote before you were born) or the waiver (you have never actually made) is or was somehow IRREVOCABLE.
Making such a ridiculous argument should be embarrassing to the followers of the constitution. Agencies are there to SERVE the person making the agency, NOT the agent! lol The agent can’t come in and claim the principal has no right to change its mind and to GET RID OF THE AGENT. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE EVEN WAS?? LOL. Their argument in this area turns the whole concept they claim to be supporting about freedom and self determination under the constitution on its head. Plus, as a legal matter, Irrevocable agencies and “consent” have very special rules and this whole constitution thing doesn’t meet any of them.
And finally, I saved the best for last. The high priests of the religion of the constitution have no answer to this objection and NEVER WILL so pay attention.
There is nothing in any law anywhere to support the idea that some person who I never met and who is long dead, had, has, or ever could have the power to create a binding agency AGAINST ME or to “consent for me” and for all other people for all times! That is beyond ridiculous.
But that is exactly what the back to the constitution crowd is in effect claiming. That someone else’s vote 200 years ago irrevocably bound me and everyone else to that document. Just think HOW FAR from freedom that idea is. Ludicrous is the only thing that comes to mind. Bordering on mentally unstable really to believe that such a concept is even related to freedom? Much less that it is the FOUNDATION of our freedom? lol
The simple fact is that the people running the whole scam and benefiting from it have intentionally confused the masses to their very core in order to control them, manipulate them and to steal from them. Nothing more. They have intentionally conflated the ideas of “voting” for a candidate with the concept of freedom. That confusion is the heart of the “freedom” and “constitution” SCAM.
VOTING for a candidate HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OR WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION HAS ANY AUTHORITY. NOTHING.
What we actually have in this country is not a government of consent that we chose that has LEGITIMATE authority. What we have is a government that has been HANDED to us that we specifically DO NOT get a choice in. We, meaning you and me, haven’t chosen it. Of course our whole lives we have been constantly TOLD that the government is based upon the consent of the people. But that just is not true, and I just showed you that.
If the people ever caught on to the scale of the real scam being run on them what do you think would happen? Well, let’s just say that I suspect the people might be a bit upset. lol Now you see why those in power insist on controlling education and everything else they can get their hands on. They know their “authority” is balanced on the head of a pin because it is laughably ILLEGITIMATE! So they lie and lie and lie and talk nonstop about freedom and the holy constitution. Because they want to keep you distracted and the party going baby! lol
My friend, the whole “get back to the constitution” movement is just another controlled operation of those who benefit from the constitution scam. Those who run the system PUSH that crap! They finance it. They promote it. They reward the leaders of that nonsensical crap because it helps those in power continue their REAL SCAM. And the real scam has nothing to do with left right conservative liberal nonsense. Nothing. It is about control and MONEY.
The constitution has ZERO authority except for the working end of the guns the brainwashed government agents point at their own people. Everything to the contrary is either part of the scam, or wishful thinking people who have been brainwashed to imagine they are free. That is an undeniable fact. You can face it or run from it. It makes no difference to me.
I hope I have made my point clear. Any and all talk about freedom and a government of, by and for the people under the constitution is a complete fraud. Nothing more.
I am done for today. Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Move towards the light and tell someone the truth about the law.