The Feds claim the, “interstate commerce clause authorizes it”. The Feds lie a lot.

Constitutional scholar showing one of the many wonderful uses for the document. It is amazingly absorbent. Throw your paper towels away.

A “brilliant” Harvard law professor is demonstrating one of the  many ACTUAL uses for the constitution. He says it is amazingly absorbent and that you can throw your paper towels away.  Huh, I didn’t know that. I should go get mine out of the trash.

Let’s get something straight up front. The people who run this country do not care at all what is in the constitution. Not even a little. They laugh at the peoples’ naïveté and nostalgia about it as though it IS anything.  Oh they are ready and waiting to use it against the people whenever they need to. And, concomitantly they are ready to ignore it whenever they like as well.

Think about it. When the money power wants something the people don’t want, then the gov/media complex reminds us that we are a representative republic, and when the people want the same thing the money power wants then the gov/media complex reminds us that we live in a democracy.  It is always the same scam.

One of the most absurd, but ESSENTIAL, concepts in the peoples’ mind is that the CON….stitution has some type of exalted status in and of itself and that we MUST obey it.  It is absurd when you think about it.  Why must we? They clearly don’t.  Did you sign it? Did I sign it? Did anyone we know sign it? No. It only has whatever power AND MEANING that the people in government wielding the GUNS care to give it and nothing more.That is why “getting back to the constitution” is a losers game for the people.

Let me show you a concrete example using the “interstate commerce clause”  of how the power and scope of the feds is whatever they want it to be “under the constitution”.

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer" -- H. Kiss

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer” — H. Kiss  Sometimes you can get a little truth out of these people.  

The constitution is supposedly a grant of LIMITED and EXPRESS powers to the federal government. Those powers are listed in Art. One section 8. The states were still so concerned they put in the 9th and 10th amendments just to be sure there was NO DOUBT that the powers were only those express and stated.

The powers were so limited that when they granted the feds the power to have a post office, they ALSO granted them the right to have postal roads! What in the world good is a post office without a road to it? But do you see, the concept was that the powers were so specifically limited that there was concern that the feds would not have the power to create postal roads.  Remember that.

Of course those in power know that over time that memories fade and all can be rewritten. The people are easily fooled, the feds change the rules and the people can be tricked into giving up more and more piecemeal. That is the entire game.

The Feds power to control virtually anything stems in large part from its power to regulate interstate commerce.  Now the entire constitutional convention was a scam and I have already showed you that.  But even under the story we are told, the “interstate commerce clause” was supposedly put in to the constitution because there supposedly needed to be a way for the states to get a long and not have constant fights about the trade between the states. It in no way was intended to transfer control of what happened inside the states. But that is exactly what has happened.

The entire charade of any real limits to the FEDS powers ended rather ignominiously during WWII. in the case of Wickard v. Filburn when the supreme court took any limitation off of the “interstate commerce clause”.  Let me tell you about it.

OMG I think I forgot to tun off the implied powers generator.

I still wake in the middle of the night sometimes wondering if I forget to tun off those damned implied powers I first found in law school.   If you leave those things on they can do a lot of damage over time.  I don’t like to risk it so I normally Just get up and check to be sure.

Quick facts for the case. Now as you know I like to use Wiki whenever I can because NOBODY can argue that the NSA’s own web site is anything but a mouthpiece for the ptb’s. And in situations like this there is NO argument about the facts or the case.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

Got it? Fairly straightforward. A guy has a farm. He wants to grow some wheat to keep and feed his animals etc. He isn’t even TRYING to sell this “extra wheat”. He is USING IT HIMSELF ON HIS OWN FARM. So the “limited” federal government steps in and says no no no. You can’t do that. We control how much wheat you can grow.

I ask you, can there be a more absurd extension of a power designed to control interstate commerce than this? The man is growing wheat to use on his on farm.

Official supreme court halloween picture showing 5 of those brilliant justices humbly dressed as they lived their lives.

The supreme court’s “Wickard after party” pic showing 5 of the justices strutting their new found super powers.

Well you know what’s coming of course. The holy oracles in Washington, the supreme court found that this was part of interstate commerce and therefore the feds could regulate it. Here’s how Wiki summarized it. And they get it basically right.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.

Okay, so the court finds that if you grow something to eat or use yourself, that is also “traded nationally”, then your actions can be regulated and controlled under the concept of  “interstate commerce”.  Of course this “finding” turns the entire idea of “interstate” commerce on its head.  Think about it.  If you are growing your own feed to use then what you are doing is specifically NOT interstate commerce, BY DEFINITION. Yet the court just makes up this whole fantasy to expand the feds powers.

Here is the “holding”:

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was ‘production,’ ‘consumption,’ or ‘marketing’ is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it…. But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’

Look at that.  Read it again. Drink in the freedom.  lol 

So even LOCAL activity that is not COMMERCE is now magically “reachable” by Congress using the interstate commerce clause.  I ask you, what does this authority NOT COVER? What about this is limited or expressed?  Nothing my brainwashed friend, nothing. And that is my point.

Let’s go a step further.  Take a look at the actual language in the constitution that people refer to as “the interstate commerce clause”?  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. That is the language.  Now think about this. 

If that language has the meaning that those jokers on the court give it, well, then the only logical conclusion is that the constitution was intended to give congress the authority to regulate the INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF FOREIGN NATIONS AS WELL.  Do you see why?  It is the same alleged grant of power.  Do you SEE the absurdity of the court’s “reasoning”?  The founders were a lot of things but they weren’t stupid.  This “reading” by the court violates EVERY RULE of Contract interpretation.  Turns it all on its HEAD! No way it is right.

The reading they have given it IS IMPOSSIBLE.  Laughable.  The states never gave the feds the right to regulate farmers growing feed for their animals.  But the problem is not that it isn’t obvious to anyone that they are wrong.  The problem is that there is NO WAY TO GET RID OF IT.  You have to convince the very people (the Congress) that have now been given the power to give the power UP!.  How can THAT ever work?  It can’t.  And it doesn’t.  That is why the constitution can NEVER WORK to do what you are told.  But it works PERFECTLY to do what it is actually intended to do!

I take back what I said. I take back what I said. The supremes reasoning did make sense. I see it now. It's right there in the cards. Damn. I just missed it for 30 years.

 Shown above is the precise array of “official constitution cards” that appeared when the Wickard majority drew them out to make their decision.  The subtle way they interpreted the array was  brilliance really.  The key, is placing that “reasons/causes” card at the bottom of a “triple drop” leading to a future card.  Without that, we might not have had the freedom we have today.  

The feds CONSPIRE to make the document say whatever they want. If the language is there and they don’t like it they read it out. If it isn’t there, they just read it in.  Heads they win, tails YOU LOSE every time my friend.

Do you see why I say the STRUCTURE of the government is there to enslave you?  You can’t have one part of the same government overseeing the other part. It makes no sense.  The court AND the congress grow in power when the AREA the court regulates grows. And so they grow the area that they control by expanding the area the feds can “regulate”.  Do you see this?  The structure of the constitution can NEVER WORK.  Surely the proof for that is in by now?  THE STATES must be in charge of limiting the feds. That is the ONLY way it could ever work.

I have one last very simple set of questions that demonstrates ONCE AND FOR ALL that the interstate commerce clause does not mean what those frauds on the supreme court have said and that 99% of everything the feds do under the “interstate commerce clause” has no legitimate basis.  NONE.

If the “interstate commerce clause” power extends out to the broad range of powers that the court claims in Wickard, then why did the framers BOTHER to include the power to create postal roads in addition to the power to create a post office?  Why?

Surely the “power” to create a “postal road” is an implied power that is subsumed in the grant to create a post office dealing with “interstate commerce”.  How can one work without the other in a “new” country with basically no roads! lol 

And now go ONE STEP FURTHER. What affects “interstate commerce” more than a POST OFFICE and its roads? NOTHING.  A post office IS interstate commerce!  So why would the framers bother to put in a specific grant of authority to create a post office AT ALL since that “power” is clearly subsumed under the power to “regulate interstate commerce” if the court is right.   

Do you see the inconsistency yet?  It is screaming at you.  lol

I do it for the people.

Only well established “court watchers” are familiar with a lot of the arcane pomp and ceremony of the court.  Here the justice prepares to read the opinion.

This is the same type of inconsistency that caught Nicholson in  “A Few Good Men”.  The old, you can’t handle the truth. Remember the scenario?  There would have been no need to order Santiago off the base if the men always followed the Colonel’s orders and if the Colonel had IN FACT ordered Santiago not to be touched.  Yet he WAS in danger.  Those two things don’t go together.  One or the other can’t be true.

Those in charge have the same problem in the constitution with all their made up blather about the commerce clause.  If the commerce clause covers what they claim, then there is no need to specifically grant congress the power to open a post office and postal roads.  But if they make such a grant, then there is no way that the interstate commerce clause is what we are now told.  Do you see it yet?

To establish post offices and post roads;

The one sentence that can’t be explained away.  Yet there it is.  It stands as a testament for all times to the lie that is the power the feds now claim. It can not be escaped. It cannot be explained away.

I don’t care how many holy decisions full of lies that group of coverup artists come down with, the truth is right there for anyone to read themselves. 

To establish post offices and post roads;

99% of the “power” the feds exercise is just a FRAUD on the people.  Top to bottom, front to back. Side to side.

Honey you don't understand. It's not what it appears. You'd have to be a woman to understand.

Hold on, it isn’t what it looks like.  He was just tired.  Nothing happened.  Plus, the supreme court has said that  this is not cheating. So are we good?

Trying to couch it in fancy terms and legal jargon or to explain it away with precedent or to try and convince people that they “have to be a constitutional scholar” or “go to law school” or any thing else to “understand it” is nothing but a sham, a cover. It is embarrassing.  That lying only makes it worse. Just  be a man about it and Admit it already YOU ARE LIARS. lol

I hope you see my point now. The constitution is not anything more than what they tell you it is. It is nothing but a way to “legitimize” their use of force to steal any and everything they want from you and me. It is not a holy document. It is a piece of junk. It does not limit the Feds.

The people should heap contempt on it not praise. As long as the people look to it as though it is something it is clearly NOT, they will live under the delusion that the government and the people who operate government have checks on them beyond the WRATH of the people they steal from. They DON’T. That is the only check.

Bobby didn't learn the lesson. Power isn't something you're given...it is somethig YOU TAKE.

Poor naive Bobby never did learn the lesson his father taught both him and his brother J.R.    Power isn’t something you’re given…it is something YOU TAKE.

The people running it know this. That is why they are so sure to always always always talk about the constitution. They run around acting like they have to worry about whether the constitution even “permits” certain action etc.  They must laugh their asses off at you when they do that!  I bet they can’t believe you fall for this charade.  Hell, I can’t believe people fall for stuff this BLATANT.

Drones.  That is all you can say. And those back to the constitutioners have a whole cadre of well paid shills screaming about it and getting people riled up about it.  I laugh my ass off at those frauds.  Selling them books and videos and lectures.  It is hilarious to me. Those people are either in on the whole thing or hopelessly lost themselves.  Either way the result is the same. They get your time and your money and they play an essential part in keeping you on the Money Power’s reservation called “the united states”.  It’s sad really.  Sad people are so easily fooled.

If this does not wake you from your slumber what could I bring you? This is NOT a country of laws. That is a fairy tale they tell the people, nothing more.

Okay my friend, I am done for now. I can’t take anymore freedom today.  I hope you learned something.  Take care,  my brainwashed Brethren, we have to stick together.  Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

27 thoughts on “The Feds claim the, “interstate commerce clause authorizes it”. The Feds lie a lot.

  1. Absoluterights

    “One of the most absurd, but ESSENTIAL, concepts in the peoples’ mind is that the CON….stitution has some type of exalted status in and of itself and that we MUST obey it. ”
    I’ve heard this before, and I do not understand the premise because…
    -Federal and state constitutions do not have rules written for us.
    -Constitutions create organizations and specify how those organizations may and may not behave.
    To my knowledge there is nothing in these documents for us to obey.
    What am I missing?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Absoluterights the “constitution” is the entire basis for “why we must obey” any law. The only validity for “enforcing” any of the laws or rules they pass is traced solely and directly to the alleged authority of the constitution. When it creates the organizations it claims to assert an authority, a supreme authority in fact, which we must thereafter obey. It claims to tell us all what fundamental law making rules we must obey.

      If there is no constitution, then there are no legitimate rules to obey which any legislature, court or executive branch office can exercise. So of course the constitution is not “the laws themselves” as they specifically apply to what individuals can and cannot do, but they are the laws. The constitution says that the congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. If that is not law, and that law does not apply to congress AND to congress’ ability to force compliance from the people, then there could be no taxes collected by congress. Just like in the articles of confederation. The federal government did not have the power to lay and collect taxes. And THUS there were no taxes laid.

      There can be no “legitimate” laws without the constitution claiming to make them legitimate. If we are not bound to “obey” anything in the constitution, if it is not “the supreme law”, then they have no right to make us “obey” any of the other laws they claim to pass. So I’m not sure what premise there is to not understand. Please describe any law I must obey if there is no valid constitution? — L

      Reply
  2. NoahFence

    On your home page comments, H2O stated that his comment didn’t go through and on his 2nd try, he got this message: “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!” This was dated July 16, and your reply was to let you know if it happened again. Later in the day of Sept. 25, my 2nd attempt to clarify what was said earlier, since the shorter version seemed to beg for clarification, but it got the same “duplicate” message and never went through either. Until seeing H2O’s comment tonight, it had seemed that any further thoughts from me were not wanted. Glad to see it’s not me, and that it’s happened to someone else, too. Not sure what would cause it since you stated you’d gone over it and couldn’t find any reason for the “duplicate” message. Therefore, just letting you know that it still does happen, in case others have received the same response to their comment.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thanks Noahfence. I don’t show any notifications etc. of the issue so I don’t know how to solve it. Lu’s I will confess I am not exactly a webmaster. I will ask again however. Assuming it is an “organic” shall we say, problem. Lol. I’m sure nobody would care to screw with a site such as this. — L

      Reply
  3. Hereticdrummer

    For an excellent tome on this topic check out, “Cracks in the Constitution” by Ferdinand Lundberg. He brilliantly illustrates that from the very beginning of the American “Republic”, the Constitution notwithstanding, the feral guvmint has done exactly as it pleased, when and where it pleased. Any contravening of the Constitution is incidental and meaningless.

    Reply
  4. NoahFence

    The problem, as you say, is that it IS just a piece of paper. They should’ve finished the job. If it was declared to be the rule of law, with a death penalty attached to it for anyone not following it, so that each day one would be required to think about whether they were following it or losing their life, we might actually have our government running the way it was intended–small government, everybody keeping what they make, and our country truly being a Republic.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well NoahFence I do take offense! lol. yes smaller is better, which is a sentence I don’t normally say, but in government, yes. The reality is that the concept of a “nation state” itself is one of the huge problems. Nothing as big as a “nation state” can ever be under the control of the people. But I don’t even bother trying to discuss a topic like that because people just shut off immediately. They are so convinced that we “have to have them” etc. in order to operate. What they don’t seem to connect up is that the SYSTEM is screwing them and the system requires the “nation state”. So by saying we “must have” nation states”, you have basically given up the entire fight unknowingly. Why must we? Well, in order for the “economy” to run etc. lol. Do you see? We no more “need” a nation state for people to buy and sell things and to live their lives than we “need” a U.N. or a B.I.S. or the FED printing money etc. etc. That is all just brainwashing. VERY DEEP brainwashing. The people want to keep what they have and at the same time free themselves from “what they have”. People just can’t grasp the magnitude of the con that is run on them. We no more “have to have” huge countries and mega mulit-national corporations than I “must have” a car with ABS. But if you imagine that we “must have” countries and multi-nationals in order to “run the economy”, well, then guess what? you have conceded all they need to control you. The rest is just details. That is why they spend so much time in school talking about “golden ages”. What is the “golden age” in any supposed time or country? It is when some power crazed murderer ran around and enslaved a lot of the surrounding peoples and then built himself huge houses and confiscated all the peoples wealth. lol. Get it? They start very early. WE are supposedly a beacon of freedom to the world. That is why our country is then justified to go and drone kill people just sitting in their homes 10k away etc. Everything is designed to make people think that a strong country is something to be “proud of”. and on an on. My god I could go on an on with the memes they run to drive this brainwashing into peoples’ heads. But you get the point. — L

      Reply
  5. Joseph Jones

    When the South seceded and formed the Confederate states the Constitution became null and void essentially.
    I don’t disagree with your premise, but it is your conclusion that is flawed.
    Look, I am a Southern born male that had family fight and die for the Confederacy, so don’t get me wrong.
    I am not a fan of the Feds.
    Essentially what happened is that the US Government incorporated in 1871 under the Organic Act and adopted the same Constitution, but with a different meaning. Whereas prior to the War of the Northern Aggression the first 10 Amendments only applied to the Federal Government, AFTER the war under the Organic Act the Federal Government applied the first ten Amendments to the states under military authority.

    The bottom line is that they will use extreme force if necessary to keep what they have.
    We cannot win in court because the courts that we enter are statutory courts, which aren’t even applicable according to the original Constitution.

    Statute is NOT law… But as long as everyone believes it then what is the real difference.
    Interstate Commerce is the smokescreen that the Feds use to make everyone obey them, but the real reason that they have power is because they took it by force.
    Force that WILL be used again, just as it was when the South very legitimately and legally seceded from the Union.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Joseph I think our conclusions are not so far apart. I will go you one step further than the idea that the constitution was THEN void. I don’t see how could have been binding on anyone ever. Where is the vote? Secret voting? lol. I don’t think so. I didn’t get to vote, you didn’t. Blacks didn’t, women didn’t, all sorts of people never got to vote on it at all. So it was a laugher to me a long time before 1871 or 1861. Of course once the south left there was no right to try and “force them back” or “keep them in” or anything else. It was over. The people in the north were welcome to run their own deal and if they wanted to use the “constitution” to do that, bully for them.

      I think perhaps you are not familiar with what I have written on the site. And that is understandable, there is a lot. Of course the only thing that keeps them in power or got them in power is force. And yes they will use force whenever they care to or feel the need to. That is all the government even is, force. My explanations about the constitution and whatever other purported positive laws they force on everyone is just to highlight and inform people of the fundamental fraud that they all are. I do not believe the constitution, organic inorganic, or otherwise has any possible legitimate binding validity on me because I have never agreed to it and I never agreed to live with whatever some faked up “majority” of the other drones that live here might “vote” for. My compliance is in self defense only because of the force they will rain down on me if I refuse. Certainly not the result of any voluntary agreement.
      That is reality. Gad you’re here. — L

      Reply
      1. Joseph Jones

        Sorry for this long bit of recall, but I want to assure that I am relating accurate history. This reply explains my view a bit better and shows why I think that the Constitution as it was originally written and intended is as close to a perfect document for governing as one could get.

        Please try to read this reply and bear with me.

        I suppose that I should express myself with more clarity regarding the “flawed” comment. I shouldn’t have stated the flaws in your conclusion concerning the feds exercising their will through the Interstate Commerce Clause, or alluded to your belief that our de facto government’s false premise for power comes from us never having voted or been given the right to vote on our subjugation through currently usurped US Constitution.

        In my personal opinion, the Constitution as it was originally written, is as close to a perfect form of government as the world might ever see.
        In a republic, ALL individuals’ rights are protected and are not allowed to be infringed upon by anyone, but especially not the Federal Government, because the rights are not given by law, which is civil law; but given by God, which is natural law – a republic, not a democracy.
        A democracy is civil law, rights created by mob rule enforced by law, which leads to the tyranny of the masses.
        Most people do not realize that the US Constitution as originally written and intended ONLY applied to the Federal Government and NOT the states.
        This is the reason that our supposed government in DC is FEDERAL and not NATIONAL.
        Please read James Madison espouse upon this at length in the Federalist Papers- number 10 comes to mind. Madison also rips democracy a new ass and calls it the tyranny of the masses, which is exactly what we now have after the Organic Act of 1871 and the creation of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.

        We are NOT a nation, and were never meant to be one,. never. ever. ever. ever. We originally were a loose union of countries, or states, with a federal municipality that is not national and in no way connected to the states unless by request. That is why we have a DISTRICT of Columbia and not a state of Columbia.
        Each state being seen as a country unto itself is the reason for each state having its own capital.
        The bill of rights NEVER applied to the states but only to the Federal Government, and this was reinforced by the Supreme Court in the ruling of Barron v. Baltimore.
        Prior to the 14th Amendment we had no citizens of a Federal Government like we do today.
        Overturning the Barron v. Baltimore ruling was the entire reason for the creation of the 14th Amendment, and during reconstruction, several states that ratified the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, and each state’s Congress was promptly kicked to the curb by the President and replaced by lackeys during the reconstruction acts.
        Those that refused to ratify the 14th after ratifying the 13th knew that the creation of nationwide citizens of the federal government was completely against what the framers had wanted. This was the door with which the feds could seize ultimate tyrannical power.
        Prior to the 14th we had very, very few citizens of the federal government, only those in DC and those born on lands either owned by the federal government or ceded to the federal government by the state.
        Each person born at that time was a citizen of the STATE and the state only. Even today we are Federal Government citizens by the fact that we are State Citizens first.
        The proof that the 1871 Organic, or first, Act of Incorporation is a bait and switch is the simple fact that the ten square mile of DC was already incorporated as a municipality in 1790 as specified by Article 1 Section 8.
        It was originally further cemented as a municipality by the Organic Act of 1801, which revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for an entire District of Columbia. This district had Marshals, District Court Judges, and a County Commission.

        This new corporation created in 1871 is called the USA INC. and is owned by the original and true municipality of the de jure united states.
        The original municipality of the united states outsourced all fiscal matters to the 1871 USA INC in order to deal with the bankruptcy caused by the civil war. We have an actual corporation masquerading as a federation, but in the form of a working fiduciary corporation.
        The Organic Act of 1871 incorporated a corporation called the USA.

        Congress can pass any law as it sees fit according to the Constitution, but these laws not apply to the states in order to deal with the bankruptcy caused by the civil war.
        DC was incorporated into an actual business corporation. It was already a municipality, and
        All the states are subsidiaries of this corporation since Corp DC assumed responsibilities for the war debts
        This move toward privatizing all aspects of our original constitutional republic to pay off the national debt that will NEVER be paid continues to this day.

        And all this happened because we went bankrupt, twice now.

        Those hidden oligarchs that own this Corp USA INC hold every single asset found in our “country”, including the citizens, in a place called the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. This trust is facilitating the bankruptcy of Corp DC and its assets serve as the backing for our debt based money.

        Through its subsidiaries, the DTCC provides clearance, settlement, and information services for equities, corporate and municipal bonds, unit investment trusts, government and mortgage-backed securities, money market instruments, and over-the-counter derivatives. It also manages transactions between mutual funds and insurance carriers and their respective investors.

        In 2011, DTCC settled the vast majority of securities transactions in the United States and close to $1.7 QUADRILLION in value worldwide. DTCC operates facilities in the New York metropolitan area, and at multiple locations in and outside the United States.

        Every fiscal exchange that deals in federal reserve notes has to settle through the DTCC.

        The original constitution was simply an agreement to keep our federal government as limited as possible and it only applied to the federal government.
        That is why the founding fathers opposed universal suffrage.
        They believed that the uneducated masses were too easily swayed by demagogues.

        Think about that next time you scream about the right to vote.

        Reply
        1. Robert Graf

          You are free to enslave yourself to anyone you choose. You do not have any right to expect anyone else to do the same. Think about that the next time you vote. The whole constitutional convention was a sham. you swallowed the programming that they schooled you with. Everything you wrote is authoritarian worship. Pure propaganda. Are you incapable of tending to your own needs without interfering in the affairs of others? Do you not know right from wrong? If so, then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If not, you are an adult, not in need of someone else’s permission, and you should be able to see that voting is a fraud upon the populace. you can worship government as you see fit, but forcing your religion on others is something government should outlaw. The only legitimate function of government is the protection of the individual’s right to tend to their own needs free from the interference of others.

          Reply
  6. Harold Smith

    I agree with “GeorgiaCracker”; the problem is not the constitution.

    The problem is the corrupt American people, who are simply not capable of good government. It wouldn’t matter how outrageously our rulers would misconstrue the constitution if “the people” didn’t ultimately go along with it. And the founders and framers knew this. According to John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Ben Franklin is on record predicting the failure of the constitution at the point where “the people become so corrupt as to need despotic government” or something like that.

    U.S. government criminality is now openly on display for the whole world to see, yet our masters still have no trouble recruiting people to join the army and to become FBI agents (and/or TSA, CIA, DEA, AFT, etc.). There’s no shortage of people to work on the assembly lines at Boeing and Lockheed-Martin making bombs and drones and other weapons which will be used to murder people in far away lands that never did anything to “America”.

    To put it another way, when TSHTF, it won’t be our corrupt rulers shooting us down in the streets, it’ll be our corrupt neighbors.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Harold I agree that the people here are seriously deluded and problematic. I think I would go so far as to say hopelessly so. Yes, the gov now openly does whatever it wants and the drones ask for more. From what I can see there is no limit to what the drones will not accept and in fact ASK for. lol so brainwashed it boggles the mind. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  7. Ft. Nolan

    Regarding Filburn, how did the gummint know he was growing more than he was allowed? Did some USDA or DoJ agent (more likely a Treasury agent) go around “inspecting” his farm? Did he blab about it to the wrong people? Did a nosey neighbor turn him in? What’s more, this case adds to my hypothesis that we live on a plantation. You use the term “reservation” which works almost as well.

    The more you reveal the true nature of the US Con-stitution, the more I realize it is a contract meant to look like one thing while being an indictment meaning something entirely contrary to its farcical appearance.

    Furthermore, you have not “…already showed [us] that. ” You have SHOWN us that. (allow me to be a grammar Nazi for a minute; look it up, it’s in someone’s constitution…)

    Maybe I learned something today. Keep up the great work.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Ft.Nolan it is quite enlightening to imagine the power that has to exist just to try and enforce such a tyrannical system. The spies and the snoops all over. Yet people still think they are free and that the conjobstitution is some document of freedom. It is quite clear to me that the constitution was just that a con. It has NEVER operated as sold. It has been a straight line up. And the very fact that the people accept the “civil war” as something that was fought to “keep the union together” is hilarious to me. How in the world can force be justified to keep a voluntary agreement together? It makes zero sense. Zero. Yet the people accept it.

      Regretfully you’re right. The more that anyone learns about the actual constitution and the way it actually works, the more it is obvious it is a con. The more people listen and read about “getting back to it”, they will be tricked. Those people always talk about it from the federalist papers etc. Those things are just a sales brochure. Or whatever the “founders” said? who cares. Thomas Jefferson cheated his way to president. I mean look, I can READ our current president’s speeches and conclude he wants to help people. But he doesn’t ACTUALLY help people. There is no difference between the two. Politicians always write and say one thing and do the other. Reading what they said or claimed the constitution is or would be is more like an ANTI-barometer. You can just assume it is the opposite.

      The Anti-federalists were right. Patrick Henry was right. They smelled a rat. And the drones have been fed that rat for the last 230 plus years, and yet those same drones run around telling everyone and acting like they have been eating filet mignon! lol Fools. such hilarious fools to me. Glad you’re back, grammar Nazi. lol — L

      Reply
      1. Joseph Jones

        I do think that the anti-federalists were correct as well…

        However, with all due respect, I am a fan of Thomas Jefferson, at least the writings that he left for posterity.

        The Federalists won out due to one man, James Madison. He was really on the line when it came to a centralized government. He really freaks out on the difference between Federal and National, because they are quite different, but what really sold the people on the idea of a Constitution were two things: the need for a standing army due to threat of war by the British, and the fact that entering into the constitutional pact was wholly voluntary.
        This is why it blows my mind when people rail on the confederacy.
        They had every right to secede because they entered into an agreement that was voluntary.
        The nail in the coffin that lead the South to secede wasn’t Lincoln becoming president. It wasn’t “slavery”, only 5% of Southerners owned slaves at the time. It was the Tariff of Abominations that caused them to want out.
        They felt as if they were being unfairly taxed out of existence and that their presence in DC had become a joke.
        By the time the War of the Northern Aggression started the Constitution had become outdated.
        And it is for the reason some stated previously. That document was written for people who have a moral and ethical code. It was dependent upon people who could take care of themselves without victimizing another.
        Patrick Henry was right.

        But the problem now becomes… What do we do about it?
        We can’t revolt. We already tried and the South lost.

        We can go into courts for meaningless commercial charges and present our case sui juris, question the legitimacy of the court’s jurisdiction, and always, always, always ask for a trial.
        Doing this would clog up the system so badly that something would have to give.
        We can scream at the top of our lungs about jury nullification, but who has the balls to do it?

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Joseph Jones I agree I like what Jefferson WROTE, but look at what he actually DID. To me, typical politician. Everything is fun and games until someone gets their eye poked out. Or rather, until it is their actual interests involved. lol. Patrick Henry smelled a rat at the constitutional convention. What does that tell you?

          As to what we can do? My gosh I have answered that so many times. There just isn’t much any one person can do except protect themselves. And that starts with understanding what the system actually is and does. If you care to join in the raping and pillaging, then people are welcome to do that as well. lol. I am not joining. Look I can’t even convince people they are being sprayed like bugs from the sky! How am I going to convince them that their country is a LIE? I can’t. We aren’t going to. The cognitive dissonance is way too great for most people. Jury nullification is simple if you can get on to a jury. But a simpler method is to have everyone demand a trial. That alone would make it impossible. The wheels would grind to a procedural logistical halt.

          STEP ONE is always the same. Can you even get people to bother read anything I have written? lol I doubt it. So what is there to say? Most people will not come and look at the truth. If they do, they won’t read it. If they read it they won’t believe it. If they believe it they will ignore it. How many will actually even take the time to educate themselves when I have done so much of the work for them? hardly any. So that is where we are.

          Why don’t you answer this. What can we do to make people care about whether they are slaves? Answer that one. When you have an answer for that I can provide the information for them to wake up. take care. — L

          Reply
  8. skipNclair

    Seems to me there is a simple solution to the govt. forcing people to do its will regardless of God given or Constitutional rights. When the first guy comes out to lets say your farm and says you cannot do xyz, you give him the old abc”s. now when he does not return to the office , the boss will say hey Joe did not return from this farm and we need you to finish his job, so he comes to the farm and again you hear you cannot do xyz, so you give him the old Abc’s, well by now you should see where I am going with this. so finally after enough low end personal from the Govt. office somehow or another can’t be found then one of the people next in line will say no thanks boss man why don’t you go? Then and only then will these thugs that are public servants and need to be reminded of such daily will this stop, not only in commerce issues, but I think all of them. So rather then take a vitamin every day to improve life, maybe a govt. employee with a bad attitude or one needing a reminder everyday should disappear instead. Now i think that will definitely make life better for all, well perhaps not for them that lets say disappear.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well skipNclair, I have made it clear over and over that violence is not a viable solution in my humble opinion. And let me be clear. I do not endorse your solution. I have allowed your post because I have no part in your opinion. But as a practical matter I have no interest in complicating my life having to answer questions about something like that so if everyone gets one bite of the apple so to speak. And this is of course giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a paid troll simply fishing or trying to stir it up. No way to know that.

      I have explained this before, but I will explain my non violence position again. One, it doesn’t work. We had a violent revolution and we got the conjobstitution. 2. I am not a violent person. I don’t do well with it and the idea of actually harming some poor schlub who is just doing his job and is a victim of the brainwashing doesn’t sound like the kind of thing I want on my head. 3. Violent solutions don’t last. 4. IT IS CURRENTLY ILLEGAL AND THEY WILL COME AND GET YOU. Oh, and I could go on and on with reasons but I think my point is made.

      I like the philosophy and techniques of Estienne de La Boétie as espoused in his “Discourse on voluntary servitude” some 500 plus years ago. All that is necessary for the tyranny to end, is for the people to stop cooperating. Poof. Done. Not killing, and maiming. If the people, meaning the clerks and the magistrates, and the cops and the employees and the tax payers just stopped cooperating it would end. They don’t have the numbers to do anything about it. That is why the brainwashing is so intense. Those running it know all they really need is the voluntary support, even if reluctant. Once they lose that, then nothing they do can succeed. No amount of violence can change that cold hard fact. So those in charge stay IN FRONT of the problem.

      Now do I believe that the people are going to wake up and stop cooperating? lol no. No they are not. They are way too far gone at this point. But to me, violence is violence. Coercion is coercion. I am not in favor of it. There are plenty of “back to the constitutioner” “2nd amendment rights” sites and people who may be on board with your theory. You are welcome to commiserate with them. But here at the truth, “homey don’t play dat”. lol So I hope you enjoy the articles and I hope, I genuinely hope, that you consider what I have said about violence as a means to an end. Take care — L

      Reply
      1. Robert Grf

        I do think the people are waking up, although rather slowly. According to the media, over 94 million people have dropped out of the corporate workforce. They might not have figured out the con that gocernment is just yet, but they are no longer going in the direction the ‘controllers’ desire. Some of the dropouts from the corporate prison rat race will become self sufficient, which is the nemesis of govzilla. I agree that the only solution is to stop cooperating with the beast. Another revolution willonly change who is pointing the gun at your head.

        Reply
      2. Kram

        Excellent response. Shows huge respect to the fellow human being regardless differences. I share in the value and return of the “peace maker” Cool promise from ancient wisdom.. Practice makes better. lol Peace would be cool..

        Reply
  9. Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

    “to regulate commerce among the several States”
    means to regulate commerce between
    the several State governments.

    It does not authorize Congress to regulate
    commerce among the People of the several States.

    If the Framers had wanted that authority
    to apply to the People, the Commerce Clause
    would have needed to say so.

    But, IT DOESN’T!

    inclusio unius est exclusio alterius

    The omission of “People” from the Commerce Clause
    must be inferred as intentional.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I agree Paul. That is just one of the many contract/statutory interpretation “violations” that the court engages in as I said. They pretty much ignore all of the the rules in order to expand out the gov’s power. But as I have shown and shown, this is not an accident. It is a ONE WAY street to more government. If it was a mistake, then the court would often interpret it too strictly and the government would shrink. But that never happens. Despite this, the people still want to “get back to the constitution”, lol. There is no way to reason with someone like that. The constitution and what it represents in those peoples’ minds is a RELIGION at that point. It is a belief based system at that point. The “back to the constitution crowd” simply ignores or excuses all of the data that demonstrates that what they want to get back to can NEVER WORK, and in fact Has never worked. So as I said. They prefer the fantasy land they inhabit. The cognitive dissonance associated with facing the truth is just too great. As the Russian defector Bezemenov so clearly pointed out, the brainwashing has predictable effects. So I write for people who can be rational. For people who can examine their deeply held beliefs in an objective way and live with the outcome WHICHEVER WAY it comes out. And thus, I write for a very small audience indeed! lol — L

      Reply
  10. GeorgiaCracker

    You attack the constitution as the problem, but the problem is not the document, but the people who are corrupt and choose to interpret the meaning for power and no good. It is the same thing as blaming the gun for killing somebody. The fault lies with the people, not the instrument. Evil People are the problem.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      While I certainly agree with you that there would be NO problems if it weren’t for people who want to rule other people, I think your analogy fails. A gun is a thing. To the extent that the “constitution” is “like” a gun, it is simply a piece of paper with symbols on it, nothing more. It only becomes something “dangerous” by what people IMAGINE and THINK. People are TRICKED into believing it is something it is not. The constitution is NOTHING more than what someone WITH a GUN says it is. A gun is a gun regardless of what someone thinks. A gun does not BECOME a GUN because someone says it is. But the constitution “becomes” this magical thing that people MUST follow, without that it is just a piece of paper with symbols. If you can’t read it you don’t even know what it “says”. But if you don’t know what a gun even is you can still kill someone with it if you point it and pull the trigger. And the problem, as I have said is the PEOPLE. The only even POTENTIALLY solvable problem is to awaken people to what the constitution really is. You can never get rid of people who want to rule others. I think the Analogy of the emperor who has no clothes is much more apt. The constitution, as it is imagined to be and is used, is nothing but a magic coat for the rulers. As soon as the people see the reality it will lose its power and therefore SO WILL THE RULERS abusing it. But a gun is a gun is a gun regardless of who is wielding it and why. A gun can be used for good bad or simply by accident. The analogy just doesn’t work. What I try and do is wake people to the fact that the Constitution is not a holy document that MUST be followed. It is just a TOOL used against people. But thanks for reading and commenting.

      Reply
      1. Robert Grf

        The analogy of the emperor’s new clothes is one I have also used. The new cothes on the old ‘divine right to rule’ asserted by those who claimed to be offspring of the gods until that no longer fooled the populace which resulted in them coming up with the idea of the republic, which is the rule of the elite.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *