The Constitution does not permit ANYTHING to be “stamped top secret” and kept from the PEOPLE.

No, seriously, I testified that I WISH I could discuss it, but it was just too sensitive.

So did you tell them you blew all the money at the strip club? No, I testified that I WISHED I COULD discuss what happened, but it was just too sensitive.

It doesn’t matter whether it is Hillary trying to hide her STATE DEPARTMENT communications WHILE she is the Secretary of STATE by dreaming up some system to avoid FOIA etc., or some other as of yet undiscovered scam to hide information from us.  If you’re not familiar with what’s going on with her “private” email go take a look, it is pretty damned funny.  The details are unimportant.  The  government has NO constitutional BASIS to keep secrets from WE THE PEOPLE. 

The entire military/intelligence/industrial/government/media complex is built upon the idea that the bureaucrats in government get to decide what secrets they will keep from WE the people by “stamping it top secret” or some other such “classification” under the guise of “national security”. This “right” is something that is never challenged in the “public conversation”. AT BEST all you get are some discussions about whether some particular item etc. “should” be secret etc.

This guy knew how to take advantage of his 'top secret" status.

This guy knew how to take advantage of his ‘top secret” status.

Let me first show you the preposterously broad areas that our “national security” now allegedly encompasses. Here from Wiki:

Authorities differ in their choice of nation security elements. Besides the military aspect of security, the aspects of diplomacy or politics; society; environment; energy and natural resources; and economics are commonly listed.

Do you see the absurdity of this? What does it NOT include? They can justify ANYTHING if “national security” is the excuse.  And remember, the definition of  “national security” keeps expanding.  The whole “secret” classification system comes originally from an “executive order” creating the whole scamTruman issued it making the totally unsupported and UNCHALLENGED statement that he had the power to do so “vested in him”.  Really?  Where? How and when did the people agree to this?  lol  The “classifications” run the gamut from “top secret”, to “for your eyes only” to “Goldfinger” to “The spy who loved me”.  Okay that part may not be completely accurate, but you get the point.  The “standard” is whatever they decide to create.  And then poof, We the people are stuck in the dark.

My question is this.

Where does the government get the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to keep ANY secrets from “we the people”?

Shown here is the infamous deep cover agent known only as "Charlie". He was embedded near a high value target. After retiring he won a landmark pension case where he got credited for 28 years of service, the CIA had been claiming it was only 4 human years.

Shown here is the infamous deep cover agent known only as “Charlie”. He spent his entire career embedded near a high value target. After retiring he won a landmark pension and discrimination case where he got credited for 28 years of service, the CIA had been claiming he should only get the 4 human years.

Think about it. We are constantly told how “we the people” are “in charge” and the government workers are “servants” of the people etc. But if that is the case where do the servants get the right to keep secrets from the masters?

All it seems to take is to have some guy wearing a military outfit up on TV and say it is “classified” due to “national security” and poof, that’s the end of it. Don’t you find the whole concept a bit odd now that you think about it? Especially now that you see how ridiculously BROAD the definition of national security has become? What conduct couldn’t be “classified” as part of “national security”?

Remember, the government, under our constitutional system, is supposed to be OUR AGENTS acting on OUR BEHALF, under a strict set of powers authorized and explicitly set out in the constitution. THAT document is where the government gets ALL OF ITS ALLEGED AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY. When it acts outside of that explicit grant of authority from the people, the government acts WITHOUT ANY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY.

Surely it should be easy for the government to answer my question about the constitutional basis for its authority, if there is in fact a legitimate constitutional basis. Right?

This whitehouse spokesman was convinced he had found the constitutional basis for the secrets, but it turned out it was just some half eaten Chinese food.

This White house spokesman was convinced he had found the constitutional basis for keeping secrets from us, but it turned out it was just some half eaten Chinese food.

So where do those crooked bastards up there in Washington get the supposed “constitutional authority” to pass laws like “the national security act” of 1947 that created this gigantic secret government system which includes things like the NSA and the CIA and all of the other alphabet scams they run on us?

They tell us that they do it under the authority of separation of powers, or the right to set foreign policy or “executive privilege” , or some vague amalgam of implied powers that “spring” from or are “subsumed under” etc. etc. The bottom line is that they don’t have a direct answer.

But despite their obvious obfuscation and avoidance, one thing is UNDENIABLE, if the government wants to keep secrets from “we the people” then it must be able to POINT TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the government to keep secrets FROM US.


It doesn’t say a single word about it. It doesn’t hint at it. It doesn’t imply it. THERE is NOTHING THERE ABOUT SOME “RIGHT” to keep the people in the dark about whatever the government itself decides to keep secret by some bogus “classification system” or anything else. Get it? The whole concept is a fraud on you.

Okay, so they said that they did find where we all agreed that they could lie to us and keep whatever they want secret. When I said it was just a rose, they said I didn't understand because I wasn't an expert.

They said this was proof that we all agreed that they could lie to us and keep whatever they want secret. When I said it looked like a fortune cookie that had a flower on it, they said I didn’t understand because I wasn’t an expert.

Please show me ANY place or manner that the people have ever agreed to be kept in the dark about ANY issue, much less any and everything that their agents arbitrarily decide.

Certainly, the “right” to keep the people in the dark about any and everything that the government agents care to “classify” as part of “national security” is not a power that can be “implied”. That is absurd. It certainly isn’t “inherent”. That makes no sense.

In what way would the government be “limited” if it could claim it had an “implied” or “inherent” power so broad that it authorized the government to act in any way it chose to the extent it “affected” any of those areas and to then keep their conduct secret?

Certainly keeping conduct and information secret from the people themselves is ANATHEMA to the entire CONCEPT of a “free republic” UNLESS the people themselves have EXPRESSLY GRANTED that power to the government.

So what about the idea that they have “passed a law” or “issued an executive order” that “empowers” them to classify information etc.? Doesn’t that “cure the problem”? lol, no, it doesn’t.

The WHOLE idea of a LIMITED constitutional government is based upon the fact that they must FIRST be able to point to a provision that allows them to CREATE the legislation or the executive order. Not the other way around.

He was supposed to be building a foundation. He said it would work just as well. I don't know. I know I'm not an "expert" but it just doesn't look that stable to me.

I hired this guy to build a foundation for a deck I wanted and he built this.  He said I had to trust him because how it worked  was a secret.  I know I’m not an “expert” but it just doesn’t look that stable to me. I tried to find him after he cashed my check, but his number was out of service.

And no, giving some limited information to some representatives, “in closed session” on the “house intelligence committee” etc. who then DO NOT pass it on to me is NO BETTER. It is just another diversion that’s part of the scam.  It is NOT sufficient.  NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The concept of a principal giving an agent authority to act on his behalf and then being allowed to keep the conduct secret from him is WELL KNOWN IN THE LAW. So it would have been simple to have put it into the constitution if the PEOPLE had wanted to have secrets kept from them. Do you see that?

Take the example of a blind trust. The trust is operated on behalf of the person and for their benefit, and in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest etc. the beneficiary of the trust (the principal) CHOOSES to be kept in the dark about what types of things the trust is involved in through its agents.

Not surprisingly, when such a grant of authority is given by a principal the PRINCIPAL SETS the parameters and they are EXPLICIT and well defined, and there are always methods to keep track of the agent’s conduct and to investigate it and to be sure that the requirements and limitations are being complied with in order to PROTECT THE PRINCIPAL who set it up.

And of course, all of this makes perfect sense. If you are going to give someone the right to do things on your behalf, and to then KEEP THEM SECRET FROM YOU, you will have very explicit provisions etc. describing and PROSCRIBING the conduct permitted. Understand?

Think about it, how would you feel if your agent was out there doing all sorts of things in your name with your money etc. yet they wanted to keep it all secret? It is absurd. Now imagine the types of things your agent claimed he was entitled to do under this alleged grant of authority might involve imprisoning you or killing you or someone else. Are you willing to allow that to occur without a very specific and EXPLICIT grant of authority? I seriously doubt it.

My agent said that the Cheetah was a completely legitimate use of the funds. I didn't really understand, but I'm sure he's watching out for me.

Trust is a delicate matter.  My ex promised me that it “wasn’t about the money” when we “broke up”, but then I saw her riding around with this dude.  

It is such a fundamental violation of the agency agreement for the agent to act in secret without authority from the principal, that it doesn’t require any argument to demonstrate how “screwed” that would be. (to use a bit of legal jargon, lol) But that is exactly the situation with regards to the government keeping secrets from you and me. There IS NO DIFFERENCE because the government is supposedly the “agent” of you and me acting under the authority of the constitution.


How can you be free and in charge if those you are supposedly “in charge of” have the right and the ability to do whatever they care to, to both you and anyone else and then label it “a matter of national security” and keep anyone from finding out about it?

That situation turns the entire concept of who is in charge on its head. It exposes the laughable lie about “we the people” being in charge. But still people refuse to see this or to accept the reality of their situation. The cognitive dissonance created by seeing this is just too great for most people. So they stick their heads in the sand.

If we the people DECIDE that we NEED to be kept in the dark about some stuff for our own good it isn’t complicated to do it LEGALLY. The people need simply agree to some set of information or conduct that they want to allow the government to keep from them and then they just need to put that IN THE CONSTITUTION. Then the government would be authorized to keep those secrets from THE PEOPLE.

But right now there is no CONSTITUTIONAL authority whatsoever to keep secrets from the people. It is just another area where the government has seized a power it was not given. Every branch of the government then assists in maintaining and wielding that power by using the peoples’ own money against them.  Sometimes by creating propaganda and lies in the form of “opinions” from government agents called “judges” in the judicial branch, and sometimes in the form of threats and imprisonment from “attorney generals” from the executive branch.  All of this is directed at the citizens who question the government’s “authority”.

Is it just me or are these a LOT more roomy than than I remember?

Hey Steve, is it just me or are these a LOT roomier than I remember? … It’s just you dude.

But the people in this country not only put up with all of this, they actually run around proclaiming how “free they are” despite it and call those who point it out, unpatriotic. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Think how outrageous this whole “national security secrets” thing is now that you understand how to think about it? Now that you are not thinking about it within the false paradigm they have GIVEN YOU in their schools and in their controlled media? It is laughable that people accept the concept that they will be “kept in the dark”, without any question at all. So hopelessly brainwashed are the people that they don’t even SEE the issue.

Do you see why your “leaders” have such contempt for you the people they claim to “serve”? They see the people as absolute fools, and in a way, sadly, they are right, the people are fools who are so easily fooled. lol.

Our rulers in government tell us whatever they care to and nothing else, as though we are their children, as though THEY ARE OUR MASTERS. Get it? And under what CONSTITUTIONAL authority do they do all of this? Lol, NONE.

The constitution is a useless JOKE. An actual agent of harm when you are honest about it, because people think it protects them when it clearly does NOT, and so they rely on it to “protect their freedoms” when it cannot be relied upon. Do you see that?

Such is the power of paradigms. Those in charge understand the power of paradigms and they make sure to tightly control the ones that you exist in through propaganda in education and the media.

Game theory my friend. It’s all game theory.

They brought Miley in to testify about the need for more national security. She seemed credible to me.

They brought Miley in to testify “in closed session” about the need to “protect” our “culture” from “attack” .  Here’s a leaked picture from the testimony she apparently gave.  She seems credible to me.

I hope you have learned a bit about “national security” and what a joke it is. And I hope that the next time some guy in a military uniform, or some “white house spokesman” etc. gets on TV and starts talking about confidential this and secret that and national security protection this, you can just laugh at him for being such a blatant and obvious collaborator in this whole scam. Certainly you can no longer take them seriously can you? And that, my friend, is freeing. And knowing this you will NEVER be fooled again by their scam. So enjoy it.

I will leave you with a bit of comedy.  Finally, a candidate for president who makes some sense.  She knows all about the dangers of keeping things secret from the people.  Give it a minute or two, I think you’ll like it.  She would have gotten my vote, if I voted, which I don’t. Lol.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the Truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

And the truth shall set you free.

6 thoughts on “The Constitution does not permit ANYTHING to be “stamped top secret” and kept from the PEOPLE.

  1. Kram

    I remember it was top secret. Now I am learning the language by taking lessons from a Personal United States Server…lol Your blog may not let me put in the acronym but I will now entertain it in my mind. May the Farce be with you. Long live the Farce!

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      The absurdity of any justification for “keeping secrets” Kram is obvious on its face. Without the express provision allowing it, this giant power must be implied. But that stands the entire document on its head. It is a government of express powers not implied. Without the express provision, the power is clearly unconstitutional. There really is nothing more to it than that.

      Once you see this point, it is so obvious that most people are shocked at why they never saw it before. But I defy you to find any serious discussion of it in the media or news or by any candidate. It is never raised.

      They just get everyone assuming the power and discussing how it should be used. It is asinine that people accept this. But they do. And they probably always will. — L

  2. Herbert Dorsey

    Of course you are correct, the National Security Act, like the Federal Researve Act is unconstitutional. If Congress wished to regain the trust and approval of the people they would pass a bill that would void all unconstitutional acts. Think of all the money that would save!

    By the way, the FBI, CIA and DHS were all set up by Knights of Malta, agents of the Vatican. So the question is “who do these agencies actually serve?” Find the answer by reading “The Secret History of the New World Order.”

  3. Ft. Nolan

    Good gosh, that’s a long five minutes listening to “her”! But have you ever considered how the Central Intelligence Agency is merely a rampart for the Central Influence Agency which manipulates the economy — everywhere — so that a certain few may profit from their actions which bring about profitable events?

    Allow me to sum it up: The Earth is a plantation.

    Does that help with understanding any/everything now?


Leave a Reply

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