Theft of power by the courts

Lord Acton: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All judges believe they can interpret the Constitution but that violates everything about the Constitution. Who's the boss? The Creator or the created? The servant or the master? Fundamental law theory covers this. We the People are the Creator of the Constitution and are thus superior to the Constitution. The Constitution is the Creator of the government, ALL branches, and is superior to ALL government. The subordinate, i.e. the courts, are NOT empowered to define the superior, the Constitution. The People have been brain-washed to believe that the SC has the final say but that is a lie perpetrated by those IN power to KEEP power. Our law for the government is the Constitution. We the People set it in place. When properly functioning, the government has to ask We the People for permission too add powers, i.e. the amendment process. The courts and the government has figured out that by claiming the authority to "interpret" our law for them, they can by pass amendments by claiming all sorts of non-delegated powers. 99% of what people believe about the current system is wrong. One must return to the original framing and work forward from there. A for instance: The govt believed it needed the 18th amendment to ban booze yet never offered an amendment to ban "drugs" or other things. If an amendment is required to ban one thing, an amendment is required to ban any other thing. Lies, damn lies, judges (all of them).

The Right of Self Defense

Reading on Volovk.com over on Reason.com, I saw a discussion of how Colorado grants the right of self-defense. Total unsupportable BULLSHIT. The Right of self defense is central the the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as expressed in the Declaration and is central to the 2nd Amendment. The Right to self Defense is ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR and is inalienable, no government can infringe, reduce, remove or otherwise make anny laws, rules or regulations concerning such a Right. God grants Rights. Gocernment allows privileges and can remove those privileges. RIGHTS cannot be assailed by anyone.

Simple English - Ignorant people

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by folks with proper knowledge of the use of the English language. Today's readers not so much. IMO judges are some of the worst, either not understanding the written word or simply ignoring what We the People say. First look at the Preamble of the Constitution. The premable does not delegate any power but mererly sets down what the Framers wished to accomplish. One VERY, VERY important word in the premable it "for" at the end of the paragraph. Why? Because pretty much all folks miss read that last line and call the document, the Constitution "OF" the United States, of projecting ownership. THe actual Constitution does not call the document the Constitution "of". The last words of the Constitution are "this Constitution FOR the United States". Why do I bring this up? Because the use of FOR tells the reader/student that We the People OWN the Constitution and that the document is created in order to control or limit the government it creates. A simple "of" versus "for" alters the reason the Constitution exists. If you don't understand, you should go back to school and learn the language properly. Second look at preamble of the Bill of Rights. This preamble contains the following clause: "...Articles in addition to and Amendments OF..." in proposing and identifying the modifications of the Constitution that were proposed. A standard legal maxim is thaat latter law overrides prior law that is in conflict. The statement "amendments of" comes from that maxim and is included in order to ascertain that those trying to understand the amendments know that all of the original Constitution that conflicts with these amendments is moot, no longer part of the delegated powers to the federal government. As an aside, Madison wanted to alter the original Constituution and insert changes in various places within the original but he was repudiated and the changes were all placed at the end. Had Madison succeeded the modifications known as the Bill of Rights would have impacted our system very differently. We must be thankful that those others who were involved recognized that altering the original would betray those who ratified the Constitution and placed the approved amendments at the end of the original. What is the importance? By including the clause "...Articles in addition to and Amendments OF..." in the preamble, those amendments altered ALL conflicting parts of the original Constitution and became applicable against ALL levels of government through the supremacy clause of Article VI Pp 2. The courts in 1833 screwed this up in Barron v Baltimore where the court followed Madison's repudiated "intent" and decided that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States in direct conflict with the supremacy clause. WHat does this all mean? The 1st amendment (originally the 3rd not 1st) is restricted to Congress regardless of the machinations of the judiciary to claim applicability against the states under sosme ruse. Simple straightforward language is in your face. That language stops the federal government from making ANY laws about religious establishments, establishing a religion or restricting the free exercise fo religion. NO LAW. NOTHING. Not positive, not negative, not neutral. NOTHING. Why limit the 1st to Congress only? Take the time to look up and study the laws of the first 13 states. You will find they cover religion, speech and the press. Had the 1st extended to all levels, it would never haave passed. The purpose was separation of the federal government FROM religion NOT a separation of church as state as improperly stated by Jefferson in a letter to a pastor. Back to the Constitution itself. Look at Article V. Folks often are confused about amendments but Article 5 states emphatically that Congress ... SHALL PROPOSE followed by how such proposed are finalized. Congress is to REQUEST PERMISSION from We the People by way of proposed amendments. We the People decide if we want to ALlOW the government to exercise some new requested power. Liars, cheats and evil people have claimed the Constitution is a "living" document in order to bypass the amendment process and all too often the judges have agreed with those lies because supporting those lies has allowed the judiciary to usurp power. A convention of the States can also propose amendments BUT the States cannot simply call a convention, 2/3 of the legislatures of the States may apply to the Congress and the Congress must call a convention. In no case, can any level of government legitimately alter the Constitution without following the process We the People placed in OUR LAW for them, the Constitution. We can go through the entire Constitution, each clause, each word, and elucidate the proper meanings. I say We because We the People because We the People are the Creator of the Constitution, superior to that document. All parts of government are created by the Constitution and are therefore subordinate, under the Constitution. No part of the government is empowered to interpret OUR LAW FOR THEM, not the legislature, not the executive, not the judiciary. Copyright, 2026 NBoC.

AI is full of shite

If you like AI, you are an idiot. AI is nothing but the creature of its creators and never will be more. Their biases, their opinions, their capacities for thought will always limit what they can create. AI will never be sentient in the sense of human sentience because NO ONE can give AI a soul.

Unitary, Bwahahaha!

Yes, the President is a singular entity. No the President DOES NOT HAVE all executive power. If this is true then the enumeration of Presidential powers is moot and unnecessary. Simple proof. No argument can override. The enumeration of one power negates the implication of all other powers. If implied powers exist, they exist for ALL power thus no power need be delegated. Those expousing this concept are negating the work of the Framers AND implying that the Framers were ignorant of the document the Framers created that established the Union. Congress is not empowered to add to the President's power except through offerings of amendments because We the People retain all authority. All legislation of Congress must be explicitly approveed by a specific delegation of power from We the People. No implied authority. The Creator endows each person with full authority over that person. Individual persons join others and delegate SOME authority from themselves to the group while retaining all undelegated power (10th Amendment).

17th and suffrage

IMO, because of popular election, Senators no longer represent their state in the Senate. This point brings my next opinion, based on straight forward language in the Constitution, that the 17th amendment was not properly ratified. In Art 5 it is written " that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." This language makes the change to choosing Senators such that the Senators do not represent states but represent the people just as the Representatives represent the people. The State, a body-politic different than the People, loses its suffrage in the Senate. The 17th was not ratified by 100% of the states and each of those states lost their suffrage "without its consent". The 17th thus required 100% and not 3/4ths of the states for ratification.

Territories - where do they fit.

While the Constitution applies to all states, the question is does it apply to those areas NOT signataries to the Constitution. If the territories are signataries of the Constitution, they would be states when approved for membership by the Congress.   Congress however does not have power to make laws in territories. If the delegated powers are reviewed, one finds that Art 4 Sec 3 Pp 2 delegates the power to make needful rules and regulations for the territories but no mention of laws occurs. Logically, there was no need for this delegation if the other delegations concerning laws applied in the territories. How do federal laws apply/work in the US VI? Questionable!  The states have ratified the Constitution while territories have not, making the states a party to the Union. Are the peoples of the USVI citizens of the United States? Not under the 14th because the territories are not States and the United States are a Union of States, not territories. This is a complex issue which needs study regardless of what judges and other folks say. One needs to grasp what the legal term of art, The United States, means. The Constitution provides evidence the the term, United States, means the group of individual states (not a singular entity) as in the definition of treason: levying war against THEM or adhering to THEIR enemies (not "its"). Can Congress legitimately grant citizenship outside the delegations of power in the Constitution? Not legitimately (10th amendment).  Do the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply in the USVI? Yes because the BoR applies to all humans, everywhere. Does the constitution of the USVI recognize the BoR? haven't researched. Can Congress approve constitutions for various territories? Not under any delegation of power in the Constitution. Pls supply citation to correct me if possible. The Framers evaluated, offered and rejected allowing Congress to make new states from territories (Elliot's Debates, Meigs, The Growth of the Constitution.) At this point, Tom has raised an important question for the people's of territories.

Real Fascism

Talk. Talk. Talk. THe left calls everything on the right, fascist. Here's REAL fascism: absolute immunity. What is absolute immunity? THe sC decided that judges haave absolute immunity from being sued, etc in order to allow judges to do their duties without fear of retribution. Talk about ABSOLUTE FASCISM. NO, absolute immunity merely allows judges to screw over the People. Jusges do not have the authority to intepret constitutions because constitution CREATE the courts. Judges can read the laws but they should be limited to not implying actions, not claiming intent, not adding words to any law. There should be no absolute immunity nor any immunity for judges. THAT would make them do a better job because the judges would be driven to follow OUR laws, those laaws the People make for themselves and their governance.