It's true that when a people create a government above them they are asking it to govern them wisely and with justice. And then the inevitable happens. The government, because of it's existence as a tool of control is infiltrated by those who don't care for anyone but themselves and their cronies. History repeats itself again and again and again and..... Will the cycle ever be broken? Our forefathers broke it in grand style with the means to keep it broken. The cycle began again and America jumped on the bandwagon with nary a thought but the wealth they could get from the system. Now we are paying for our greed. Either mankind will break the cycle for good this time or die trying because this time the whole world is at stake because of its interdependancy through the world economic system. Not just a portion of it or the "known" world. This is a unique situation with technology not had in the past. The possible ramifications of it are not known to us so it won't be the average despotism. New techniques of slavery will bring the art of enslavement to levels we can only imagine until the reality of them take effect. Won't that be exciting Waff? Just what you've been wanting for America.

Waffler, ownership is control pure and simple and one doesn't need a certificate of ownership to "own" somebody. Give me your money and I care not what rules you govern your life by because I'll buy the people that make the laws and force you to live the way I want you to live for my benefit so I can live in the splendor that I deserve for intelligently making you believe that it's for the good of all therefore good for you. I do it and will continue to do it at YOUR expense by YOUR labor as long as we both shall live. This is a frame of mind I despise not because I want to live in splendor (I have little needs and wants) but because it is the use of amassed power that destroys lives and the lives being destroyed in America today are directly the result of that mindset. I won't detail this as it has been detailed for you many many times and you see nothing morally wrong with that centralized power to control. You avoid this issue by relating to cars and horses and then feign agreement that based on the car and the horse we are controlled in many ways and then ask "what's wrong with that?" You go ahead and master the ways of this society that is full of corruption on high and I will continue to tear at with the truth that it is a tool of evil in this day. I have no desire to convert you as only you can do that so that is not why I do what I do. I do it out of love and respect for others as that is what the moral laws of nature demand of me and every other person on this earth to make a better life for everybody in general as in the general welfare the preamble says the reason for writing the Constitution. You can pervert that result of obeying natural laws to mean all the social programs you want but it does not change the demand of nature not to control your neigbor but their are inevitable and immutable consequences to pay as you and your like minded comrades will find out when society can't suffer those consequences any longer and are forced by nature to return to its' eternal principles of justice and its' eternally correct way of living life that attains peaceful coexistence if nature's laws are parcticed in all aspects of society on earth and not just in personal relationships. Nature is poetic Waffler and the day for poetic justice is fast approaching because the above mindset refuses to change and it is a fact that those of that mindset are bringing the wrath of nature upon themselves just as Americans are by allowing that mindset to run their society as they partake of the benefits of it as well when they can get them. Nature will not be denied as history has proven over and over again by the billions of lives lost for the sake of that mindset and the reawakening of the masses when finally pushed too far by demands that can't be met. Curse, rant, cajole, empathize, wheedle and promote that mindset to high heaven that it is the way it should and must be for the benefit of all mankind because nature is not listening exactly because that mindset does not listen to nature. Nothing petty here Waffler. This is serious sh#t.

Right again Mike. When we had an informed jury, I discovered that the check and balance system was what kept the judiciary from corruption. With a judge, council and jury, all concerned with the protection of individual rights and true justice, everybody watched everbody else to see that no powers were abused and individual rights were protected. Transparency was critical and so no secret meetings between judge and council behind closed doors. Our jury is the most critical check among the 3 and of course if push came to shove the jury had last say to judge constitutionality of law and decision on the facts and in fact, because they are the masters and the judge/councils the servant. This system kept prejudice out as everbody was judged on the basis of natural law individual rights of ALL men.

I agree with Archer and Mike. Archer because all rights are absolute and Mike for showing the loss of the states power to sucede. Although rights are absolute the most important one is freedom of choice. In particular, the right of the individual to choose yes or no. This is the basis of our voluntary tax system, voluntary Social Security, voluntary military service etc. Without the unfettered (non-regulated) right to choose yes or no there are no other rights. If choice can be forced by anyone, including our constitutional administration, on anyone, absolute freedom does not exist.

calvin reeves, lewisville. Ask them about freedom of choice and you'll walk away more confused. Choice is what gives you the right to say what you want and expression covers the right to give the finger to the guy who says "you can't say that"!

Waffler, Since you were the one who stated it is not morally right for someone to own another but it's freedom if the collective owns the individual you explain what you meant by that and then I'll answer your question.

Waffler, you said; "Faith in people and fatih in democracy is the answer to our problems. Not reliance on what someone may call "natural law". If what the framers did in the original document is Natural Law then I am against Natural Law."----LoL, yes, faith in people to recognize the truth of this statement as the lie it is would be on the right track. What the framers did is not natural law, what they did was establish natural law as law on earth. I'm sure this won't change your position about natural law because you've been against it for as long as I've been on this forum and I'm sure the other's, Archer, Mike, Logan etc, who have been here longer than I will vouch for your hatred of it since they've been on here.----Then you said; "Is it any wonder that Native Americans, African Americans and others relied upon the Federal Government to secure to them basic human rights and decency. Again what exactly do you mean by Natural Law."----No, it is no wonder Waff, The federal administration was counting on it. What do I mean by natural law? That law which nature provides so that we may understand the inalienable rights of the individual. They are, which you refuse to admit, the foundation of individual freedom our Constitution protects as the law of the land. No adherence to them is our problem and adherence to them constitutionally is the solution.

Waffler, don't be silly, property of the individual begins with his rights and ends with the physical property he owns. As to slaves as property I disagree with it but understand the reasons it was written in to the Constitution. Very emotional debates at the time to say the least and though I agree slavery of any man was contradictory to the intent of freedom of the individual, there still was no need for the 13th and the 14th. Once the slaves were released by proclamation they were free men and as free men they should have done a Rosa Parks and went to court and stood their ground like any American has to do if he wants to keep them after they've been violated. To be free, if he wants to be free, is the responsibility of EVERY INDIVIDUAL and it would be irresponsible of me to expect somebody else to stand up for my rights when I'm not willing to do it myself. Our administration was never intended nor given the power to stand up for anybody's rights but only to protect the document that protected the natural law that expresses rights through self evident truth. It was and is the duty of every individual to stand up for them and the place to stand up was provided by the judiciary clauses of our Constitution. We did NOT put a nanny form of government into power with the adoption of the Constitution. The only amendment after the proclamation that NEEDED to be written is one that struck any language regarding slavery from the Constitution and, as free men, the slaves were in the same boat as any other American who has or had to defend his rights to get justice. You said it yourself, all men are created equal and it is nature and/or God's nature (how one looks at this is immaterial to anybody but the individual and has nothing to do with the fact that natural rights exist) that gave us all the same rights and it is there where that equality under the law ends and the fight to defend those rights begin. Should I wait for God to fight for my rights? Should I wait for my neighbor to fight for my rights? Should I wait for or expect my administration to fight for them? Maybe you will Waff? The 14th put the administration in the position of rights granters (civil at that) and this was a power they were never given and so the 14th is unconstitutional in that respect. They usurped the power of the amendment process and created a new citizen with government granted rights and privileges with the excuse the slaves were never considered sovereign freemen which is what "rock solid" natural laws proclaim and that is what our original Constitution protected as law of the land. They were born free just as you or anybody else in the world is. Your suggestion to not rely on what someone may call natural law is immaterial as well as correct. Natural law defines itself, all we have to do is look at it. You said no man has the right to own another man. What led you to this conclusion? Did another man tell you this therefore it's truth? What led him to the conclusion. Why do I agree with that statement without you presenting one scrap of evidence to back it up? It's because we have a common sense that tells us all that the statement is true. It's not the natural state of man to be a slave to anybody and it is natural law in our spirit that tells us that with our innate ability to think with reason and logic after identifying that law in spirit.

E Archer, I didn't say that out of pessimism but rather optimism, but I do see how it could be taken that way. The rising tide is just an acceptance of the fact that, until enough wake up to turn things around, the corrupters of our self governing system of rule continue to grab more power on a daily basis. The bailing and life preservers mean waking people up but at the same time preparing for the worst. Not pessimism but prudence. I've always known truth will win out in the long run and thus the root of my optimism but, will the people wake up in time to avoid the worst? It can't be ignored that if enough were to wake up to actually become a threat to the banking cartel, we can only surmise what they may do when their power is challenged at that point. Lessons of history don't take into consideration the new ground we're on here with technological control that didn't exist in the past. Truth WILL win out but getting it back into its authoritive role again in America by either a peaceful revolution or a bloody one might not be as easy (I use the term loosely) as our forefathers had it. But, since we don't have anything in history to contrast with today's more complex situation, optimism points out that it's just as possible that once enough wake up, no matter what the ensuing result, we could clear the bastards out of there virtually overnight. Touche'! I agree 100% with the body of your post and the following one as well and also agree, wake the fuck up America!

Waffler, you really didn't say this did you?---- "Waffler says one man can not morally own another man but it is freedom if the collective owns the individual." So YOU can't own me, but you and your buddy can. Or you can create any kind of government that says one citizen can't own another but the government can own everybody? Who has the freedom here Waffler? Who? Shame shame Waff, shame shame.

A more perfect union. Nothing provides this better than the mutual respect of each others rights.----Establish justice. Nothing is more just than the mutual respect of each others rights----Insure domestic tranquility. Nothing insures this better than the mutual respect of each others rights.----Provide for the common defense. Nothing provides that better than when people who mutually respect each other's rights band together in tranquility to defend that principle if necessary.----Promote the general welfare. Nothing promotes that better than glorifying the mutual respect of each others rights to each other and the value of that natural law principle to keeping the peace.----To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Nothing does this better than doing all of the above. Everybody, voluntarily or by oath, but EVERYBODY. In every aspect of life and society.

E Archer, you'll get no argument from me on that post. Where the line is drawn Waffler has more than made it clear what side of it he's on and he knows what he's doing. He's a traitor convicted by his own words. I wonder though. I suspect he might jump to any side that has the upper hand and he could benefit from it.

Mike----Thanks for your insight not just here but from all your posts. The tide of ignorance is rising so all we can do is keep bailing and keep our life preservers on.

"The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right,".......to govern himself,...."entered into a compact with each other to produce".....an administration of laws....."and this is the only mode in which".......administrations created by the self governed....."have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist."---- I have a real problem with the use of the word government to describe our Constitutions structure that created an administration and NOT a government. We the people are the governors and the administration is supposed to work for us to safeguard the principle of natural law that grants us the authority, power, and rights to self govern.

Jeff Whittington, you said-----"I challenge anyone to show me that habias corpus has been violated ONE TIME under the Patriot Act." Give it time. The power is there to do it and you can be sure it is there for a reason. It WILL be used as historical perspectives show us. Any power uncontrolled governments had or have were and are used to subdue the populace. It is ironic that in our case it's not the real government that has these powers for that is us, it is a constitutional administration that has usurped the real governments power in overriding the limitations of power originally placed on it.

Mike, your comment is as brilliant as the quote. What you said is of the knowledge absolutely necessary if we are ever to regain control of our out of control administration.

Hmm...Wasn't it a national emergency (9/11) that was used to foist the Patriot Act on the American public? And isn't that, the P.A, an increase of power NOT granted by constitutional limitations of power? If that isn't usurpation and one believes it's not, then I have an island in the middle of the ocean I'm more than ready to sell you.

Now that quote is five stars plus for accuracy even if he, Salant, didn't ever say it. Mike, brilliant observation exposing the the same platform for both sides of the coin.

Al,D.C., My sentiments exactly. Since the real Constitution is grounded in rock solid REAL self evident natural laws, the restoration of it should always be an optimistic endeavor. Pessimism implies that nature can fail in its operation and that my friend is an impossibility. It can be restored alright if the blinders placed on the populace by corrupt use of media and educational institutions are removed by the constant exposure to the truth that has been hidden from them. Once the truth is again generally known by Americans along with the effects the corruption of it has and will continue to have on their lives they will naturally be forced to see their error and man's human nature to survive will bring action. This is not to say the Constitution might not be removed, replaced, or altered (as it is now) for a time but natural law is eternal and any "framing" of those laws in a future Constitution has to have the same basic structure it has now. In afterthought, I believe there are two reasons our Constitution or its likeness may never be seen again. The first is if men who desire world control, in the battle to secure it stupidly blow the world to pieces and second, if mankind reaches a level of enlightment (which I believe they have the ability and capability) where our Constitution or any likeness is not needed and the respect of every individual's rights becomes as natural for the population of the world as breathing is. This I believe is the ultimate reason we are here, to learn why that goal is important and how it can be acheived. We definitely have a lot to learn and as evidenced by the current state of mankind a long way to go, but because the goal is a possibility in the imagination of man and man can create what he imagines, a reasonable case can be argued in favor of the idea's fruition in the reality of man's future. Thumbs down for the negativity expressed and the blow to optimism it delivers to those who work tirelessly for a free republic again.

Mike, you said----"There is no term that relays a mental image of representative servants administering law, justice, and the otherwise political affairs for individual sovereigns,"------In the quote Madison speaks of enabling the government to control the governed. This is misleading because the Constitution does not allow the (as you said there is no term that relays the mental image) administrational structure of a self governed people to control the self governed at all. The term "government" implies power over the self governed and this is where confusion, because of the lack of a term to call our founder's unique creation, allows the ignorant to get away with a myriad of what they call justifications that show we must obey our administrational servants because the Constitution (they say without thought) gave the administration the power to govern us. This is a mistaken idea that those who desire administrative control over the sovereign individual exploit to the fullest to cover up and deny the truth that we are supposed to be free, sovereign, self governing individuals and that are structual form of administration was created to protect the self governing form of rule and the rights (laws of nature) that establish self government as the law of the land with the adoption of our Constitution. Every facet of our Constitution is structured to protect the natural principle of self government from the arbitrary exercise of power other governments eventually end up using once corruption slithers in and in our case, the corruption is evident in that statesmen no longer represent our self government but represent special interests and their desire to control individual self governors. To accomplish this they usurp power beyond constitutional limitations and so gain that control. All of this manipulation violates their oath of office. I also believe the term "statesman" is used by the same special interests to imply states rights (which no state possesses) in the same way as the term government is used to imply power over the self governed. I bring this up because too many patriots are out there calling our administrative structure a governing body which plays right ino the hands of those that argue for "government" control of the rights of the individual which is EXACTLY what our administrative structure was created to prevent. At times I find it a bit difficult to find the right words when the use of the term government would be so easy to use but being forced to deal with the fact of the self governing nature of our constitutional structure without a "term" to describe it, the clarification must be understood by patriots and they must stop using the term government to describe our structual design of administrative servants given the job of protecting the self governing principle of natural law our Constitution is supposed to protect. 3 stars only because of the confusion the quote causes.

With tongue in cheek I say, Nah, it could never happen in America. We're free and our government works for us.

E. Archer---so very true.----------- "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton----------------- "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." Thomas Jefferson

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -­ kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour -­ with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it."----- General Douglas MacArthur

Shock and awe is what it's called and it works like a charm as the victims cry out for justice that preps them for whatever the government wants to call justice.

Well said Mike.