Self-defense against the "constitution-ists" among us

From: legal_reality
Subj: Self-defense against the "constitution-ists" among us

3 January A.D. 2014

As we enter another year finding ourselves among an entire nation that's been lullabied to sleep regarding a number of things, including the form of government (at STATE and national levels), here are a few self-defense concepts to have at the ready. 

1. Ask the party promoting the "constitution" - as if it had some significance as "admissible evidence of law" - what the form of government was in America at the time of the formal separation from England.


When the "constitution-ist" says, "Republic, of course," then

2. Ask the "constitution-ist" why the Declaration "declares" the form as a democracy, and then also why the Supreme Court quietly but plainly, to this very day, still describe(s) our present system as "an experiment in democracy."


When the "constitution-ist" acknowledges that the original form was that of a "democracy," then

3. Ask the "constitution-ist" how a democracy changes its form.


After getting a "deer in the headlights" look, and, a stammering, stuttering, "Well, by the constitution, of course!", then

4. Ask the "constitution-ist" where the plebiscite is. [plebiscite: a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or ruler - Websters' New Collegiate Dictionary.]   

When the "constitution-ist" acknowledges that there isn't one, and still keeps going, anyway, then

5. Ask where any State had authority to create a super-sovereign.


When the "constitution-ist" acknowledges that no State (where viewed as a "constitutional" system, itself, which not one of them was, and for the same reason as above -- no plebiscite) was authorized to create a "power" superior to itself (hence the ever-echoing objection permeating the entirety of the Philadelphia Convention, to this effect, "We don't have the authority to do this"), and still keeps going anyway, then

6. Ask where the document defines "Citizen of the United States."


When the "constitution-ist" acknowledges that there was no such definition, until about the time of the "14th Amendment," i.e., nothing from the outset, and still keeps going anyway, then

7. Ask where the plebiscite is, even after that.


When the "constitution-ist" acknowledges that there was no such thing, not even then, and still keeps on going, then just rest 100% assured that the speaker/author is so far into cognitive dissonance as perhaps to be incurable in the area.

["But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breech of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he [the person] is not a party to it. The States are a party to it..." [emphasis added]. [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]. "The States" referred to, here, are the governments of The States, not the people of the States.]

To engage that discussion, it helps to be confident in each of these particular matters (and there are many, many more, but this is sufficient to expose the "constitution-ist" as being somewhere other than in the world of our present legal reality). 

"Constitution-ists" mean well, but they really don't "get it," yet.  It is a wicked paradigm shift, but we just can't continue to consider them as having any idea, at all, what our legal environment is, thus, what the problem is, thus what the solution is.

To argue the "constitution" in our present environment is to perpetuate the "blame game," because the objective of the "constitution-ist" is to change someone, something [anything], other than the person found in the mirror, and the only solution we have starts with - change the person we find in the mirror.

There are control mechanisms over this Nazi-communo-fascist system.  There are!  But, they're commercial in nature, not political, not philosophical, but commercial.  Thus, they're individual in nature, not something that develops from "group think."  The current environment can't be fixed from the top down. The marketplace has to respond from the bottom up.  Where the people lead, the "leaders" will follow.


Use this self-defense mechanism well, and with some measure of patience, and those who feel they'd benefit in a "refresher" course as to how/why this list of questions ends the discussion, that is available.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe :  legal_reality@earthlink.net