The Bill of Rights is the only document that has never been altered. It does not give rights. It only lists rights that we have by nature.
Indoctrination has convinced people that the 2nd Amendment of the CONstitution protects our rights to arms. No it doesn't! It is a corporate charter!
The Articles within the bill of rights is what they cannot modify or ignore!
11 comments:
Forget 2nd Amendment of the corporate charter/Constitution. Article 2 Bill of Rights is where it is at!
They are the same thing. The 2nd article of the bill of rights is the 2nd amendment. Prove otherwise. My proof that they are the same is the lack of proof that they are not.
Define Article and define Amendment. Define Bill of Rights and define Constitution. That is where you will see the difference. Also notice changes made to each document since it's creation.
And to add another note... Never has the Bill of Rights been denied in any corporate court unlike many judges ordering to never bring the Constitution into their courtrooms. The CONstitution has many amendments added to it without the people's consent and never ratified. Why has the Bill of Rights never been amended? The only change I have ever seen to the Bill of Rights is 2 additional commas were added to the 2nd Article without the permission of the people.
All I know is just the other day Rex Tillerson's parting speech on the main stream media included how they are all bound to protect the Constitution. You never hear any of them ever mention the Bill Of Rights, ever.
By the way, off topic, but I have to tell ya, this morning I went into my youtube page and all my channels I subscribed to are gone replaced by random channels that you cannot close!?! I just so happen to of just had the usual "required updates". WTF
actually, written by the anti-federalists, as they knew that federal overreach would happen as it has; they wrote the Bill of Rights to protect our god-given Rights and Immunities from the treasonous actions of the federalist government; the 9th and 10th amendment, makes void all the subsequent amendments as they clearly violate the inherent Rights of the People. re-read 9th very carefully, it is basically like marbury v madison any law repugnant to the constitution is void and the tenth nails it down deeper, AS THE PEOPLE HAVE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, for example, the Right to travel is so basic that it need not be mentioned as a necessary protection or immunity; so basic as to not to even write it down for the people in the Trust Indenture. ALWAYS REMEMBER that document is NOT FOR YOU and you do not have constitutional rights or civil rights (unless you are a 14th amendment/U.S. citizen)
the other thing to overstand are the enabling clauses of ALL of the Trust indentures of government were so written that every one of them back to the magna carta is just as valid as the current one, (dont let them fool you) it just builds on the other and if it is found to be in conflict in Fact and Law, (not at law) it is void ab intitio.
cmon peeps WAKE THE **** UP...
also, be very careful how you presume and assume you know how THEY are defining "United States" and "States"... District of Columbia? Columbia Territories? united several States? State of State franchises of the United States dba District of Columbia? territories and possessions of the United States dba District of Columbia? Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa? if you dont know how its being defined or fail to ask, then you dont know or understand...why is this relevant? haha
To Freewill at 3:55 AM. Go to the original constitution signed by the founding fathers on display and you will see the constitution. The one and only constitution that has never been changed to this day. The Bill of Rights was added as the first ten amendments to that same original constitution because the people originally rejected the constitution as written and wanted more protections written in to it. These have not changed to this day. The constitution has been amended by process several times according to the process found designated in that same original document.
Where are you getting that there are changes without the people's consent. If they were made according to the constitutional process, then they were with the people's consent.
Also you can't amend amendments. The bill of rights are the first ten amendments, and there is no provision to amend an amendment. That is just silly. Your understanding of the constitution has been warped and twisted so that your words are just gobbledy gook. You can change an amendment by a future amendment, just as the amendments creating and ending prohibition were done.
You say notice the changes to each document. They are all one and the same document. The bill of rights is part of the original constitution, which make up the first ten amendments. Why is that so hard to grasp? If that were not true, why was the next amendment numbered eleven? If the bill of rights was a separate document, amendment 11 would be amendment 1.
You have to look at why the judges have said don't bring the constitution in their courtroom. Every time this has happened it was a tax related case. The tax statutes are constitutional as written, and so any constitutional challenge was a waste of time. You have to look at and learn context instead of making general statements and misapplications as you are doing.
Oh, and by the way, what evidence do you have the 2 commas were not in the original 2nd amendment? Did you go look at the original and see if they were there, or did you just take your cult leader's word for it?
AnonymousMarch 16, 2018 at 4:20 PM
The originall Bill of Rights only contained one comma in the second Article, not 3 commas. And you fail to have knowledge or are ignoring it. Did you know there are 5 versions of the U.S. Constitution? Bill Clinton was responsible for the 5th. I do know the Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments. It has been altered. Do you want to argue with my cult leader on it? His name is Carl E. Miller. Here is one of his videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ
Or you can take it up with Carl Miller's cult leader. His name was General Douglas MacArthur. Carl lived with me for some time and I learned much from him and many of his special forces cult brothers. What say you?
carl miller is da bomb and yes freewill i agree brother, it does depend on the constitutionl version ie attorney's have access to the original constitution that had the genuine 13th amendment originally written into to it that they could not hold office/titles of nobility/receive emoluments that was supposedly burned after the war of 1812...but they know it exists and was changed later and they ONLY let attorneys see it/access it to date.
and @anon above the only reason judges say that you cant bring the constitution in their courts is you never entered it properly as certified evidence for and on the court record and bound them to it via their oath for and on the record.
additionally, if you are a 14th amendment/U.S. citizen acting as a surety for your legal person, you cannot bring it up, so yes what you are saying above is accurate but for the wrong reasons you say. if you read the 14th amendment carefully it is very clear that a 14th amendment citizen cannot question the debt of the bankrupt and depraved United States dba District of Columbia. technically, if you read anything that i wrote above anon, the 9th amendment and/or anything repugnant to the constitution (marbury v madison) makes the 14th amendment null, but how many people can articulate that in court?
Post a Comment