No Treason #IV: The Constitution of No Authority (part2)

A reading of Lysander Spooner's classic "No Treason #IV: The Constitution of No Authority". Reading by Marc Stevens

Marc Stevens website:
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• liberalism
• libertarianism
• anarchism
• constitution
• treason
• Lysander
• Spooner

[wisdomtrek]

It's all void anyways, the election system is rigged such this is a farce of a "Democracy". Although the intellectualization og the validity of the U.S. Constitution is quite erudite. Much impressed with the firepower.

[RetSquid]

@immafreemann

Reverse what? That clause is in plain English. If we had an "unfettered, uncontrolled government" then you would be slaves, good thing we have a limited government, huh? But you are a 'freeman' so you will define anything to your exclusive advantage and ignore anything you don't like.

[immafreemann]

@RetSquid Art.1, Sec.8,17: Nice smoke and mirrors solution there let a bunch of priveleged white guys with a conflict of interest reverse what is clearly stated under powers granted to Congress as opposed to powers forbidden to the States. Limited Governnment was the purpose of the Constituion and the focus of Spooners dissertation is to show the conditions of the Slave State are rampant in an unfettered, uncontrolled government. A true Republic acting as a communist country instead.

[localhero101]

I'll take a stab at it. I think the giveaway is in the preamble. Very few people have examined this but, specifically, the section which reads "...to OURselves and OUR posterity." To whom? OURselves. Who else? OUR posterity. It's almost like a Will. In fact, it's closer to a Will than a contract. These were some of the wealthiest men of their day & were writing this document to make sure they stayed that way. We (common people) have NO say in it. Our names are not on it. We aren't a party to it.

[KenMacMillan]

I support the Constitution. There's your proof for me.

[RetSquid]

Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. [T]he word exclusive was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states.

District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953)

[3474312]

Rulers of Evil; F. Tupper Saucy; ISBN: 006621083

Read this book.

[djboony]

ha that is remarkably subversive for popeye!

[anyusmoon1]

The U.S. Constitution (as opposed to State Constitutions- which also, by the way, gaurentee a republican form of government) was created solely to represent the several states to foreign states (countries), conduct the business of the 10 miles square (aka District of Columbia) which is in fact the reason an individual is not a party to any action nor subject (individually) to the jurisdiction of U.S. Constitution, except when that individual is outside of their native state (or out of country).

[younitehumanity]

Could it perhaps be that the Constitution was not created for the People of the Nation, but rather for those that created it?

That would make sense because the "Constitution" is being ignored.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?