DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

ORIGINAL QUOTATIONS FROM OCALA REGARDING THE SUPREMACY OF OCALA

6. (OCALA, Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

7. (OCALA, Article VI) The judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

----OUR INTERPRETATIONS

6. OCALA, and the laws of the United States of America which were made in pursuance of OCALA; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority delegated to the United States by OCALA, shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

7. The judges in the United States of America shall always be bound by the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and nothing to the contrary in OCALA or in any laws of any State shall ever be interpreted or be construed to permit otherwise.

ORIGINAL QUOTATIONS FROM OCALA REGARDING POWERS AND RIGHTS NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED OR NOT EXPRESSLY STIPULATED BY OCALA

8. (OCALA, Amendment IX, 1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9. (OCALA, Amendment X, 1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

----OUR INTERPRETATIONS

8. The enumeration in OCALA, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others claimed by the people and not expressly denied by OCALA.

9. The powers NOT delegated to the government of the United States of America by OCALA, NOT prohibited by OCALA to the government of the United States of America by OCALA, NOT prohibited by OCALA to the governments of and within the states, and NOT prohibited by OCALA to the people, are reserved to the people, or to the governments of or within the states, respectively. The government of the United States of America shall have the burden to prove the delegation to it by OCALA of any power the government shall exercise, and to prove that any person is denied by OCALA any power that person shall claim.

ORIGINAL QUOTATIONS FROM OCALA REGARDING OATHS TAKEN BY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS

10. (OCALA, Article VI) The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

11. (OCALA, Article II, Section 1) Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

12. (OCALA, Article II., Section 4.) The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

----OUR INTERPRETATIONS

10. The Senators and Representatives of the Congress, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States of America and of the several states, are bound by their oath or affirmation, to act in accord with, preserve, protect and defend OCALA.

11. At the beginning of each term of his office, the President of the United States of America did swear (or affirm) to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of the President’s ability, act in accord with, preserve, protect and defend OCALA.

12. The elected and appointed officials of the government of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of high crimes. An elected or appointed official commits a high crime when she or he violates her or his oath or affirmation to act in accord with, preserve, protect and defend OCALA, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and is impeached and convicted of that high crime. In such an event, that elected or appointed official shall be removed from office.

ORIGINAL QUOTATION FROM OCALA REGARDING THE PROCESS OF AMENDING OCALA

13. (OCALA, Article V) propose[d] Amendments... shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

----OUR INTERPRETATIONS

13. Article V and no other article in OCALA specifies the method for amending OCALA. OCALA does not specify any other method for ratifying amendments to OCALA than the two methods specified in Article V.

OCALA can only be amended by the ratification of the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by the ratification of conventions in three fourths of the states, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

Neither the legislative branch, the judicial branch or the executive branch of the government of the United States of America is delegated by OCALA the power to ratify amendments to OCALA.

ORIGINAL QUOTATION FROM OCALA REGARDING PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

14. (OCALA, Amendment XIII, 1865, Section 1) Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

----OUR INTERPRETATIONS

14. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States of America, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Involuntary servitude includes but is not limited to the involuntary transfer of one’s own property to another person.

ORIGINAL QUOTATION FROM OCALA REGARDING THE CONDITIONS FOR A PERSONS DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS WITHIN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW

15a. (OCALA, Amendment V, 1791) No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

15b. (OCALA, Amendment XIV, 1868, Section 1) No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

----OUR INTERPRETATION

15. NOT the government of the United States of America, and NOT the government of or within any state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law that is secured in accord with OCALA; and, secured in accord with OCALA, the federal government shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction just compensation for private property taken for public use.

ORIGINAL QUOTATION FROM OCALA REGARDING THE INCOME TAX

16. (OCALA, Amendment XVI, 1913) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

----OUR INTERPRETATION

16. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

However, the Congress has not hereby been delegated the power to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or deny to any person within its jurisdiction either the equal protection of the law, or just compensation for property taken for public use. Therefore the tax on any dollar of income throughout the United States of America shall be uniform and not discriminate against persons or their dollars of income on the basis of the attributes of persons or the attributes of their dollars of income.

WE HAVE ACCUSED ALL THOSE ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHO ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH THEIR OATHS OR AFFIRMATIONS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SUPPORT OCALA, OF PERPETRATING HIGH CRIMES.

WE ORDER THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST PERPETRATING THESE HIGH CRIMES OR WE SHALL LAWFULLY REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE.

Immediate termination of these proven high crimes shall cause suffering to those who themselves have previously been victims of these high crimes and forced thereby to transfer their property to others, and are now receiving property from others who have been forced to transfer their property to them. In order to ameliorate such suffering, we recommend that Congress submit the following amendment to OCALA to the States for their speedy adoption.

Recommended Amendment XXVIII.

Section 1. Congress shall have the power to adopt appropriate procedures for terminating by December 31, 2013, all currently existing laws and programs that violate Our Constitution As Lawfully Amended, "the supreme Law of the Land".

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to establish voluntary programs for financing and ameliorating human suffering.

=============================


“A generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace’; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”
---Thomas Paine in “The American Crisis (1776-83)”, December, 1776.

Zzzzzzzzzz.

I infer that you think that when the justices of the supreme court usurp powers not delegated to them by OCALA, their exercise of those powers is legal.

I disagree. The 10th Amendment disagrees. That's good enough for me.

(OCALA, Amendment X, 1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 9th Amendment says we have rights other than those stipulated in OCALA.

(OCALA, Amendment IX, 1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'm going to exercise my right to hold my government accountable to the "supreme Law of the Land".

Where did you get the idea that laws cannot be changed and the Supreme Court cannot be held accountable by the people, or by the representatives of the people, for decisions which usurp powers it has not been delegated by OCALA?

If we the people do not hold our government accountable in every lawful way we can, then we will suffer the loss of the security of our rights and subsequently the opportunity to enjoy our rights.

You decide!

"DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?"

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=347205#347205

I hope he doesn't think anyone is actually reading all that garbage. He's just reposting off some website anyhow.

Hey, Cephus.

Nah, he's just doing one of his "things."

If you stick with him long enough, you get to see so many of these, it becomes less hilarious and more boring.

In any case, now Ican claims he can interpret the Constitution of the United States better than can the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Hey, he's also claims he can use science to establish the probability of the existence of God.


The guy has got problems.

You are almost correct!

All my quotes from The Declaration, The Constituion, The Federalist Papers, and Thomas Paine came originally from the Library of Congress web site and now reside in my computer files.

Other quotes came either from hard copy references I own, or from references others have given me.

That which is not quoted came from me and my draft lawsuit that resides in my own computer files.

Sinister, ain't I?

I got bored with him almost immediately, probably because in all my years of debating, I've run into so many like him. He, like maliagar, have a vast over-estimation of themselves, their intelligence and their place in the universe. The rest of us just laugh at them, as it should be.



He's got the classic "conspiracy theorist" mentality. He sets himself up as the ultimate adjucator of reality and anyone who disagrees is either out to get him, is jealous of his intellect, or is too stupid to understand. Honestly, it's a mild mental sickness in the view of many professionals. There's no real difference between Ican and the UFO nuts, JFK conspiracists and New World Order nuts. Heck, he probably buys into those as well.

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to transfer money from one group and give it to another.

Strangely, no one participating in this forum, thus far, has provided any argument whatsoever that refutes my argument that it is illegal for the federal government to tax individual dollars of income/revenue differently according to the circumstances in which they were received.

But they have written, in effect, shame on me for thinking I can interpret OCALA (Our Constitution As Lawfully Amended) better than the Supreme Court has. I interpret that kind of argument fundamentalist collectivism. That does not address my arguments. That addresses my alleged audacity to think I can read OCALA and validly interpret it. Fundamentalism in general doesn't address the arguments of non-believers. It buries its head in its own rhetoric.

You keep saying that, but I have.

Try sticking to the truth, Ican.

ican, That you can interpret the Constitution better than the Supreme Court is moot; your interpretation doesn't count until you can get the law changed.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Ican, you keep mentioning "our Constitution as lawfully amended." Is this different from the regular old, run-of-the-mill constitution that most of us are familiar with? Or, to put it another way, how many amendments does your constitution have?

Yes it is moot unless I can get the law changed. I'm working on that, one small step at a time. This forum is the 2nd of two such small steps.

Thanks for asking, Joe.

My Constitution as lawfully amended is the same as yours and everyone else's. The last Amendment, the 27th, was ratified May 7, 1992. Congress submitted the 27th along with the other 10 amendments making up The Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments were ratified December 15, 1791. The state legislatures apparently had a tough time with this one.

It reads: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

I repeatedly use the acronym OCALA for Our Constitution As Lawfully Amended to emphasize that the constitution I am writing about excludes any version of the constitution that is a consequence of amendments made in a manner contrary to Article 5.

"Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

I claim any other kind of amendment whether by the Congress, the President or the Federal Courts is an unlawful amendment. This claim is consistent with Article 6.

"Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I claim and can support the claim that The Congress, the President, and the Federal Courts have repeatedly, unlawfully amended OCALA.

Joe, so far the following arguments have been offered to refute my lawsuit:

Terry early on, alleged that the 13th and 14th Amendments do not apply to taxes. That is, the 16th Amendment is not limited by the limits specified in the 13th and 14th Amendments. I responded with a request that she give a reason for believing that. She has not yet responded with an argument that gives me a reason to believe she is correct.

Recently Frank, asserted that the Constitution was whatever the Supreme Court says it is. I asked him why he thought that. He has not yet responded with an argument that gives me a reason to believe he is correct.

Both Cephus and Frank continually claim in this and other forums what is equivalent to ican is a reprobate. A few times I asked why they thought that. Neither has yet responded with an argument that gives me a reason to believe either is correct. I am unable to determine the relevance of this claim to whether my money <transfer> and money <tax rate> arguments are valid.