The Constitution Con | Michael Tsarion

[Tintin]

"Ergo the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America" and its inhabitants."

In uncertain times, and they are certainly if nothing else very interesting indeed, both here in the UK and in America, it is I feel a good time to re-establish some perspective, and, remind ourselves a little of our past and how, where we are now, has been so moulded by it. Or, to put it a little more assertivey, manipulated and strategically planned by its architects.

Some will already be familiar with such figures as Albert Pike for example, to name but one; the real biblical scribes, many under the instruction of Constantine, who laid out what could even be interpreted and revised in its study, as a Luciferian blueprint for total domination of humankind, that is, the Bible itself. And of course, buried within it, the many astrological and numerological gematriac groupings of key narrative and critical well known passages, with particular symbolic numberings, amongst others of an esoteric nature. (I mean no offence of course to anyone of a Christian persuasion at all, or any religious persuasion, by suggesting that; that is just from my understanding, and some study, a possible interpretation - and who knows, maybe even the right one - of much of the text and its many references to ‘light’, from a particular perspective.)

The reason I make that point above is to emphasise that certain documents, when seen through an enlightened angle yield important information and cast, pun intended, light where it may not have fallen before.

This very interesting and well researched article, and it is quite long, lays things out fairly clearly here around the origins of the Constitution, and its contents, and some of these insights and this information may be new concepts to some. It has been well referenced – sources have been acknowledged at the end of the article - and may shed some more light on who, and maybe even what, is running things, at least at the moment.

As you embark upon reading this, it is important to be aware beforehand of the difference between ‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom’ – they are not the same thing – and that the United States of America is a Corporation, much like for example Time Warner or Marks and Spencer. It is a business and a functioning subsidiary of the “The Crown” (Corporation of the City of London is its better known name), that had probably re-branded itself from the former British East India Company. (Those interested in pursuing that line of investigation would be intrigued at the image of the British East India Company’s flag and that of the current USA Inc. flag, with its stars and stripes.)

36591

Here’s a taster from Michael’s article: http://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html

"Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact the "People" referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from within a legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia.

This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite.

It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America" - the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it again and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

"WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL".

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

[Helene West]

When I'm cooking I cannot always make the meal using the optimal ingredients the recipe may call for or that I would want it to become. I have to use the ingredients I have at hand.

Considering all the variables (ingredients) our forefathers had at hand at the time I think they did an amazing, mind blowing job in the creation of the Constitution. Not only is hindsight 20/20 but it's difficult for humans to imagine functioning in a past time period with the reference points of THAT time period. It's easier to interject our current thinking to what past protagonists should have, would have, could have done...

"The Constitution is nothing more than...." as soon as I see the derogatory "nothing more than" I'm out. I usually like Michael and find him interesting but in light of what we are going through now, literally struggling to not get swallowed whole by a well entrenched ruling class with millennium long wet dreams of world domination, I personally can't get into his line of thought right now though I understand it. The timing of the article may be making me cringe more than the concept. Thx anyway for the post.

[enigma3]

I totally disagree with this thesis.
The US is a republic. Or it used to be one.
The founding fathers were a brilliant group of men who took a huge risk in steering the country toward a democracy.
Because they rejected a central bank ala Rosthchild, the banksters attacked federal banking institutions without mercy.
The Constitution specifically says that the ability to print money rests with the government, not with a private bank. They saw the destructive nature of the Rothschild system and said NO THANKS. No thanks to the monied elite.
Read the Federalist Papers. Mature, sophisticated writing by people who wanted a government of and for the people. Those essays are the best eye into their thoughts on government. Some brilliant writing there.
This guy Tsarion is seriously delusional.

[Tintin]

When I'm cooking I cannot always make the meal using the optimal ingredients the recipe may call for or that I would want it to become. I have to use the ingredients I have at hand.

Considering all the variables (ingredients) our forefathers had at hand at the time I think they did an amazing, mind blowing job in the creation of the Constitution. Not only is hindsight 20/20 but it's difficult for humans to imagine functioning in a past time period with the reference points of THAT time period. It's easier to interject our current thinking to what past protagonists should have, would have, could have done...

"The Constitution is nothing more than...." as soon as I see the derogatory "nothing more than" I'm out. I usually like Michael and find him interesting but in light of what we are going through now, literally struggling to not get swallowed whole by a well entrenched ruling class with millennium long wet dreams of world domination, I personally can't get into his line of thought right now though I understand it. The timing of the article may be making me cringe more than the concept. Thx anyway for the post.

Thanks Helene. That's a well thought out, honest, and nicely crafted response. In fact, although it is an interesting piece he's written, even I dithered a little as to whether to share it, bearing in mind your points here with which I can certainly sympathise.

We have our own challenges here in the UK with the extrication from the European Union, which is also stirring a certain kind of angst. If anything it is certainly causing some reflection in parts of the population at large. A main concern being what laws and rights will be enshrined in UK law during this process, and, whether they will serve to benefit our citizens. Our current legislations, although somewhat changed, were in themselves largely inspired by the closest thing we have had to a written Constitution, namely, The Magna Carta (British Library link here: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/what-is-magna-carta)

If Michael is on to something here, and I suspect he is, then in all probability something new may well need to be drafted which captures the best principles from the Constitution and absolutely in the interests of the good citizens of America. From across the pond here my view, and it could be misguided, maybe, is that the Patriot Act should be ripped up and thrown in the bin, absolutely, as it appears to be a much more malevolent parchment. I expect there to be a divided view on this article, but hope that it may provoke some interesting dialogue. It really hasn't been posted with malicious intent, that I can assure you.:bigsmile:

I'm grateful for you making the time to provide some insight as I would certainly be interested in hearing from other American members what it is like for them living where they are in America, their neighbourhoods, and sharing what it is really like at the moment without the mainstream news filter. I'd imagine quite varied, both positive and negative, depending on what is being experienced, and reflecting the colour and diversity of the people. You can get 'an idea' of what it is like through different media of course but that's quite different from actually living it. The same of course when viewed on that side of the pond to what we are currently grappling with.

On reflection the thread should maybe be sub-titled with this question: what does the Constitution mean to you?

If Michael's article does one thing, and to link to your culinary analogy, then he is certainly providing some food for thought.

[Hym]

It's not that complicated. Walk in your town and feel the diversion of your energy used for the necessities of self protection. How much is imposed from the laws of governmental regulation and enforcement that is not necessary for your safety?

It's simple. Do your representatives, at every governmental level, have your interests in your profit or theirs, as there is not much in between. Why are not all of the transactions and interactions of your reps with those who profit from laws, regulations and contracts awarded always part of the available public records? If they are not in plain sight it is an attack on your most personal efforts. The machine certainly has access to your dealings, thru unconstitutional surveillance, and you are not responsible for the wide ranging decisions they make. That formula is backwards.

The forefathers rested the vitality of the constitution upon a constant vigilance. Since 1913 the constitutional impetus has left the states and it has been run by private bankers, bringing to life the worst of the founders' fears. Endless wars, endless representatives becoming traitors, their pay masters accruing staggering corporate profits from the misery and deaths of millions. Theft, lies, betrayals of the highest degree, with no accountability.

Clearly one half of the budget, derived from the lifeblood of the citizens' efforts, are spent on the machinery of war and the constriction of your freedoms, not on the power of peace and the responsibilites it demands. Afix your meanings to what has been done and will be done in your name. Are you okay with any of that?

The illegally derived deficit that keeps a nation in chains and servitude is not derived for the benefit of citizens but for the bankers who bribe, commit genocide and always lie to profit. That is the unconstitutional theft of your most difficult and heartfelt efforts.

What remnants of the original constitutional intent are left, but by the words themselves which are worthy of renewal and resuscitation, do still, to this day, inspire discontent and great discourse, alive in the absence of promises and guarantees lost.

They are not enough to create a countrywide change, as that will only happen when those who have served the beast come clean. Their factual admissions and evidentiary proofs will, or won't-if not revealed, create a renewal of those humane principles that the constitution was intended to protect.

Compassion and measured judgements will be waiting for those who choose to expose their dark deeds to the light of days and the trials of months and the many years ahead. They do know how THEY will judge themselves upon death and the great difference the life beyond will be when that real burden is removed. It should not be, this need for such revelations, but these are the most actionable options available.

[Cardillac]

the "Founding Fathers" were the richest men in the American colonies (most owned slaves) and therefore the most taxed; therefore they wanted to break away from Great Britain but found a way to make the common man to fight their battles for them; it's that easy-

the "common man" is the most gullible- look at the present-day world- we're all gerbils-

Larry

[gord]

What is the legal definition of a constitutor?

[Tintin]

What is the legal definition of a constitutor?

That is a good question, for me. I'll endeavour to find out.

[genevieve]

As far as I can tell, Tsarion's article is sound, but he only mentions the Bill of Rights in passing as if it hardly matters, which is unfortunate.

The Constitution for the united States of America is a contract between the nation-states of America (each state is a nation that joined other states to create a federation) and a Governmental Services Organization (the Federal Government) whose specific services to the states/federation and operational guidelines are stated in the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is the entire First Amendment to the Constitution and is divided into Articles. We mistakenly refer to the individual Articles as Amendments (e.g. the right to bear arms is not stated in the Second Amendment, it is actually stated in Article 2 of the First Amendment). In its own Preamble the Bill of Rights states that it is "declaratory and restrictive," meaning that it--the Bill of Rights--can't be altered or removed.

Tsarion--and the rest of us--would do well to study the Bill of Rights and to learn how we give up our rights by being U.S. citizens (via getting a Social Security number or signing up to vote). We've been dumbed down and duped. Let's not stay that way.

A couple of great resources for further clarification:

36605

See especially #639 for an overview:
http://annavonreitz.com/


Thanks, Tintin!


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Tintin]

As far as I can tell, Tsarion's article is sound, but he only mentions the Bill of Rights in passing as if it hardly matters, which is unfortunate.

The Constitution for the united States of America is a contract between the nation-states of America (each state is a nation that joined other states to create a federation) and a Governmental Services Organization (the Federal Government) whose specific services to the states/federation and operational guidelines are stated in the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is the entire First Amendment to the Constitution and is divided into Articles. We mistakenly refer to the individual Articles as Amendments (e.g. the right to bear arms is not stated in the Second Amendment, it is actually stated in Article 2 of the First Amendment). In its own Preamble the Bill of Rights states that it is "declaratory and restrictive," meaning that it--the Bill of Rights--can't be altered or removed.

Tsarion--and the rest of us--would do well to study the Bill of Rights and to learn how we give up our rights by being U.S. citizens (via getting a Social Security number or signing up to vote). We've been dumbed down and duped. Let's not stay that way.

A couple of great resources for further clarification:

36605

See especially #639 for an overview:
http://annavonreitz.com/


Thanks, Tintin!


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Great stuff.

I have come across others stating that article 16 (of an amendment - I can't remember which) states that paying tax is not mandatory, I don't have the legal background, but have come across those that do have, that seem to state fairly fervently, with an understanding of the law (sic) tax payability is indeed not mandatory under that. I'd love for someone with a good understanding of this to furnish a little.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


As far as I can tell, Tsarion's article is sound, but he only mentions the Bill of Rights in passing as if it hardly matters, which is unfortunate.

The Constitution for the united States of America is a contract between the nation-states of America (each state is a nation that joined other states to create a federation) and a Governmental Services Organization (the Federal Government) whose specific services to the states/federation and operational guidelines are stated in the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is the entire First Amendment to the Constitution and is divided into Articles. We mistakenly refer to the individual Articles as Amendments (e.g. the right to bear arms is not stated in the Second Amendment, it is actually stated in Article 2 of the First Amendment). In its own Preamble the Bill of Rights states that it is "declaratory and restrictive," meaning that it--the Bill of Rights--can't be altered or removed.

Tsarion--and the rest of us--would do well to study the Bill of Rights and to learn how we give up our rights by being U.S. citizens (via getting a Social Security number or signing up to vote). We've been dumbed down and duped. Let's not stay that way.

A couple of great resources for further clarification:

36605

See especially #639 for an overview:
http://annavonreitz.com/


Thanks, Tintin!


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

By the way, absolutely: peace, love, joy and harmony too :-) You're lovely.

[genevieve]

Nutshell re voluntarily paying taxes:

If, on any document, you are categorized as a U.S. citizen, you are a member/employee of the corporation known as the United States.

As a member/employee, you are subject to the corporation's rules. If one of the rules is that you have to share your income with the corporation, then you must do so.

Conversely, if you are not a member/employee, you are not subject to the corporation's rules and do not have to pay income taxes (except maybe in some rare instances that I know nothing about).

For more info, the link below takes you to a post (#65; see also #68) I made a while back that includes a document repetitively clarifying the (usually) voluntary nature of paying taxes.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39990-Income-Tax-is-Voluntary---But-they-ll-jail-you-anyway-&p=1179917&viewfull=1#post1179917


It's vital that we all learn about correcting our "political status," the first step of which is to remove yourself from the voter registration rolls. See Augustus Montgomery's book mentioned in my previous post on this thread for more vital information. It's really mind blowing, so maybe reread it a couple times.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Satori]

Unless you are capable of and prepared in every way to:

1. find your own potable water and find and prepare your own edible food;
2. find and maintain your own shelter;
3. find materials for, and make, your own clothing, including footwear;
4. keep yourself reasonably healthy and tend to your own physical illnesses and injuries;
5. provide for your physical and emotional welfare;
6. have extended periods of boredom, loneliness, happiness, sadness, fear, wonder and awe; and,
7. successfully defend yourself from those individuals who, and other forces that, would take all of the above, and more, away from you (and perhaps your loved ones), then

you have not experienced freedom and liberty, nor would you want to.

[Tintin]

Nutshell re voluntarily paying taxes:

If, on any document, you are categorized as a U.S. citizen, you are a member/employee of the corporation known as the United States.

As a member/employee, you are subject to the corporation's rules. If one of the rules is that you have to share your income with the corporation, then you must do so.

Conversely, if you are not a member/employee, you are not subject to the corporation's rules and do not have to pay income taxes (except maybe in some rare instances that I know nothing about).

For more info, the link below takes you to a post (#65; see also #68) I made a while back that includes a document repetitively clarifying the (usually) voluntary nature of paying taxes.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?39990-Income-Tax-is-Voluntary---But-they-ll-jail-you-anyway-&p=1179917&viewfull=1#post1179917


It's vital that we all learn about correcting our "political status," the first step of which is to remove yourself from the voter registration rolls. See Augustus Montgomery's book mentioned in my previous post on this thread for more vital information. It's really mind blowing, so maybe reread it a couple times.


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

Genevieve: thank you. I'm going to get on this for sure. Splendid contribution for which I am grateful. Terrific. I've gaps here which you are really brilliantly helping to fill.

[Smell the Roses]

With the way things are going in the USA now, it's hard to believe that events like the Boston Tea Party ever happened. The debate in this thread appears to be whether the present state of affairs was by design or erosion. I have been thinking a lot about the benefits of staying put versus seeking a new physical location lately. It made me wonder why specifically my ancestors came from England to the USA in 1909. Did they end up thinking that they found what they were looking for? There is the advantage of an abundance of land. However, the only difference in leadership appears to be semantics. Certainly the three branches of government in the USA today are effectively not far removed from a feudal system with the wealth concentrated at the top.

One advantage I can see to living in the USA is that I can more easily travel to many different terrains and natural phenomena, from the tropical islands of Hawaii to the cold mountains of Alaska and everything in between, without having a passport.

[genevieve]

Thanks back at you, Tintin!

FYI: I'm a relative newbie at this--only seven years' worth of studying all this stuff, and it's been very hard for me to wrap my mind around the most basic concepts that were skewed by indoctrination for the previous 60 years.

I don't have much time to post because I'm busy studying, writing documents, and taking care of the business of rebutting presumptions about my status (who I am in relation to the corporate government)--and I'm very slow. I've taken most of the actions that Anna Von Reitz recommends and other actions recommended by Augustus Montgomery.

The link to Anna's website is filled (OVERfilled, one might say) with valuable information and instructions if you are an American. I don't know about the U.K., but you might also look into:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/

This group helped me understand a lot about--you guessed it!--getting out of debt, but they are about more than just debt, and the moderators were very helpful.

Thanks for the opportunity to share!


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[Bruno]

Unless you are capable of and prepared in every way to:

1. find your own potable water and find and prepare your own edible food;
2. find and maintain your own shelter;
3. find materials for, and make, your own clothing, including footwear;
4. keep yourself reasonably healthy and tend to your own physical illnesses and injuries;
5. provide for your physical and emotional welfare;
6. have extended periods of boredom, loneliness, happiness, sadness, fear, wonder and awe; and,
7. successfully defend yourself from those individuals who, and other forces that, would take all of the above, and more, away from you (and perhaps your loved ones), then

you have not experienced freedom and liberty, nor would you want to.

Yes! Thank you for sharing this!

[Satori]

What is the legal definition of a constitutor?

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999) a "constitutor", is, and I quote: "(Latin 'an orderer, arranger') Roman Law. A person, who by agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt."

In common legal parlance, that sounds a lot like a guarantor, but may differ from a guarantor in that the creditor may not need to first seek payment from the original debtor, but may go directly against the "constitutor". So, in that sense, a consitutor may be more like a co-signor who is jointly and severally liable for the debt..

[Satori]

"Ergo the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America" and its inhabitants."

In uncertain times, and they are certainly if nothing else very interesting indeed, both here in the UK and in America, it is I feel a good time to re-establish some perspective, and, remind ourselves a little of our past and how, where we are now, has been so moulded by it. Or, to put it a little more assertivey, manipulated and strategically planned by its architects.

Some will already be familiar with such figures as Albert Pike for example, to name but one; the real biblical scribes, many under the instruction of Constantine, who laid out what could even be interpreted and revised in its study, as a Luciferian blueprint for total domination of humankind, that is, the Bible itself. And of course, buried within it, the many astrological and numerological gematriac groupings of key narrative and critical well known passages, with particular symbolic numberings, amongst others of an esoteric nature. (I mean no offence of course to anyone of a Christian persuasion at all, or any religious persuasion, by suggesting that; that is just from my understanding, and some study, a possible interpretation - and who knows, maybe even the right one - of much of the text and its many references to ‘light’, from a particular perspective.)

The reason I make that point above is to emphasise that certain documents, when seen through an enlightened angle yield important information and cast, pun intended, light where it may not have fallen before.

This very interesting and well researched article, and it is quite long, lays things out fairly clearly here around the origins of the Constitution, and its contents, and some of these insights and this information may be new concepts to some. It has been well referenced – sources have been acknowledged at the end of the article - and may shed some more light on who, and maybe even what, is running things, at least at the moment.

As you embark upon reading this, it is important to be aware beforehand of the difference between ‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom’ – they are not the same thing – and that the United States of America is a Corporation, much like for example Time Warner or Marks and Spencer. It is a business and a functioning subsidiary of the “The Crown” (Corporation of the City of London is its better known name), that had probably re-branded itself from the former British East India Company. (Those interested in pursuing that line of investigation would be intrigued at the image of the British East India Company’s flag and that of the current USA Inc. flag, with its stars and stripes.)

36591

Here’s a taster from Michael’s article: http://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html

"Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Prior to their public release the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact the "People" referred to are not citizens of America, No! They are the elites who rule from within a legally separate precinct known as the District of Columbia.

This district is under federal control and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. The term "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite.

It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America" - the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it again and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

"WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL".

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

I quit reading Mr. Tsarion's article after reading the second paragraph. He got at least two things wrong right there (and probably three if you want to put a finer point on things).

First, the US Constitution was not ratified on June 21, 1788. (It was also not "created" on September 17, 1787.) Rather, the Constitutional Convention adopted it on September 17, 1787 and thereafter put it forth for ratification by the then existing 13 states. The Constitution had been "created" before 9/17/1787, albeit it was the final form submitted for adoption by the Convention, which adoption occurred on 9/17/1787.

Second, the Constitution was not ratified behind closed doors on June 21, 1788. Only one state ratified the Constitution on that date. That state was New Hampshire. The other 12 states ratified it before or after 6/21/1788. Rhode Island was the last state to ratify it on May 29, 1790. The first state to ratify it was Delaware and it did so on December 7, 1787.

This if for what it's worth for those who care.

I may go back to reading the article simply out of curiosity.

[Satori]

What is the legal definition of a constitutor?

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999) a "constitutor", is, and I quote: "(Latin 'an orderer, arranger') Roman Law. A person, who by agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt."

In common legal parlance, that sounds a lot like a guarantor, but may differ from a guarantor in that the creditor may not need to first seek payment from the original debtor, but may go directly against the "constitutor". So, in that sense, a constitutor may be more like a co-signor who is jointly and severally liable for the debt..

I'm reluctant to quote myself, but it strikes me that gord's question implies something with a deeper meaning that I overlooked.

Is the implication being, that under the US Constitution "we the people" (setting aside Tsarion's definition of "we the people" being the elite), have become "constitutors" and we stand for the debt of the national government, and thus the elite, because by ratification, acquiescence and other acts, we the people have agreed to do so?

[Tintin]

[QUOTE=gord;1195400]What is the legal definition of a constitutor?


Is the implication being, that under the US Constitution "we the people" (setting aside Tsarion's definition of "we the people" being the elite), have become "constitutors" and we stand for the debt of the national government, and thus the elite, because by ratification, acquiescence and other acts, we the people have agreed to do so?

...would be my interpretation of it too Satori.

As Michael does attest to in his article, and for anyone who has made the time to read right the way through it as well, the extraordinarily clever way in which it - the Constitution - has been phrased, would indeed suggest that.

There are some conclusions that he reaches here that would be pretty sobering for those who have hitched their wagon to it, with maybe little or no understanding of its nuanced wording.

[Tintin]

I quit reading Mr. Tsarion's article after reading the second paragraph. He got at least two things wrong right there (and probably three if you want to put a finer point on things).

First, the US Constitution was not ratified on June 21, 1788. (It was also not "created" on September 17, 1787.) Rather, the Constitutional Convention adopted it on September 17, 1787 and thereafter put it forth for ratification by the then existing 13 states. The Constitution had been "created" before 9/17/1787, albeit it was the final form submitted for adoption by the Convention, which adoption occurred on 9/17/1787.

Second, the Constitution was not ratified behind closed doors on June 21, 1788. Only one state ratified the Constitution on that date. That state was New Hampshire. The other 12 states ratified it before or after 6/21/1788. Rhode Island was the last state to ratify it on May 29, 1790. The first state to ratify it was Delaware and it did so on December 7, 1787.

This if for what it's worth for those who care.

I may go back to reading the article simply out of curiosity.

I think that's helpful actually, thanks. But, please do read right the way through the article. I'm concerned some folks are just throwing the towel in too soon here, although, I can sort of understand why. Eg, Michael not being specific enough with the dates that you have stated above I can understand would put people off. It would possibly suggest he hasn't been thorough enough, although, he most certainly seems to have been very thorough in other aspects covered in the article.

[Tintin]

the "Founding Fathers" were the richest men in the American colonies (most owned slaves) and therefore the most taxed; therefore they wanted to break away from Great Britain but found a way to make the common man to fight their battles for them; it's that easy-

the "common man" is the most gullible- look at the present-day world- we're all gerbils-

Larry

To wit, from the article also, and will be in context provided the article has been read in full:

Sir Joseph Stamp was director of the Bank of England from 1928 to 1941. He openly addressed the colossal power of the Bankers: (in his time he wrote/voiced this, below)

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back again...Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.

Looked at from the point of view that the Federal Reserve is a Crown funded initiative, and, so were its forerunners.