Is Having A Lawful a Government A Civil Right?

And if government is not lawful, who can we expect to make it lawful?

If government is not lawful, how many other rights may be compromised?

Is it unlawful for states citizens to deny and refuse to acknowledge government is unlawful?

This poll refers to the American constitutional republic. Due to non accountability in members the poll responses are one sided.

If you have alternative responses, post them with explanation or be unaccountable.

 

Well, it seems that things never change, still chasing ghosts I see. But before I answer the questions, let's address the title, what a sham. Civil right, are you serious? Of course you are but that still little excuses so little understanding of rights of which civil rights are not in that category. Civil rights are but grants of privileges from that government that you attempt to call "unlawful".

So it would seem that as usual you are wavering, now it's "if" government is not lawful. But of course that "if" would probably be more on the correct side as related to your conjecture as it seems there is nothing concrete here to define it as otherwise. As to whom we can expect to make it lawful, it seems that the way it is stated that wouldn't be you nor the vast majority.

Actually from most people's perspective, none. They that little understand rights have none.

It sure is unlawful for the good little citizens to fail to obey that which they deem as authorities, their masters.

 

Typical selectivity. You didn't even cite the entire title.

The American federal government exists in its first pretext to establish and protect civil rights.

Can federal judges concealing the concealment of treason in violation of US code be termed justice?

A formal disclosure of knowledge of the concealment of treason finds federal judges, concealing treason.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreassign.html

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreasign1.html

The treason disclosed relates to the mass murder of 3,000 people. Destruction of their most valuable unalienable right.

But you have historically refused to acknowledge the rights which protect those rights by agreeing to the intent of the Declaration of Independence, Article V and the PURPOSE of free speech in service to those intents.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

I've proven that judges violate laws protecting unalienable rights, now you would diminish the rights of people who do not understand them.

Typical.

 

The entire title was addressed by the address on the absuridity of the conclusion, a civil right which is a complete misnomer.

Not really and you have no proof to justify your claim, much the same as you still do not realize why the dismissal of your erroneous case. In fact you should consider yourself lucky that they don't file a suit for payment of the court fees.

Nope and never will. The purpose of free speech is to not have to be politically correct. Alter, alter what? Abolish, what is their to abolish?

You have proven nothing except for the level of absurdity you will approach trying to prove you little understand the issue.

 

Civil rights are defined by law. Seems like a circular question.



​

 

You are not reading. There was no case filed, and there was no dismissal.

You also failed to read the Declaration of Independence which explains your inability to identify our most prime right. It seems all of this is obviously far over your head.

What came first, the 1st amendment or the notion of politically correct? Again, this appears all over your head.

 

There is a circularity, but it is found in the fact that we cannot expect a lawful government if we do not act to enforce our civil rights with our unity in use of our right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

It is our civil right to enforce a lawful government. Or, if we do not use our civil right to alter or abolish which is the unalienable right that protects all
other unalienable rights, we will have no rights and obviously, no lawful government.

 

Not only do I read but I'm very good at comprehending. The documents you presented were filed in the court system, first as criminal which should have been thrown out then and there but you got a break and they were assigned to a court of what they deemed proper jurisdiction. But then it seems you are confused, after all the filing was done by none other than yourself as co-plaintiff and you don't understand what you filed? No wonder you were so easily dismissed.

Again you are assuming more than you can seem to comprehend. First, the Declaration of Independence was a grand piece of writing on the part of Thomas Jefferson, especially those first two paragraphs that took so much effort. But then Jefferson knew no better, what being a slave, subject to the whims of a king for his whole life to that point. But as educated as Jefferson was, he still failed to see the error of his ways, to forego the slavery he knew for slavery under different terms. After all he was a political being as part of the ruling class and did become President. He was the one that helped provoke that infamous decision, Marbury v Madison. Imagine, the prime author of the Declaration and the prime author of the Constitution fall, in one fail swoop.

Not to mention that as President, he violated the very constitution he swore to uphold, numerous times.

Who cares, neither matter in the overall scheme of things. In the world outside slavery, where one feels that need to be led by some authority figure, there is neither a first amendment nor a political universe where one needs to be politically correct.

As for something being over someone's head, I would suggest you look in a mirror, there you will see the source of the problem. It is yourself that lives in a world built on a concept of statism, the most dangerous religion in the world. Where all there are so envious of another, they endorse a ruling class so as to contain those that are more capable than themselves. This sums up the situation better than any other than I have seen:

[video=youtube;t5FNDRgPOLs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLs]Message to the Voting Cattle[/video]

 

Depends on if it is an actual right codified by that government.

There are no rights without a government. There is only anarchy.

 

Pure conjecture. Nothing depends on government but ruin such as prevalent in this world today. Governments do not grant rights, they remove rights and replace them with privileges that are controlled at their pleasure, the mark of a slave society.

And from bad to an absolute worse, government is the curtailment of rights, slowly at first, then at an ever increasing pace, all for the good of society and for their protection. But you did get one thing right, without government there is anarchy, the entailment of the full rights of mankind for all.

 

A right is something you are owed. Civil rights are things you are owed according to the law. If the law doesn't say you are owed something, it's not a civil right.



​

 

Lincoln, 1859-"the people are the rightful
masters of the congress and the court"

We are the law. However, if we choose to not agree upon what the law is, by default there is no law except for that which material power defines.

That is why I present this inquiry.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

There is a lawful method of using our agreement upon those two most prime rights to become "the rightful masters of the congress and the court". It is up to us as state citizens.

There is a well defined strategy for us to use our right to a lawful and peaceful revolution, but we must choose to use it and agree upon the foundation of it and use the 9th amendment to correct deficiencies in the constitution that have enabled tyranny.

 

The U.S. constitution provides for lawful mechanisms to alter or replace both it and the other laws that come from it. It is reasonable to assume making use of those provisions was within the expectations of the folks who produced that document.

Revolution is a replacement or destruction of a government by force. It's hard to imagine that use of force being lawful, but I suppose it depends on the laws themselves.




​

 

What a total bunch of garbage and I'm sure you have no source for this garbage outside of some totally progressive dribble.

Even in the abstract sense, it comes no where near what you are trying to contend while in the concrete sense the definition has some merit that has been subjugated to the whims of man and rendered inaccurate, but nowhere near as inaccurate as what you are trying to imply.

As to civil rights, there is no such thing as civil. Anything granted by any "civil" proclamation is but a determination of a group of psychopaths on what privileges that will grant to the unwashed little citizens.

 

I do not think we can find direct reference for replacing the constitution within the constitution.

Article V provides a convention to propose amendments, which is of course alteration. Then, with enough of that, replacement is effected.

My take on the constitution is that it is actually a remarkably refined agreement providing for a republic and enough flexibility of the republic to be changed by a MAJORITY of the people. It is NEAR perfect.

The framers were faced with a far more socially complex and difficult environment than history records.

Inherent to the reason for that is that fully recording all the controlling issues would be heresy, and the church/government does not allow that.

I can find only two serious flaws in the constitution. Both are the cause of a loss of democratic control by the people and our current situation,

One, free speech has a logical natural law PURPOSE. If it doesn't, the intent of alter or abolish from the DOI cannot manifest. Two, related to that, Article V requires all amendments have constitutional intent, but provides no mandate to prepare the people to define it. While the people are the only entity that can lawfully define it.

Thank you for stating the obvious unconditionally with the word "provisions". I refer to the 9th amendment. If a right is not enumerated or specifically provided, the 9th is a provision that allows the people to provide for themselves.

Yes, legal social force does not require violence. It does imply a threat of violent force. If the lawful peaceful revolution is not possible, the a lawful violent revolution is WELL PREPARED for, and everyone knows it. That is the key EVERYONE.

The 2nd amendment without unity is a death sentence for rebels in this sociopolitical environment. With unity, AND military/law enforcement that knows the people have done everything lawfully possible to stop the destruction of unalienable rights, the threat of effective force against die hard, mind controlled federal zealots is immense. And they know it, so send covert agents here to deny and disparage our use of the 9th amendment, because they do not dare to do it openly.

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/457950-do-any-here-agree-s-time-use-9th-amendment.html

 

right n.

A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. (oxford)

Something that one may properly claim as due. (webster)

​

A right is something you are entitled to or due. A right is something you are owed.



​

 

Trying to explain the obtuse is challenging. Methinks al has a minor mental/problem leading to misinterpretations that favor his angry isolationism or rejection of well and long accepted philosophies.

Blacks law after the 3rd edition seems philosophically corrupted, and I'm not the only one to assert that, but it awkwardly supports Al's position so he cites it.

And it contradicts Al's citation, so I'm not just writing that.

Al opposes the unanimous support of the 13 colonies, God and the framers. And that is proven on this page.

By inference, it is also proven with this post that Americans have a historical, civil, lawful right to a lawful government. The meaning if the quoted part of the DOI defines that.

 

This is hilarious, quoting the one that is at the base of the very problem you keep whining about. The man that in 1856 met with certain interested parties in a hotel in NY to sell his soul for the backing to get him elected when otherwise he couldn't even be elected dog catcher. Then to create a false flag to start the civil war. But that isn't the bad part, the bad part was his actions after the war. The coercion of the south to regain their seats in the senate and military control of southern state governments. Funny how the southern states could vote in congress for article 13 (the false one, there was another original article 13) but not for article 14 which by the way the south rejected but were forced to ratify the article as the price for admission for representation instead of repression.

His only good point was his adamant object to a central bank for which he paid the price.

We are not the law, the law is the domain of the universe aptly deemed the natural law. Perhaps that is the root of your confusion. There is but one real law natural law. A living being or their property must have been harmed in order for a violation of natural law, or a wrong-doing, to have taken place. Any action which does not cause such harm is a right.

Your trying to claim that some whim of man under the sense of malum prohibitum is understandable. A life of indoctrination into being a good little citizen and to obey authority has led to this point.

The founding fathers as the framers of those infamous documents you keep referring to had no such intent. As Ben Franklin so emphatically stated upon leaving the secret meetings for the formation of a secret government: "A republic if you can keep it". The rest is history, laid out for all that desires the truth to see.

As a basis for some revolution, hilarious!!!!​

 

Since you are not accountable to WHY, Lincoln would say, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court", your entire post is without merit.

 

Gravity?



​

 

Unaccountable cognitive distortion will not work. "All or nothing thinking, overgeneralizing, minimizing, . . . without production of anything as strong as the DOI, which the constitution originates its intent by manifesting through sophisticated natural, social law.

The infiltrators of government would want people to think that written history was real and not contrived to conceal corruption. They would want to promote ignorance of the meanings of the DOI just like you do. Wow, mental case one second, covert agent the next.

Franklins statement is meaningless for you to misrepresent then exploit because context is left out while you try to evade ignoring the act of 1871. Your act is a Gohring/hitler/big lie act, or an f'nn cartoon.

 

Is the problem a reading skills problem or just a lack of comprehension?

I don't remember either ordaining nor establishing any such thing. Some say the document at best is a trust with the "people" as beneficiaries. Then I deny the benefit, end of that.

Once upon a time there was a convention called to modify a certain document called the "Articles of Confederation" which required ratification of all the states party to that document. As those at the convention realized no change would ever be possible instead agreed to meet again in secret at a future date to instead draft a whole new secret government. And now you complain about that secret government.

Oh yeah, another constitutional convention, that is a great choice.

Ah, a republic wherein a government governs by the consent of the governed controlled by a majority, mob rule, the mark of democracy. So which is it that you desire, a republic or a democracy. It would seem democracy even though you complain about the results of that selection.

This is just all gibberish. But, please point out just where in the constitution the work "democracy" or even democratic control appears.​

 

Your definitions are in conflict so which do you accept?

As to Webster, that must be the politically correct version. Otherwise Noah Webster defines many things but not about being owed, that is only in a collective society or Orwell's 1984.

Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition

 

Noah Webster doesn't claim anything, he died in 1843. He never experienced the language of the last century, much less the current one. Your dictionary is out of date.

If you are not due what is your right, what may or may not be your right has no significance.



​

 

So you have no defense for your position so you result to ad homien attack in another area of which you seems to have no knowledge either.

Again, straight conjecture as I'm not really sure that you know what a law dictionary really is must less the expertise to make judgement on one. But I do find it amusing that your lack of defense of your position now reverts to logical fallacies with reference to some authority left unnamed. Oh, by the way here is a link for the 2nd Edition the is almost word for word for "right" as in the fourth edition: =http://blacks.worldfreemansociety....that thought it actually fought for freedom..