Joe Kelley
|
So where is there a discussion on the substance? Why is it difficult (or impossible) to find discussion on the substance? If the substance is the clear and present danger of economic collapse, currency war, trade war, world war, and another dark ages for failure to return to rule of law as the interregnum period progresses into the future, and the substance is then clearly a need to at least acknowledge the fact that there is, at this time, a period of interregnum, then where is this discussion concerning this clear and present danger, with this acknowledgment of this period of interregnum, whereby those involved in the discussion actually describe the process known as rule of law playing out in time and place? If National Liberty Alliance fails (as a group of individuals) to officially acknowledge the fact that the current period is absent rule of law (interregnum), then it makes sense that National Liberty Alliance is ill prepared to (lacking a firm foundation from which to) proceed toward rule of law. On the other hand, and this is equally as important as the failure by National Liberty Alliance, if the Legal Counsel for the Global Debt Facility claim to be representing the free, indepddendent (non-slaves and non-slave owners), liberated, people of America, the moral people, and said Legal Counsel for the Global Debt Facility is also unfamiliar with the true American rule of law, as it was formed in 1775 through 1787, then what is the basis, the foundation, of their authority to represent the people in the 50 independent states federated into a voluntary mutual defesnse assocaiton in America? If the claim made is a claim that the 1789 Constitution is the foundation, then that claim has two very different possible foundations from which to launch a defense against any harm being done to anyone in America by anyone in, or out of, America. 1. Articles claimed as authority in the body of the Constitution of 1787. 2. Common law due process, which is the original basis of American due process, which includes presumption of innocence, trial by jury, and the Bill of Rights which amended that (fraudulent) Slave Trading Constitution of 1787/89. Where can someone find a discussion on the actual substance of these vital issues occurring now? If all that is going to be done is claim, and counter claim, without a tried and true method of finding the lawful facts in this, or any, case, then which way forward from this fork in the road will that type of exchange (discussion) logically proceed: 1. Dark ages 2. Rule of law, prosperity, liberty, freedom, effective deterrence against crime. Is such a discussion possible during a future (second) Con Con? http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up "But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."
|
