@Tdonald

I am new to this software (web page), therefore I do not know that there is an Essay that I should read, in order to earn a reasonable comment. I read the words in the initial post, these words:

“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the nation, we the people have traded real politics for an episode of a soap opera.” - from We The People - Fake Politics and Grassroots Reform by Max Maxwell & Melete

That message is all twisted up. I would like to untwist it.

"You didn’t read the essay, did you?
That’s OK.
Exactly what would you like to discuss?"

"Governance of the nation..."

When did "We The People" buy into the lie that the "nation" needs governance? Are "We The People," stupid and servile? What happened to freedom in liberty?

Do you buy into the all-powerful legal fiction Nation-State con game too?

I don't, and I think it is worth commenting on. If those who wrote the Essay can't even get one sentence untwisted, why would I be inspired to read any more messages from those authors? You tell me, please.

@dd54

Do you know what a federation is?

Example:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Congress, 1775

Have you read the notes taken at the Secret Meeting in Philadelphia?

Example:
Below is a quote from Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.

"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.""

Note: "...it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different..."

Federation was spelled out in the original congress as a voluntary association for mutual defense, not an all-powerful Nation-State Profitable Monopoly Dictatorship as exemplified by The British Empire example.

Those assembled at the Con-Con in 1787 knew this, as attested to in so many words, as they decided to hide the distinction, so as to perpetrate the usurpation.

Do you know what a republic is?

Example:

"But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head may be a single assembly, like the present congress, or the Amphictionic council; or it may consist of a legislature, with one or more branches; of an executive, and of a judiciary. To form a consolidated, or one entire government, there[163] must be no state, or local governments, but all things, persons and property, must be subject to the laws of one legislature alone; to one executive, and one judiciary."
Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of The United States of America in Congress Assembled.

Did you know that many patriots blew the whistle on the fraud?

Examples:

"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788, Melancton Smith

"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen."
June 14, 1788, Patrick Henry

"The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states."
Robert Yates, Brutus I, October 18, 1787:

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

In fact, the Con-Con was a desperate attempt by criminal factions to alter the voluntary mutual defense association (federation), and reestablish a dictatorship; and it worked, eventually.

You [meaning anyone not someone specific] can continue being duped as you wish. There aren't many certainties, but there are some.

Moving on to one specific:
"Are you referring to the Constitution ratified by all but 2 states."

The rules for those hired to run the federation were such that each state had equal power, especially in a situation involving removing the existing Constitution and puting in place a Slave Trade Subsidizing "Constitution." Rhode Island refused to attend, which then removes the ability for a faction to "legally" alter the Consitution, changing a Federal Constitution into a National Constitution.

Example:

This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)

"The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.
They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.
The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes - the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) - would be doubled or trebled.
The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it - for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time-serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.
The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds - That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom."

If investing in subsidized slavery is your thing, then pay for it, do you have a choice?

@Josf-Kelley the government has one job: to protect your rights from other people.
The alternative to the left is Tyranny, in which you have no rights.
The alternative to the right is Anarchy, in which you also have no rights.

You buy into it by accepting those protections and participating to whatever extent you choose. The cost of those protections of your rights, is your obligation not to abuse them by violating someone else's rights. That is a tiny portion of your rightful sovereignty, that you implicitly relinquish to the State. That gives the State authority over "the governed", by their own consent, to hold them accountable; authority that the State otherwise simply doesn't have.
If you don't want to "opt in", then it really doesn't change anything. Your natural rights are still protected like they would be for anyone else, even non-citizens; and other people are still protected from you. Those protections were established by consent of the governed and built into our framework, as was equal treatment under the law for everybody, at the time of our founding. They also established ways to change that if "the governed" decide they don't like it, but not on a case-by-case basis; as a single society.
When your state joined the club, that included you. They left you with three options:

• Accept it
• Find some land of your own that isn't controlled by any society.
• Conquer some land for yourself and try to defend it.

@rway

I am going to attempt to refute what I call dogma from The Cult of Might Makes Right.

Here is an example of such dogma:

"...the government has one job: to protect your rights from other people."

Those who repeat or even dream-up dogma for The Cult of Might Makes Right want their fellow Cult Members (criminals each one) to maintain the lie that their form of "government" is the only form, and there is no other form of government. The members of The Cult of Might Makes Right have two sets of rules:

1. The rules enforced by Criminals upon Victims.
2. The rules that temporarily afford Criminals the benefits of Economic Cooperation, affording Criminals the internal peace required to form a gang, known also as an Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Elite, whatnot.

Those who repeat the dogman for The Cult of Might Makes Right often dream up at least two opposing scripts to hand out to the victims so that the victims are fearful, hateful, and up-in-arms against their fictitious opponents and the Aristocratic Olgarchal Elite are in place to help each side destroy the other. If two opposing sides are not sufficient then an additional fictional opposition is dreamed-up, fabricated, propagated, and as that power of deception works through the targeted victim groups the fiction gains legs to stand on; like buildings built on sand.

See George Orwell in the book 1984 for an explanation of how a 3 sided fictional conflict plays out.

Enter State Left:

"The alternative to the left is Tyranny, in which you have no rights."
"The alternative to the right is Anarchy, in which you also have no rights."

That is all false, a complete fabrication. The actual left has been, from the start a natural bond between people who just want to live and let live, and those natural leftists created - for one example - democracy, as exemplified in Athens Greece.

The false left is exemplified with the legal fictions known as Bolshevism and Communism, propagated by actual people, such as Carl Marx, Frederick Engles, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin. The fictional dream follows through to actual reality in fact: dead bodies.

The actual right has been, from the start a natural bond between people who just want to live and let live, and those natural rightists created - for one example - a Federation of Independent States in America, a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association able to defend itself against the largest Aggressive Criminal Empire then running amok in the playground called Earth. That defense, however, lasted only until 1789, from that point the criminals retook America turning America back down the road to absolute despotism, utilizing the legal fiction dogma.

"You buy into it by accepting those protections and participating to whatever extent you choose."

That is factual when it is factual. When instead that is false, then that is false as a matter of fact: a fact that matters in that case.

Example:

Before 1789 in America:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
After 1789 in America:
"And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed;"

If people are unconvinced as to the evidence just offered, there is plenty more where that came from, but time is short, and sound bites are in fashion.

Moving on to the most serious of lies told in order to maintain the legal fiction:

"When your state joined the club, that included you."

That would require a clear and unambiguous meaning attached to the word State before any time spent dissecting the intended meaning would bear fruit.

How about the following?

"Those protections were established by consent of the governed and built into our framework, as was equal treatment under the law for everybody, at the time of our founding."

In fact the way that the people consented to any authority was through good government exemplified in Trial by Jury according to the common laws of free people in Liberty: a precedent set long ago, even before the Saxons brought this method of consent by the people as a whole to England after the Roman Empire imploded, as all Empires eventually do consume themselves.

I found a court case involving a slave taking a master to court, the country (represented in a jury) set the slave free. That is a precedent. That exemplifies the workings of actual (not fictional) consent of the governed with a working form of government: Trial by Jury, also known as Trial by The Country, and also known as The Law of the Land.

That was "voted" away (Majority Rule Style) in 1789 as told by a member of a group who beleives a certain way:

"When your state joined the club, that included you."

Repeating:

"Those protections were established by consent of the governed and built into our framework, as was equal treatment under the law for everybody, at the time of our founding."

Slaves ran to States where they were protected (actually, not fictionally) by the governments (the people) in those States before 1789.

"When your state joined the club, that included you."

When the Majority Rule bullshit returned, outlawing trial by jury, the slaves (actual people, not animals) were hunted down by masters or bounty hunters paid out of the National Loot Fund (Treasury) in every corner of the new Nation-State; where "consent" became fictional.

As explained well enough by Richard Henry Lee, who was the 6th President of the United States of America, at the time of the founding of Independent States bound Voluntarily into a Mutual Defense Federation, under the Articles of Confederation, where each State had to agree to Alter the Articles, so those who Altered the articles perpetrated Treason when they penned (in Secret Meetings) the Constitution of 1787.

Legal Fiction explained:

"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

"If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . ."

A steady diet of soundbites from The Cult of Might Makes Right will cost something actual, because it is pure fiction.

@Josf-Kelley
You make no definitive distinction between Left and Right, the terms are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

I called tyranny "to the Left" and anarchy "to the Right", to differentiate the two as a measure of the degree to which sovereignty resides in the State (Left) or the Individual (Right.)
If you have a different definition, then I guess I'd need to know what that is to try to make some sense of your refutation.

At the national level, sovereignty is determined by those with the power to do so.

• In a collectivist State, sovereignty is seized from the people by force.
  "Might" is the rule, and "Right" has nothing to do with anything.
• In a "Democratic" Socialist State, the gullible are simply convinced to hand over their own sovereignty;
  after which, it's just "Might makes Right" also.
• In a Democracy, the majority makes the rules, and the Individual has no rights at all.
  It's all "Might" and no "Right".
• In a Constitutional Republic... a free society that protects the rights of the Individual, sovereignty resides solely in the individual, with only that measure relinquished to the State that is necessary and sufficient to constrain an individual citizen's actions in order to protect the rights of other citizens. Their remaining sovereignty cannot be 'voted away' by a gullible majority, because it does not belong to them in the first place.
  It is the only system in which you have rights; where "Rights make Right, and Might is irrelevant"... insofar as it's both understood and followed, that is...
• In an Anarchy, sovereignty resides entirely in the Individual, and each one of them has every right in the world to bash your head in and take your stuff. It is purely a system of "Might makes Right".

America was established just-slightly to the Left of Anarchy, recognizing that sovereignty resides solely in the Individual.

At the international level, there is simply Anarchy among nations. There is no federation of like-minded nations from a single culture that desire to band together in a larger Republican structure. Democracies sort of stick-together, to some extent; only insofar as it meets our own interests. As do Shia Theocracies, Sunni Theocracies, and others that group together conditionally under some umbrella of common interest.
The UN would like to be that superstructure, but they're not; and they never will be. The further power gets away from where it naturally resides, in the Individual, it gets Progressively more corrupt. The UN is a fantastic example of that, and of nothing else.

Your problem with the rule of law, seems to be that people don't always follow the law. That doesn't make the law "fiction", it just makes law enforcement a necessary function in a free society.
Power is not tyranny. Abuse of power is unjust, and the acceptance of that injustice is tyranny.

If your point is that the Federal Government has more power than they were intended to have, then yes... they do.
In America, we're simply doing it wrong. Half of us think we're a Democracy. Any time they don't like something, they vote to use the government to rearrange the world for them. Those votes are often unconstitutional, and rarely challenged successfully; especially when we have collectivists on the Supreme Court.
We've got a lot of repairs to make to get back on the path to America.
First, we'll need to take back the institution of Education. Until we do that, America is never going to happen.

@rway

Last first:
"First, we'll need to take back the institution of Education. Until we do that, America is never going to happen."

Who decides any fact concerning what is or is not Education?

Actual rule of law:

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236, 1788
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

The people, through their elected (random selection, by lot) representatives, representing the whole people as one (democratic), determine a fact in issue. That is confessed, or announced, or recorded officially, by an individual in a working republic (res-publica means The Public Thing: democratic), which was a working Republic joined voluntarily into a Federation of Republics: 1788. It was a common-law court.

Is that true? Who decides if it is true?

"Those votes are often unconstitutional, and rarely challenged successfully; especially when we have collectivists on the Supreme Court."

We do not have a Supreme Court. You and your kind have a Supreme Court. A court that empowers a faction, or representatives of a faction, with arbitrary power to judge whatever they please, is an idea you may share with your faction. I don't.

I agree with the following:

George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 04, 1788
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."

Also explained here:

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

George Mason was at the Secret Meeting where the criminals perpetrated treason on the official record. Mason would not sign the document that confesses the culpability of the treasonous criminals, and George Mason did what he could to stop the usurpation, speaking out against it, in great detail, and voting (Majority Rules) against it. The Majority barely managed to get away with the treasonous usurpation, stealing the government by a narrow margin.

Moving on to more falsehoods:

"Half of us think we're a Democracy."

The Majority have been "educated" (indoctrinated) into a false belief that democracy means Majority Rules, and that is demonstrated as false, explained well enough in the following message:

The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long

"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.

"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

Your words suggest that you too have been duped by that specific falsehood whereby democracy (original) became democracy (counterfeit): Majority Rules. I would like to reinforce the truth in this matter concerning the original meaning of democracy by quoting from Thomas Paine, but for brevity, I will cut this short to answer a claim:

"You make no definitive distinction between Left and Right, the terms are arbitrary and therefore meaningless."

My reference was not arbitrary, however, I did not fully explain the meaning of the reference to the original left and the original right, and that is far from arbitrary, however, it is subject to very specific times and places, as people moved back and forth from moral principle to arbitrary government.

The left I am referring to is documented in the history of Athens, where the left was the democrats, and they successfully avoided the so-called Majority Rules dogma. Majority Rules is a fiction, a farce, a self-evident lie just like Might Makes Right, it is a pattern of behavior that is intended to perpetrate injury upon unsuspecting victims: to consume them.

In my reference, I mentioned a specific example of those on the right, which include now two names that work to exemplify that right of which I speak: George Mason and Justice M'Kean.

"You make no definitive distinction between Left and Right, the terms are arbitrary and therefore meaningless."

I did no such thing.

Left, are people working cooperatively to live and let live in a world where criminals - if allowed to do so - will get away with murder and worse crimes.

Right, are people working cooperatively to live and let live in a world where criminals - if allowed to do so - will get away with murder and worse crimes.

What is the preferred method of finding any fact that matters in any case where one of the criminals are running amok in the playground, telling lies about government, and then using the power of those lies to consume people?

"Those votes are often unconstitutional, and rarely challenged successfully; especially when we have collectivists on the Supreme Court."

We do not have what you claim we have. Your faction has what you claim.

@Josf-Kelley the Law in the U.S. is the Constitution, and those laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution and not in violation of it, by the people through their representatives. That's the only place legitimate Law comes from in the U.S.: the people. All of them; not 12 of them on a jury, and not 9 of them on the Supreme Court.
Case Law, or "precedent", is also not the Law. Neither is anyone's opinion from an imaginary secret meeting.

You have a Supreme Court. It doesn't matter whether you acknowledge them. They're there, regardless, and you live under the jurisdiction of their decisions whether you like it or not. They've grown way out of control because people don't pay attention. We'd all be better served to take a constructive interest rather than just pretending they don't matter. They matter... way too much.

Logic determines what's true. The People determine what's right, through the Constitution. Government is a man-made system, it works however we say it works. But if you can come up with a better way to define and encode what is "right"... let's hear it.

The people who's kids are in the school should be deciding what is taught in that school; not some bureaucrat at the State or Federal level. They are who is to decide what is Education, for their children.

Majority rules is what Democracy means. Sortition is not Democracy, it's just a Lottery. And a Lottery is not an election. America is not a Democracy anyway.
If people tend to vote for prominant candidates, that's literally none of your business. Your vote is your business. Use it however you like.
Again, if you know of a better system: what is it?

@rway

Again you claim dictatorial power to dictate to me what the law is, according to you and your faction. I see otherwise.

You claim:
"the Law in the U.S. is the Constitution, and those laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution and not in violation of it, by the people through their representatives."

The Constitution of 1787 (written in 1787) confesses the crime of treason, among other crimes; as a matter of fact. If the law were in Ameria, there could have been a trial, and there can still be a trial, to prove that fact that matters in that case.

Even if the Constitution was legitimate and not criminal, it would be a statute which would them be subject to consent by the people through the actual law process which is the common law with independent trial juries, and independent grand juries who actually represent the people as a whole, and who do not represent factions criminal or otherwise.

"All of them; not 12 of them on a jury, and not 9 of them on the Supreme Court."

Are you actually claiming now that Electoral Politics (so-called Majority Rule) is a method by which all the people in America consent to whatever is done by people claiming (falsely I might add) to be the legitimate government? That is an absurd claim considering so many sources of accurate data proving otherwise, not the least of which is the data already shown where the original democrats knew that Electoral Politics leads to Aristocracy, and as everyone ought to know that is Arbitrary Government, not anything close to the law.

Claims of how the people can "vote them out," are uncontroversially refuted claims, there is no argument on that point, so do you actually mean, with those words you just published, that Electoral Politics is in any way a representation of the will of the people as one unanimous group?

"You have a Supreme Court. It doesn't matter whether you acknowledge them."

All dictators have something in common: they dictate. Your words are meaningless or simply wrong. I do not have, own, possess, control, accept, agree with, consent to, or have any contact with those people other than me as their victim, and they as the treasonous criminals they are in fact. If you, or anyone else, aids and abets them, then you, and everyone else in that aiding and abetting group, are accessories to their crimes. I am not.

"Case Law, or "precedent", is also not the Law. Neither is anyone's opinion from an imaginary secret meeting."

I agree that precedent is not the law, the law is voluntary association for mutual defense in such forms as common law trial by jury and whatever is in place to maintain that power the people as a whole maintain for their own defense against all enemies foreign and domestic, including usurpers who manage to usurp the actual law: counterfeiting.

From someone at the Secret Meetings:

Page 4 Luther Martin

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"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."
Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1787
by Robert Yates (Compiler), John Lansing (Compiler)

"Logic determines what's true. The People determine what's right, through the Constitution. Government is a man-made system, it works however we say it works. But if you can come up with a better way to define and encode what is "right"... let's hear it."

There you are framing the narrative in favor of guess who? Rather than acknowledge that the law of the land has been around for thousands of years in very well known forms, you dictate that the law started in America in 1789 with a document that documents a crime scene, and you go on to suggest that me alone has to come up with something better than those current criminals who employ what that past criminal gang created.

I don't need to invent something that did not, and does not already exist.

"Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom."

"The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise."
Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

"The people who's kids are in the school should be deciding what is taught in that school; not some bureaucrat at the State or Federal level. They are who is to decide what is Education, for their children."

I agree, but can I take the criminals running the National Indoctrination System operators to court, to have them face the country in a public trial by jury? Not with your criminal system I can't, and are you seriously going to defend the Electoral Politics falsehoods as my individual way to add to the collective power of the people, as my legal method of ensuring that those rascals don't get away with their crimes? If so, I can quote from Thomas Paine and even better from Richard Henry Lee on the falacies of Electoral Politics as a means by which the people consent to the government.

"Majority rules is what Democracy means."

Again, dictators dictate that Electoral Politics (a scam) is Democracy, and both are Majority Rules. The example of Majority Rules (criminals rule) is the so-called Ratification of that criminal document. So that - according to your dictatorial claims - is democracy. A faction populated by Slave Taders, Central Banking Frauds, Warmongers, and others assemble in Secret meetings to perpetrate treason upon everyone, and they then use the available media to propagate lies about their usurpation, and if they can convince enough people to vote for their Subsidized Slavery Government, then they can call that crime democracy, and you buy into it.

"Sortition is not Democracy, it's just a Lottery."

You were not around to dictate that to the original democrats, and your dictates can be compared to the atual record left behind by those actual democrats.

@dd54

Very good on-topic information, thanks. It was, however, not (in my opinion) Washington's group. Washington was what is known as The Strong Man, a useful tool if the tool can be controlled on high tensile strings. Washington was in the group I call warmongers or mercenaries, certainly a bonified warrior, if not an intelligent or learned one.

The Central Banker Fraud group included Robert Morris (refusing to pay the "lower class" Revolutionary War veterans their minimum wages: at a discount, below cost to the veterans), and soon to be National Central Bank Treasurer Alexander Hamilton, who was later shot dead in a duel by someone who he dishonored (talking shit to the wrong people): Aaron Burr.

Then there were the Slave Traders, Slave Consumers, Carriers, etc., as confessed by Thomas Jefferson on the official record:

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10:
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

That was in reference to the editing job (censorship of Thomas Jefferson's free speech) done to the original Declaration of Independence. I won't quote the edited part now, just note the culprits who were dealing in human lives. How much damage did they do?

A rough estimate offered:

"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made, By Paul Finkelman

There is a pattern, and it involves an obvious fiction: "...making the courts of the country their tools..."

As to the Central Banker Frauds:

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

As to the Free Market Solutions:

1. Cryto-Currencies
2. Organic Militia

The first Free Market Solution almost brought down the FED just recently, and I think when China outlawed it, that event was once again a can kicked down the road one more time.

The second Free Market Solution was exemplified very well in the recent Bundy Rancher case, et.al.

We are seeing history repeat itself, for example:

"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty, Murray Rothbard

Grass roots, organic, original, bottom up, free market, voluntary assocation fixes. All that is needed is volunteers, and a lot of homework. That is a long response, but I think the information is warranted. I would like to go deeper into specifics, particuarly the use of accurate accounting: trial by jury, the law.

@Josf-Kelley
You like to talk about what historical figures "really meant," and to dictate how things "should have turned out."
That's all very interesting, academically, but also in-actionable. Things are what they are, now.
To acknowledge reality is not to endorse it.
If you claim to know where we should be instead, that means literally nothing without some idea how to get from here to there. Meanwhile... we're left to work with what we have, not what we should have.

You: "Again you claim dictatorial power to dictate to me what the law is, according to you and your faction. I see otherwise."
Me: Making an observation is not dictatorial.

You: "...Even if the Constitution was legitimate and not criminal, it would be a statute which would them be subject to consent by the people through the actual law process which is the common law with independent trial juries, and independent grand juries who actually represent the people as a whole, and who do not represent factions criminal or otherwise."
Me: The Constitution already has the implied consent of the people. I don't want 12 random people "revisiting" it to reaffirm and/or revise that consent on behalf of 350,000,000 of their peers. That would, indeed, be tyranny. That's no better than the Supreme Court re-writing "law".
Do you really believe in the unicorn of an "independent" grand jury?
If you have a problem with particular language in the Constitution, there's a process to fix that through your representatives. When they predictably fail to represent you faithfully, there's a backup process: an Article V Convention of States.
No faith in the existing processes? I don't blame you... what's the alternative that will be any more reliable and effective?

You: "Are you actually claiming now that Electoral Politics (so-called Majority Rule) is a method by which all the people in America consent to..."
Me: Not entirely. I'm claiming that your presence in the jurisdiction as a citizen is the method by which you imply consent. If you wish to repeal that consent, you're free to renounce your citizenship and go wherever you'd rather be. I know, that sounds "dictatorial" to you. But you don't get to wander the Earth claiming sovereignty over the soil under your feet. Well, you can if you want, but nobody's going to recognize it. That soil has already been claimed. Like I said before, at the international level there is no order, only Anarchy.
You can live under the authority of Force, or you can live under the authority derived by consent of the governed. If you don't believe the latter even exists, then it hardly matters, does it?
If there's anything to which you don't consent, you can get that changed, if you can convince enough of your peers to engage your representatives. If you can't, then your concerns do not represent the will of "the people"... just you. You don't get to be a dictator either. Your opportunity to vote for those representatives, and your choice not to pursue change... or your failure to garner popular support for change; further imply consent of the People in general.
Electoral Politics is not Majority Rule. Majority Rule is Majority Rule. If the majority is precluded from voting-away your rights, then you do not live under majority rule. IMHO, that's the primal reason that we even have a Constitution in the first place; to constrain the government in order to preserve your rights.
All we have to do now, is to follow it. First we have to understand it.
That goes directly to Education, like so many other things.

You: "...the original democrats knew that Electoral Politics leads to Aristocracy, and as everyone ought to know that is Arbitrary Government, not anything close to the law."
Me: Human nature leads to Aristocracy. Sortition does not fix that, it's merely a different method of selecting the arbiters; one that explicitly disregards the will of the people. Government itself is arbitrary, the only thing restraining it in America is the Constitution; and only to the extent that we use it. (see: Education)

You: "I do not have, own, possess, control, accept, agree with, consent to,..."
Me: We have a lot of objectively illegitimate authority being exercised routinely. It's still being exercised, and it affects you. That's not a dictate, it's an observation. It's being done with your inferred consent, which should motivate you to do something about it.
Pretending it's not there is not doing something about it.

You: "...the law is voluntary association for mutual defense in such forms as common law trial by jury and whatever is in place to maintain that power..."
Me: "whatever is in place" was supposed to be the militia, which was taken over by those very usurpers with the Militia Act of 1903... and nobody even noticed. (see: Education)
We can't convene a local jury to decide subjectively and ad hoc what "the Law" is on a case-by-case basis all around the country. The Law needs to be just, consistent, and universally applied to be legitimate. That means it has to be codified into a single, universal, enduring, and recognized authoritative source... like the Constitution.

You: "Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course."
Me: Yes, exactly. That's why we determine the government's authority. We do that with less-than 100% efficacy, and we always will. You seem to believe that evidence of failure in a complex system, demonstrates that the system was conceptually wrong and can't be fixed. I don't know how to break this to you, but man has yet to devise any system of any significant complexity, that does anything flawlessly. The most important mechanisms are those by which you address discovered weaknesses... and we have them. But you have to know that you have them, and you have to know what they're for, and you have to actually use them. (see: Education)

You: "There you are framing the narrative in favor of guess who? Rather than acknowledge that the law of the land has been around for thousands of years"
Me: The narrative is already there. The law of the land has not "been around" in stasis, it's been evolving quite slowly and incrementally within Western Civilization since we first distilled the notion of Individual Sovereignty from Christianity.
This is the latest, and even possibly the ultimate, iteration. Again, if you can envision a better system that actually has a chance of being realized and sustained in the real world... I'm all ears.

You: "...can I take the criminals running the National Indoctrination System operators to court...?"
Me: Probably not successfully. The entire structure of the national education system is an import from a foreign system: Communism. It is a tumor in our Republic, and the only cure is to remove it. What you can do, toward that end, is to help get that on the agenda of the Convention of States that is currently gathering.

@rway

"Me: Making an observation is not dictatorial."

What is the meaning of the word dictate? Of course, you are not assembling a conscripted army from all corners of the newly formed Organized Crime Arbitrary Government that counterfeits the law, to then collect an extortion fee so as to create a demand for counterfeit money, and it just so happens that the "tax-evaders," in question are using whiskey as money in direct competition with the Central Bank counterfeit money scam. You are not the worst dictator in the dictatorship, but it still is a dictatorship. Your words dictate a lie to me. It (dictatorship) is not the law.

"You like to talk about what historical figures "really meant," and to dictate how things "should have turned out.""

That is a false narrative. I can correct it. Historical figures, such as George Mason and Luther Martin for examples, were at the Con-Con of 1787 when the doors were closed and the gag orders enforced. What I like to talk about are good people doing good things, but there are these evil people running amok in the playground, so I explain, with accurate accounts, what the evil people do to gain power. That information is then applicable to what people can do to peacefully defend against the damaging work done by evil people.

I think that you are correct when you pointed out that education is the key, but you are "educating" people to aid and abet the evil people, not pull the power plug on them. Not only do you (apparently) buy into their lies, their false narrative, but also you work (pro bono?) to create new false narratives when I correct the false narratives.

Statutes are statutes, laws require the consent of the people through their juries, which includes independent grand juries.

Who says so? That is where deliberation is key, to weed out the false narratives (deception as a criminal rule), and to acknowledge the facts that matter in the case if facts can be unanimously agreed upon. If facts cannot be agreed upon then the law power (the dogs of war) cannot be unleased upon anyone, anywhere, anytime: legally.

"Do you really believe in the unicorn of an "independent" grand jury?"

There you go again, with the false narrative. Case in point:

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Page 3

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."

It is not so much that you and yours are taking a side, the evil side, what you are doing is maintaining it, aiding it, abetting it, kicking the divide/conquer evil falsehood, dogma, so as to cover-up the crimes of very evil people can down the road one more time. In the light of truth those evil people have no power, their minions, their slaves, walk off the job, never to return. It is worse than pro-bono work, as the minions are eventually digging their own graves, jumping in, and drinking the last of the cool-aid.

Here is more, and this goes directly toward not "what they ought to have done," but rather what we as a moral people can do now; legally, peacefully, lawfully, righteously.

Page 42
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty

"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

When the truth of what - for example - the Clintons have done with the aid and abetting of Jeffery Epstein is published on an actual common law trial by jury case, there will still be dupes refusing to believe that those people conspired to perpetrate heinous crimes upon innocent victims MASSIVELY. When people see precisely, on the official record, the extent of their crimes, which could make Charles Manson look like a saint in comparison, there will still be minds bent by the falsehood spewed forth from their kind, their fellow aiders and abetters of these types exemplified by those Clinton criminals.

How can they sweep these facts under the rug without your willing help here and now?

"Not entirely. I'm claiming that your presence in the jurisdiction as a citizen is the method by which you imply consent. If you wish to repeal that consent, you're free to renounce your citizenship and go wherever you'd rather be. I know, that sound "dictatorial" to you. But you don't get to wander the Earth claiming sovereignty over the soil under your feet."

I am going to take a different route here addressing the "love it or leave it" false narrative. Rather than quoting from Richard Henry Lee, to thoroughly dispell the "consent by electoral politics," and rather than quote from Lysander Spooner to thoroughly dispell the lie known euphemistically as "implied" consent, I will quote from a study that explains how the Federation turned into a Nation-State, and why that was a move from freedom in liberty and why that was a move into despotism. This ought to address the "love it or leave it" deception. Rather than a one-stop no shopping dictatorship, it turns out that a Federation works as a Mall for Free Market Government Providers.

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

"Your opportunity to vote for those representatives, and your choice not to pursue change... or your failure to garner popular support for change; further imply consent of the People in general."

You don't have me with that barb. I was on the ballot in my district as Libertarian Candidate for U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) Congress in 1996. I have first-hand experience with Electoral Politics. It is a scam. I ran on the "government murders people in a church" ticket. This was just after Waco, and the subsequent rise of the modern-day militia.

When the government can torture women, children, pregnant women, old men and women, teenagers, and other people in a church, then burn them alive, then blame the victims on National Propaganda Television, it may be time to question the false narratives. "They are killing themselves," as the flame-throwing tanks roll through the church. Incidentally, Clinton bodyguard bodies were allegedly thrown into the mass grave at Waco, so those bodies are allegedly on the Clinton "Witness Protection" list.

"Human nature leads to Aristocracy. Sortition does not fix that, it's merely a different method of selecting the arbiters; one that explicitly disregards the will of the people. Government itself is arbitrary, the only thing restraining it in America is the Constitution; and only to the extent that we use it."

It is not the word "Aristocracy," that is in need of the light of truth, it is criminal versions of so-called "Aristocracy," also known as arbitrary government, dictatorship, despotism, organized crime with a false flag, fascism, communism, socialism, capitalism, oligarchy, corporatocracy, and idiocracy. Pop culture is aristocratic, but when the latest Rock Star starts torturing and burning alive people in curches, then that aristocracy is criminal if the fans give that Rock Star more fuel to burn the next church full of people. As to the so-called "will of the people," you are simply wrong. If the ballot had none-of-the-above on it, then you might have a leg to stand on.

"It's being done with your inferred consent, which should motivate you to do something about it.
Pretending it's not there is not doing something about it."

I've been a member or seeking membership in The John Birch Society, United We Stand (Ross Perot), Fully Informed Jury Association (they censored me brutally), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (I won First Mention in an Essay Contest), Libertarian Party (my campaign for congress), Republican Party (Ron Paul campaign, to vote in the primary), NRA (they backed the gun-grabber republican when I ran for congress), Trial by Jury (I was on one trial, was dismissed at another by both prosecutor and defendant, but the judge tried to keep me), Free State Project Web Page (I was removed eventually), Mises Institute Web Page Forum (again removed brutally), and just recently National Liberty Alliance where I was asked to leave after a year as the California State Coordinator (top position).

Consent by inference is what rapists do, like that governor or whatnot who claimed the toddler had seduced him.

Me: "whatever is in place" was supposed to be the militia, which was taken over by those very usurpers with the Militia Act of 1903... and nobody even noticed. (see: Education)

Long before 1903 the new Emperor in America, Generalissimo Washington assembled a conscripted (slave) Army as large as any he misled in the Revolutionary War, and he Invaded the former Sovereign State of Pennsylvania to crush a growing competitor competing with the new National Central Bank Fraud run by Alexander Hamilton. The militia in every single former independent state was thereby conscripted in fact, and did you notice?

"Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands."
Philadelphiensis IX
February 06, 1788

"We can't convene a local jury to decide subjectively and ad hoc what "the Law" is on a case-by-case basis all around the country. The Law needs to be just, consistent, and universally applied to be legitimate. That means it has to be codified into a single, universal, enduring, and recognized authoritative source... like the Constitution."

That is simply wrong. All crime and therefore all defense against crime (the law) is local. The crime scene is in a place, the crime scene is at a time, and to claim that somehow the lawful defense against the criminal who perpetrated the crime in that place, at that time, is magically arriving from Washington. D. C., and a piece of paper on file, or display, is the "legal Fiction" claim already spelled out by Richard Henry Lee, who was the 6th President of the actual Federation before the criminals took over with their legal fiction scam that has you (perhaps) duped.

"Electoral Politics is not Majority Rule. Majority Rule is Majority Rule. If the majority is precluded from voting-away your rights, then you do not live under majority rule. IMHO, that's the primal reason that we even have a Constitution in the first place; to constrain the government in order to preserve your rights.
All we have to do now, is to follow it. First we have to understand it."

I'll give this one more go, but then it reaches the beating a dead horse threshold, and other people may be reading this...so here goes nothing:

The existing Federal Constitution was The Articles of Confederation.

Here:
"In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote."

Here:
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

On one side are people claiming "majority rules" and that means if 9 sovereign states gang up on the minority, the minority must accept subsidized slavery. On that side are people who will employ deception, they are criminals, they enslave people.

Are you one of those people?

Congress did not assemble to alter the existing "perpetual" Constitution. A convention was assembled, not a congress, and in those Secret Meetings criminals penned much more than an alteration to the existing Federal Constitution. They knew, in their own words at the convention, that what they were doing was "questionable." That is mens rea (guilty mind) inculpatory evidence: a fact that matters in the case.

"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

There was a Constitution, and it was Federal. There was no agreement made in the document affording some people (a majority, minority, supermajority, or any number whatsoever) to "annihilate" the "perpetual" confederation.

If there were written into the original Constitution a power given to the majority over the minority, then that is a shining example of Majority Rules, and if you want to call it democracy, then go right ahead. It is an agreement to allow a majority to make alterations to the existing federal agreement, it is not an agreement to allow criminals to take away the rights of people, such as Africans, or such as Revolutionary War Veterans making whiskey (as a form of money) to make ends meet.

Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781
II.
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Proof of the annihilation was the invasion of Pennsylvania by a National Conscprit Army in 1794.

Further proof, as if any was needed, was the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the subsequent enforcement of said dictates in Kangaroo Courts put into power by the Judiciary Act of 1789, previous to the Bill of Rights Amendments.

All that led to the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party. Which, I suppose in some people's minds, means The Majority Rules-Fascist Party.

"The entire structure of the national education system is an import from a foreign system: Communism."

That is probably false. The system, according to John Taylor Gatto, was taken from the Prussians.

@Josf-Kelley
lol... what is the meaning of the word "meaning?"
"Dictating" is when the speaker expects compliance. I have no such expectation.
I also have little time for word games, sorry. Thanks for the info that you've pasted, it's interesting, if not conclusive.
If you think you have accurately characterized a real problem, then I suggest you move on to a real solution; and I wish you luck.
Until then, we have literally no other option than to play the hand that we've been dealt.
That observation is not an endorsement of "the system", it's an acknowledgment of reality.

It's not enough to think that we should be "somewhere else".
The path to somewhere else, starts with where you are. And where we are, is a Constitutional Republic that has been corrupted by illegitimate centralization of power; one that still has the ability to fix that, if we can get on the same page before it progresses beyond recoverability.

"Pulling the plug" is exactly what I've been consistently talking about, with specific reference to the real-world means to do so. i.e., Article V of the Constitution.
I don't see you proposing anything. You seem to see a great need for change, and can describe at great length why you feel that way... and then... nothing.
You say that your "...information is then applicable to what people can do to peacefully defend against the damaging work done by evil people."
OK... like what? Do you want to convene a jury-trial to answer every legal question that arises, among the affairs of 350 Million people and legal entities every day? That's not going to work, what else you got?
"What else we got" so far, is the Constitution and the universally-applicable Rule of Law; to whatever extent we can maintain its integrity and, therefore, its legitimacy.
First, we'll need to restore its integrity, and therefore, its legitimacy.
Doing that successfully, will require a popular understanding of what it is that we're restoring, and why.
And, doing that successfully will require that we first restore the institution of Education, away from the very tyrants who've taken it over exactly because ignorance affords them power.
Nationalized education is one of the 10 planks of Communism from the Manifesto, and this is why.

Propagating truth is crucial... if it actually turns out to be the truth.
I applaud the effort.
But there's so much more to it than that. Awareness of bad people with evil intent is hardly an argument against the very system, the only system, that is purposefully designed to minimize their influence to the greatest extent possible.
Unless you have an even more-effective alternative in mind... but you don't.

Fixing what we have, on the other hand, is actually feasible. We even have the mechanisms in-place to do so, if we can ground our efforts in reality long enough to learn what they are and how to use them.
Replacing "the system" entirely with some hopefully utopian alternative is simply not going to happen.
There is no path from here to there... we don't even have a definition of where "there" is.
We do know where here is, and we know how to fix it.

@rway

You laughed out loud:

"lol... what is the meaning of the word "meaning?""

Dictate (my first attempt to define one word officially)
"lay down authoritatively; prescribe."
Source: Google Search to Web-Dictionary

Is the following examples of someone laying down authoritatively, or prescribing?

""Dictating" is when the speaker expects compliance."

Which is the authoritative definition?

"I also have little time for word games, sorry."

Then why are you playing word games such as the one where you make an effort to discredit me with guilt by association with one of the killer Clintons and his infamous claim that it depends upon what the word is, is? It sounds to me like you are intellectually dishonest. A common trait of the intellectually dishonest is to perpetrate an aggressive character assassination attack (with a word game), and then claim innocence.

"If you think you have accurately characterized a real problem, then I suggest you move on to a real solution; and I wish you luck."

Here is another tactic of the intellectually dishonest, rather than acknowledging the fact that I have communicated many forms of solutions to the one problem, the effort here is to repeat a false narrative in which your Man of Straw (that you can tear apart easily) has no solutions at all, ever, a Utopian dreamer, a conspiracy theorist, etc.

1. I agreed with the fact that education is the key and adding to that solution it is imperative that the facts, not the lies, constitute the body that makes up education. An example of fiction constituting the body of "education," is the claim that the law is a statute. The law is not a statute as told by many authorities on the subject, even told by the criminals posing as authorities. By logic and reason, the law cannot be a piece of paper, for there are millions of conflicts among individuals, in millions of individual times, and millions of individual places, where those few (or now many) words written in the "law books," can't cover each one in time. The law is real-time answers (defense) to real time problems (criminal acts), the law is not an effort to clean up messes after the fact.

2. By example, join a group of active people sharing your concerns about just how wrong the so-called government is now, and do not settle for dictatorial edicts demanded by people in those groups, such as: John Birch Society, Fully Informed Jury Association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Libertarian Party, Republican Party, Independent Party, run for office, go to jury duty, open your mind, stop closing your mind, stop being duped by frauds writing confusing words on papers, such as the case where a whole people (millions of them) were enslaved because these criminals counterfeited the government in 1789.

3. Speak your mind - speak the truth - against those who will twist your word around and attempt to discredit you, and then blame you for things you did not do, things you would not do, and that is a common routine employed by intellectually dishonest people: A Man of Straw, and that is the basis of a Legal Fiction too.

4. Hold the offenders (in time and place) to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in the case, they will no longer wield the power of deception.

5. If the law is as I say it is (not just me saying it, quotes from many Patriots at the founding), then the solution is the law, even if the gang of criminals and their minions don't want you to know this fact.

Examples:

"For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws."
"It was anciently called “trial per pais”—that is “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”
The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?" Trail by Jury, Lysander Spooner

Now a quote from the First Congress of the United States of America:

14th October, 1775
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

That last one wasn't even a Majority Rule case, note the words "unanimously resolved". So what is the law? What is the law of the land? How does it work? What part do you play? Are you merely a subject of a piece of paper and those who say that subsidized slavery is the law, and here is the precise amount of the "contribution" you will pay or else?

14th Amendment to a documented crime scene:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Back to the opposition:

"That observation is not an endorsement of "the system", it's an acknowledgment of reality."

A reality is that 2 groups are obviously opposing each other throughout human time, one group operates according to criminal rules, which include the rule that the most powerful criminal reaches the top of the criminal gang, and the other group is composed of targets from the perspective of the criminal group. If one of the targets dare to speak the truth, the target on the back of that one blowing the whistle becomes larger, more visible, a threat, to those in the criminal group. The criminals know that those who speak the truth must be crushed by any means, not limited to deception (false narratives targeting the one blowing the whistle).

The criminals claim - among other false claims - that the law is that you can't question such things as your individual "contribution" to the criminal gang's pile of LOOT, that is the same pile of LOOT that the criminals use to take more from you. When the criminals really get going with their most powerful pyramid scheme to date, they can take from you before you are even born, they do this with their National Central Bank Fraud, and they keep very good records.

What is the fix? Take them to court:

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

"And where we are, is a Constitutional Republic that has been corrupted by illegitimate centralization of power; one that still has the ability to fix that, if we can get on the same page before it progresses beyond recoverability."

A Republic is The Public Thing, from the word respublica, meaning it is for the people, not for a segment of the population, such as Slave Traders, or Central Banking Frauds, and not for Warmongers, but that is the people (criminals all) who wrote, and rammed through, the Constitution of 1789, usurping the existing Federal Constitution.

Do the people (respublica) still have the power to over-rule criminals in government?

I offered one case above, a point at which someone can peruse the significance of, and perhaps learn something valuable, to then contribute to the fix, rather than aiding and abetting the criminal cabal at the top of the legal fiction.

Dictates and false narrative evidence:

"I don't see you proposing anything. You seem to see a great need for change, and can describe at great length why you feel that way... and then... nothing."

If there was nothing to see then what is the following?

"Do you want to convene a jury-trial to answer every legal question that arises, among the affairs of 350 Million people and legal entities every day?"

More dictates and false narratives:

"That's not going to work, what else you got?"

So the false claim is I have "nothing," from my editor working without my consent. Then the story changes to something I did elude to, but of course, there is a spin on what I eluded to, and then the creator of the Straw-Man skillfully tears apart the Man of Straw argument he penned with: "That's not going to work,..."

I do not want to convene a jury-trial to answer every legal question that arises, who do you want to disenfranchise? I am one individual, I live in one place (at a time), and if the law power existed then I, or anyone else, could take the criminals in government to court for very serious crimes not limited to treason. The fact that treasonous criminals infest the government and no one in the government takes them to court proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not a republic, nor is it democracy, nor is it a federation, it is a criminal cabal, and it started in 1789, as a confessed legal fiction.

Note the spin with the following:

"First, we'll need to restore its integrity, and therefore, its legitimacy."

When my editor speaks for me, I alone (lone gunman?) "want to convene a jury-trial," but when the glorious editor himself is allowed to speak for himself there is more than just his straight and narrow efforts to lead the group to victory!

There are serious problems with restoring the integrity of Subsidized Slavery. I can quote from Thomas Jefferson, but this is already very long.

A court case involving one of the major criminals may tip the balance at this point in time. A public trial, such as the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial, where the jury found the government guilty of conspiracy murder.

Those are 2 examples to illustrate a potential future reality in America. The people are truly represented as one, and in this future potential, legal, lawful, peaceful, trial reality one of the worst dominoes fall in court. Take Killary Clinton for example, I prefer the FED chairman in a future, possible, court case where the people are actually represented as one, and these dominoes start falling.

"Awareness of bad people with evil intent is hardly an argument against the very system, the only system, that is purposefully designed to minimize their influence to the greatest extent possible."

This is already long, but I really would like to cut and paste right here a message from Richard Henry Lee dispelling that falsehood above, and again this particular individual, Richard Henry Lee, was the 6th President of the United States of America when it was a working federation under the original federal Constitution.

More false narrative, and now this editor of mine is reaching into serious character assassination:

"Replacing "the system" entirely with some hopefully utopian alternative is simply not going to happen."

I have been moved unjustly into the Utopian dreamer group by my unwanted editor. Next I will be accused of goat fornication?

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

That is not Utopian.