I never cease to be amazed at some of the comments I receive. One interesting comment I received was from “The Total Idiot” in response to an article I had written sometime back, “Contractual Agreements, Involuntary Servitude, Taxes & Tea Parties,” issue 370.
In the article I stated the Constitution was like a contract, because it’s a document in which those elected to office take a sworn oath to uphold what it says in the document. I did not state it was a contract but like a contract.
Right off the the bat, I state unequivocably, I love The Declaration of Independence, I think it’s the most nearly-perfect document man has ever devised. I can truthfully say, I like the Preamble to The Constitution of The United States, and the original Constitution is a document I can accept and live with. It may have flaws but it’s the best anyone has come up with thus far, with reference to the formation of a political government. The problem lies in the fact it is not adhered to by those elected to abide by it.
Most of us have never taken a sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In that respect, I have no contractual agreement with the Constitution. According to Blacks Law Dictionary, “The Constitution is a charter of government deriving its whole powers from the governed.” However, under the definition of a charter, the same law dictionary states, “A charter differs from a constitution in that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the latter is established by the people themselves.”
I refer to Blacks Law dictionary for interpretation, because this is the book courts, judges and lawyers use in the court system to decide cases.
Defining a contract it states: “An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.” “A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.”
Goes on to describe various kinds of contracts, one being, “Expressed and implied.” An express contract is an actual agreement of parties, the terms of which are openly uttered or declared at the time of making it, being stated in distinct, and explicit, either orally or in writing.” Wheras an implied contract is one “inferred from conduct of parties.”
Returning to the comment from the “Total Idiot, the writer states: “Under the law, internationally and locally, at that time and today, there can be no doubt that the Constitution is a contract. It made an offer, laid down the terms of that offer, and was accepted. This by definition is all of the aspects of a contract. Specified remedies existed.”
Then continues by saying, “Our Rights and Liberty inevitably a property under the law, just as our lives were, for all property
was contingent upon their maintainence.”
The comment makes no sense to me, however as I tried to decipher and untangle the thought process, wondered if this is the state of confusion so many are in a malestrom of irrationale over, in today’s climate.
Because we are at a period in time where there seems to be such a divide between what political government is doing and the desires of the general population, there is a lot of anger, resentment, disenchantment and disagreement, manifested in an upheaveal of actions, coming from many corners in this country, acting-out in a variety of ways.
In my opinion, much taking place in today’s climate derives from a misunderstanding of what a contract is. In this connection, attempts at creating contracts, some “with” America and some “for” America. All confusing and invalid. These attempts do not quell, quiet, or allay the confusion but add to it.
Those elected to political seats of power have taken an oath to abide by the Constitution, and they have failed to do so. The politicians are the ones who agreed to the basic tenets of the document. They are the parties who signed the agreement, to abide by what it says, that is the 535 in Congress along with the President of the United States. And they have failed to do so, ignoring what the Constitution states in many instances.
The Citizenry, i.e., the 300 million-plus people in the United States, have never signed any agreement relative to the Constitution of these United States. But have voted for and elected persons who have agreed to the document, and in this connection, they contracted to abide with the document of laws upon which this nation was founded. And it is they who have violated it. Because they took a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Not the people.
Now what is happening? “WE the people, running around like a chicken with its head cut off, agreeing with some nebulous notion of a “contract” with and for nonspecifics, thinking that’s a solution to the dilemma, battle and crisis we are now in. Instead of impeaching those who have violated the contract they made, large numbers are gathering to elect more of the same, claiming their actions are a contract with and for America. It’s the crazies.
It’s as nutty as the writer of the comment calling himself The Total Idiot, writing to me, “our Rights and Liberty” are properties. No, no, no, Rights and Liberty are not a property. A criteria of ownership of property is that it must have a boundary in order to be owned. Can’t “own” anything that does not have a boundary. What are the boundaries of individual Rights and Liberties? There are none.
The “Total Idiot” writer supports his self-imposed title by his written statements of misinformation, exposing just how misinformed and uninformed he is. If his ignorance is his bliss, that’s his stuff.
Returning to my original article, stating the Constitution is like a contract. In some respects it is for those who sign on in a sworn statement to uphold. It is not a contract with me nor the majority of Americans, but a document of laws which others are elected to uphold, execute and interpret, in the three branches of government.
If it is the Truth which sets us free, and I believe it is, then we need to inform ourselves as to just precisely what Truth is.
Let Freedom Ring
JUST ME AC