Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/2001723-Republic--Vs--Democratic-Form
Printer Friendly Page Tell A Friend
No ratings.
Rated: E · Non-fiction · Political · #2001723
What is the long gone difference in the "Federal" and the "National" Aspect of Government?
I am only writing with regards to "Centralism" in the United States. It does not matter whether your a "Republican" or a "Democrat". If your in pursuit of an agenda which calls for the saving of people from themselves you are a "Centralist". Saving someone from themselves is not assistance. It is servitude. Servitude has as it's major feature a "commercial" interest.

"Centralism" has one theme that seems to work the best for these types: It works upon the theory that all must be done to bring this nation to it's ruin. It is upon this "ruin" by which the "Centralist" depends to advance their agenda.

It seems easy to me, that if we debate the "form" of our current government, we will not be debating, let alone examining, the very reason(s) why separation of power(s) was a corner stone of all reasoning and endeavors. It's very purpose to divest government of Centralist innovation and endeavor.

We are no longer taught in our schools that the nation was built upon the "Republic" form of government. Post 1930, everything was swapped out for what was declared a "Democracy". Others call it the "New Deal". This New Deal has formed the basis, or a platform, for "Centralism" in the United States. Whether it was actually intended or not to secure such a result. We're here now.

To me, it is all too easy to ascertain and see. I will ask you, and no doubt you have no idea of what you speak, if you can even conjure some theory up, for a purported "answer", as to what "was" the difference between the "National" aspect and the "Federal" aspect of government? STOP! I am not asking you what is the difference between the "Republic" form versus the "Democratic" form. Said again, I am not asking what "kind of government" you believe we have, or the administrative of the system itself. We will never get anywhere running down such a mindless matter.

It is rather quite simple. People had the right to "vote" under the "Republic" form. How did "Democracy" deliver that right to vote? It did not. It was already present. Even in spite of the Civil War, a "Democracy" was not declared. The union was secured, by vote, under the "Republic" form. Many will make a lot of what the Civil War entailed. To be accurate, the issue began over "States Rights". If you do not see, let alone appreciate this, you will never get the idea. Your beyond hope and we can all move on. Was this "States Rights" tied to the issue of what is "Federal" versus what is "National"? Did any State hold a right to assert a "National" posture? Now, let's debate! Was the "State" itself, in a "National" posture? Or a "Federal" posture? Why was the "commercial" interest (here, maintained by slavery) so great, it required a departure from a republic form of government? And a Confederation created. If you do not know, I will advise you this, our original "form" was as a Confederacy.

Here rest the very thing I am here talking about. "Federal" versus "National". Who holds these "Federal" rights? Who holds these "National" rights. Why is such a distinction relevant on the issue of "Centralism". It is easy, because centralism cannot exist hand in hand under a separated, bifurcated, form of government. Said again, "a separation of powers" structure. The Constitution sought to free government of centralism itself. It sought to empower the people itself. Voting, in and of itself, does not empower, because if that were the issue we would have mob rule. Everyone's right subject to vote on an as is bases.

A system for the administration of the peoples business was required. If you do not know, let alone appreciate, under this scheme, the government itself has Constitutional rights too. Did you get that? It is part of that "contract". It is essentially a "contract". Circumscribing what were those "governments rights" was the whole debate if national "power" were to be secured or be in the "peoples" domain. What is "National" power then? The condition by which the rights belonging to the people are beyond government regulation or control.

Look at it like a business. You create this business. You hire people to administer that operation. Those people have an agreement with you about how the business is to be run. Absent a structure by which your employee has final say your the boss. You have deferred to administration of your business. Under this contract with the people, it was essential the government have deference in the operation of certain things. It all came down to what was their powers, their authority, and what was beyond their ability to "administer". Centralism cannot exist in such an environment, else there is no partnership. There is just those who tell those what to do and those who are to do it. That is not "Democracy"! Satisfy yourself as to what a "Democracy" is. If you have none, find it's definition.

Relevant to "States Rights", I have heard, since I was child, of the theories on this issue, and which are still debated to this day. Do you notice, hello, no one advances a genuine theory of just what those "right(s)" were. Was it the right to pursue it's own destiny for instance? If not "National" in origin, then it must be "Federal" in it's origin! Right? If not either, then what? I am asking you to answer this for yourself. That is, satisfy yourself as to it's scope and as to it's substance. May I ask you this, can different States have their own form of "Democracy"? Can they practice a form of government outside of the whole? And if so, under what theory and to what extent?

If the "Rights of the State" rested in commerce, and slaves were viewed as a significant anchor for their commercial interest, then the rights in issue can be at least be discovered or ascertained. After all, if you rule the commercial roost are you not it's money changer? One would be in position of holding commercial wealth, and the money it generated, in their discretion. It is surprising that commercial interest was able to convince so many it was an issue of "States Rights", when so many of those that served that interest, did not hold slaves. If we equate our present commerce clause jurisprudence with the "States Rights" argument we are left with this conclusion: the current, post 1930s, jurisprudence was on the side of the slaves holders and money changers of the south. It just altered what was slavery for what is (economic) servitude. Commercial servitude.

There is no way out of it. In a recent case, when the government was asked to give an example of what the commerce clause could not "regulate", the government could not give any example of commerce clause restrictions. Please, if you do not see it, you have missed it! The commerce clause says "regulate", it does not say under "law". Why is this crucial when examining "States Rights" in Civil War perimeters? Because Congress had the authority to "regulate" commerce amongst the "States". It was not given to control commerce under "law". Said again, to "regulate " implies something other than a resort to "law". It is a tool by which an "administration" operates, the "extent of a circumscribed authority". Look for the key words, "rules", "regulation" and "law" when you are looking at what extent a prescribed authority even exist in a Constitutional context.

An administrative agency has no power to make law, as in a statute. (I here appreciate the Supreme Court has even changed our minds about this too. What a 'coincidence' ). This theory of operation was directed to whether the "rules and regulations" of an administrative agency was "law"). They call in an evolving concept of ordered liberty of all things. (Their "force and effect" ideology cannot escape it, if it has the "force and effect" of "law", how can it not be "law")??? What is the difference? It is who gets to "make" this "force and effect" decision. It is an allocation of decision making authority and it's perimeters. It would not be enforceable otherwise. Do you see the word "force" in "enforceable"???

To say a State did not have the right to secede is BS of the first order. In the "Declaration of Independence" itself it opens up with "... in the course of human events it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bands with connect one with another ..." It goes on to state, "we hold these truths to be self evident". (Lincoln even resorted to the declaration, be it selectively, or as he saw fit). The very premise which formed the basis of a "dissolution" declaration is setting right there (the worst place for Lincoln to of gone, because it was a two edged sword. A State could not be in "rebellion" exercising their self evident rights. Lincoln gutted (ignored what he chose to) the Declaration to make his "union" dissolution illegal. He was a lawyer after all. As was FDR himself.

Has anyone noted he did not concentrate on things contained in the Constitutions perimeters itself??? This
"declaration" existed before the "Articles" or "the Constitution" was even in place. Let me ask you, where in the "Constitution" does it prohibit "dissolution"? Nothing to debate, it does NOT! I ask you this to think this over: where is "Rebellion" mentioned for government action? Once found, show the rest of us it encompassed a "State"? Or is it a group of people not elected to carry out the people of that State's business in issue? You decide, and, If you decided to stay out of the "declaration" I will understand, and assign your departure what it is worth. What is "taxation without representation"? Is it unionism??? Who in such an environment is represented? A private party who sends the cost down the line and into your pocket book with your having any say in it??? These "rights" were created by statute after the 1930s. The Constitution did not provide for it. The power to "tax" without the peoples oversight, that is "representation", or approval, formed a basis for dissolution under the Declaration itself.

Said again, is the entity in issue the State or someone not authorized to be acting the way they are acting which is not a State? Is the Federal government now in "rebellion" against the National aspect of powers restrictions? If so, where in the constitution is this form of rebellion accounted for? The right answer it does not, either for a State or for the Federal/National whom itself may be viewed as in rebellion of overcoming it's "Federal" restrictions. (The 14th Amendment altered what? How surprising, and your not supposed to see it, but the "commerce clause" altered the 14th Amendment . You know, that which already existed overrode that which was amended). The 14th Amendment was not under Centralist innovation and aggression, as an original matter. It was supplanted. How was this type of a rebellion provided for then? It was the "Bill of Rights" (BOR hereinafter), and an armed population holding the "rights" for breach of those restrictions.

It is interesting to hear all these flying theories about "civil rights". Did the 14th Amendment create any right outside of enforcement of rights then existing? Said again, was it nothing more than an extension of rights to all classes in American society? And why were key words contained in the Constitution itself used and not new, more, and other words used??? Was it the Federal, (not "National'") aspect of government given power to deal with
"Federal" relations where the "State" government itself was the culprit for it's breach? If "civil rights" do not rise to the level of "constitutional" rights, then what "creates civil rights" which require enforcement in a "Federal/State" relationship? The "key words" are found in the "Constitution", or read again, read right back into the "contract" with the people". It altered "Federal" relations. It did not need the 1930s, or any other era, when it was enacted. Said again, it did not need todays 1930s "Democracy" . To see it clearly (and I doubt it here) was the 14th Amendment authority for the "Federal" government to "create" more, other, or different "rights" which did not then exist? When does a right created by statute end? When the law is repealed. When does a Constitutional right end? What ended yours??? Civil rights are only as good as mob rule for their existence.

Now that we have had time here to reason away anything we do not like, appreciate, or refuse to accept, let me ask you again, "what is the difference between" the "National" and the "Federal" aspect of government? Let me guess, you have no idea. Let's put it to the test. I have 50 people asked the question and ask them to set forth their thoughts. How many different "theories" do you think may come back as an answer? You have to go no further than the fact you do not know yourself. In the process what is "National", what is "Federal", and what is a "Republic" versus a "Democracy" all is lost. In other words, we are not even "debating" the issue(s), we would be reasoning away theories that cannot stand the scrutiny of a debate. So let's get this into perspective, all we would be doing is "debating what form" of "Democracy" are you advancing? Do you know how many different kinds of Democracies are out there? The issue is not, under your strategy, one of debating what is "National" versus what is "Federal". Thank you, for your attempt, to "distract" the rest of us. It is really getting quite old.

As an original matter, thank you again, the Amendments did not alter the "form" of government. (Let me, if I may, anticipate the "Centralist", and ask why was the "Articles" over ridden for a "Constitution")? And, as another original matter, how could the first "10 Amendments" (directed to the "Constitution", and not the "Articles") be "an amendment" of something which existed without changing the scope and substance of that which any "amendment" were directed? Said again, thank you, if you have a document, and that document clearly stated these were that documents "amendment(s)", how could you possible apply those "amendments" to something that was never changed??? Any body??? If it cannot they are not "amendments". If the "amendments" did not alter the "form of government", then what did it "alter" (if anything)? I am quite sure our "Demoncralist", thank you, will tell all. So let's hear it, please. A "Republic", you know, "Lincolns Republic", operated under a different "form" than our present form. Was this all about a "commercial" interest, or to circumscribe what was the "Federal" relations with "States" without encroaching upon the "National" aspects? If in "Lincolns Republic" it held arbitrary rights why were there this need, requirement, for amendments after the Civil War??? The 14th Amendment must be read and measured under the "republic" form from which era it was given it's existence. Post 1930s strategy of using as a basis for the creation of rights under mob rules was never contemplated in the era it was enacted in. If it were not so then what were the additional (post 14th Amendment) "amendments" for? Did they do nothing more than state "prohibitions"???

Your NOT getting this at all, are you??? Can the "Federal" government "create rights", without the consent of the "people", that they may exercise their power to "enforce" it??? If so, where can they turn to "enforce" it, in a "National" aspect or setting, outside of their "Federal" relationship aspect? After all, aren't we here talking about their 14th Amendment rights? If the power to "create rights" does not even exist, where can you possibly go to "create these rights, or to manufacture, for the very purpose of enforcement", your conceived power(s)??? How did the 14th Amendment absorb everyone into a "commercial" setting??? Said again, how were "you" absorbed into something designed to deal with what was left of slavery and State action if you are not now viewed as chattel property??? They created you a right, it's called the "Commerce Clause" jurisprudence, the right to play a part in commercial "freedoms". The 14th Amendment never dealt with that which was related to the "National" aspect, it dealt with the "Federal" aspect. After all, didn't we just have a State rebellion?

If the 14th Amendment did all the things, or are the cause of all the things, as the Centralist insist, and it's use is needed to save you, then why is the "Commerce Clause" their center of attention? The difference is what is
"National" and what is "Federal". The "Commerce Clause" is rooted in a "Federal" setting, as is the 14th Amendment. The "Commerce Clause" cannot create rights whereby the 14th Amendment may require their
"enforcement(s)". It "regulates" commerce among the States. Your not getting this, are you. The Commerce Clause is not in a "National" aspect, it is in a "Federal" aspect. How are you absorbed into it?

Was the "Constitution" ratified before it was "amended"? The "Centralist" will have to "look that one up". In their "Democracy", of Centralist innovation and aggression, most will not even know, I am betting they will need to "meet" for their newest "strategy". They did not even bother to "reason" it away.

If you think for a moment I am advancing the "Monopolist" agenda, I say this, it figures. Here they come. Let me say this to calm your "fears". Look into the "Constitution" and ask yourself what right do they (monopolist) have to even exist? Wow, I am sorry I even gave that to you ("why didn't I think of that")!!! But it is simple, they have no right to exist. Nor do "Political Parties" either in the same vein of reckoning. Oops ("why didn't I think of that")? So keep it, and let's move on to the issues. It is all an idea, a theory, or manner of execution, it is NOT provided for. It is not
"secured", let alone "guaranteed". Thank you! Nor was the "Constitution", as I am given to understand all of this, under "Centralist" ideology. Constitutional reasoning sought to refute Centralist ideology. Everyone seems to "focus" their attention on who, or even what, is the "monopolist". It is the "Federal" aspect operating against the "National" aspect who is the "monopolist" your looking for. Are the political parties themselves government? NO! When do they take the form of a governmental body? You put these "monopolist" under this "New Deal" in power. Then what do you have??? A struggle for your rights!!! IF YOU HELD THESE RIGHTS, WHY ARE THEY IN ANY NEED OF BEING CREATED"??? Where does the "monopolist" hold and secure their "authority", let alone any perceived rights? Is it in a "Federal" or a "National" posture??? Where does the trail of the "monopolist" ideology lead? To political parties.

The first "10 Amendments" dealt with what? Anybody? These amendments are labeled as the "Bill of Rights" (BOR). Does not an "amendment" alter something? If it does not, why is it labeled an "amendment"??? Anybody?

I am still waiting for anyone who holds the answer as to what is "National" versus what is "Federal" to tell ALL. So, Please, tell ALL. Please, do not pick up from the 1930's, your colors will "bleed all over" the new "Democracy" (Red). If "Democracy" placed power in the domain of the people, why are these people always seeking a right be recognized? And funded??? Since when does a right require "funding" to be secured? Since the 1930s. Interest and rights are two different things. An interest which holds a commercial value is not a right. Said again, a "right" is secured and guaranteed, an "interest" or "commercial" expectation is not guaranteed nor secure in Constitutional terms. Stand by for their new found "personal property" rights ideologies, you know, the rights that "regulate" you!

The Constitution simply recognizes an avenue, or path, for one to pursue a commercial interest. If it were "a right", why is drug dealing outlawed??? Do not tell it is because of the "commerce clause"! If that were true why would I not be able to manufacture drugs and distribute them in my State alone? After all, is not the commerce clause directed to "regulation" among "foreign governments" and the "States"??? If I am operating only within my state how does "interstate commerce" come into play??? There is no "nexus", it does not exist! If I am not one of these entities ("foreign government" or a "State") how I am absorbed and not operating in interstate commerce??? (Prohibition was based on a Constitutional prohibition. Prior to that it existed in the power to "tax" ).

It is kind of sickening when we think our children are still taught this in class everyday (least I was): "I pledge allegiance, to the flag, and 'the Republic' for which it stands ...". Anybody??? It does not say "the Democracy ... ". Is a Democracy simply the right to "vote"? If so, what is Russia, China, Iran and most recently Egypt! What is South and Central America even that all these people want to escape and be free of their forms of "Democracy"?

Forget, if you are forced to, or recon you must, to play upon the distinction of that which is a "Republic" versus a "Democracy" and what either one entails. The issue here is that which is "National" versus what is "Federal". In either event, your done. And here came the "Commerce Clause" which amended the "amendments". Said
again, the "Commerce Clause" already existed before the "amendments". How could it of possibly amended that which did not then exist (the "amendments" themselves)? Or again here, if the "Centralist" is understood, that which already existed actually amended that which was designed to alter the original. Let's move on, the only person they can fool is themselves. But the whole idea is to fool you. To "legalize" their theories and advance their agenda.

The 1930s altered the "form of government". It transformed the "Republic" form for a "Democracy " of which the "Centralist" (either in Republican, or Democratic, garb have taken full advantage of). But that is another story, or another issue that is. The issue here is did that transformation in and of itself alter what is "National" versus what is "Federal"? Do not get sucked here into what is "Republic" versus what is a "Democracy". Because what is as yet the distinction of what is "Federal" versus" what is "National" is still out there under either "form" of either structured government. A democracy has never guaranteed the rights of the people. It is just a theory under that "form".

To cut through the issues it is real easy. What branch of government has no real controls? The one that governs "law" itself. The Judiciary! That branch, in league with "Centralist" innovation and aggression, commandeered what is the very distinction of what is "National" versus what is "Federal". That branch hand picked the "Commerce Clause" to pull it off. And there went the "Bill of Rights" (BOR). You know by now, the "amendments" that "amended" nothing! What is so sad here, the Judiciary even admits it! Listen to me. If the BOR, the first "10 Amendments", had no effect in the understanding as to what "form" of government would proceed, then what was it all "worth"???

Why did the 1930s need more than Lincoln himself had available in the 1860s??? Look at what all Lincoln did. Check it out. Why was a "Democracy" required in the 1930s??? The issue was it was NOT needed. What was required, if the "Centralist" was to secure control, was to alter the "National" and "Federal" distinctions. The
"Commerce Clause" was chosen. By Judicial fiat and edit, the nation was transformed, and the relationship of the national government with the citizenry with it. How could this "transformation", directed at the money changers (Wall Street and Bankers), change nothing but what was the governments relationship with the citizenry? Were not they the issue (Wall Street and Bankers )? How did the BOR get caught up in this. And more so, why did it get caught up in this? How did the relationship of the Federal government and the citizen get overridden for a "commercial" interest?

Now, let me ask you one more time, thank you, what was the distinction between that which was "National" versus that which was "Federal"? I am interested in you answering this, because, it has been bred out of you. How the hell could you possible know or understand the difference??? Forget what is a "Democracy" versus what is a "Republic". That is, what is employed to draw your attention away from the essential issues. Hint: What is the "Bill of Rights"? Who holds those rights, the government or the people? At what point did the Federal government expand it's "Constitutional" rights outside of Constitutional procedures???

Most cannot even tell us what the BOR stood for or was all about. Hint: it created a bifurcated government with respect to "executive powers" and law making powers. You know, just like Congress with it's two divisions: The House and Senate. If you do not know, and I am confident you do not, the role of the "Senate" was altered in the 1930s too. Why? Because the distinction of what is "Federal" and what is "National" had to succumb to "Commerce Clause" jurisprudence. Why cannot we elect a Republican President and a Democratic Vice President anymore? That too went out with the 1930s. Why is the Senate now even needed, let alone required? It simply duplicates and confounds what the house was meant for. It is redundant now. You cannot see it, not at all. Which entity was assigned "Federal" and which was assigned "National" aspects for their functions? If you can see it, now you know why the Senate had to be redirected from it's assigned task and duties. The whole structure is nothing more than a bifurcated House, like the political parties are, a single entity with two factions.

If the two self appointed parties, you know, the ones who have no right to exist, no more than the houses of the money changers does, are nothing more or less than one party with two factions within it's structural mainframe, it can all be explained away. It is a single party who roots rest in a "Centralist" agenda. And I will ask you to appreciate this, why, where Congress itself was to make "rules" governing the "courts" themselves, were they able by statute to transfer that Constitutional "duty" to the courts themselves??? As an FBI agent said, "follow the money trail"! It will lead to the "Commerce Clause". It was Congress' "duty". May I ask you, or bring to your attention at least, what right (not a "duty") do you have, and of which you do not exercise (or perform), where a penalty is imposed? Anybody?

Finally, what is the difference between the "Federal" and the "National" aspects? Under either the "Republic" or the "Democratic" form of which a government even exist??? Can you answer it? If you can, you will appreciate how you got "screwed"! Why you live in "economic servitude". Why life is precarious.

The BOR is the real issue now, the battle ground if you will, and that is the ultimate goal of the Centralist, to breed that out of you too. This mission has been given over to the "commerce clause cops". You know, the inferior power to "regulate" which over rides the superior power of "law". Finally, let me put another question to the same 50 people by which we will get a host of theories for "an answer". The question? "What is law"??? I am waiting for those same 50 people to answer that question as well. And how many answers will we get???

And I note this, if we, the people of the United States, were to decide a separation was required, or even expedient, one on the "Republic", and one on the "Democratic" side(s), what do you think the result will be? I end by noting it is my belief that within 15-20 years the democratic "form" will be spilling over the Mississippi for the "republic form". Do you see the "Democracies" in South and Central America? What is the Rio Grande? And who is spilling over it? Now ask yourself why??? What are they escaping??? Are they really not trying to save themselves from themselves??? If they had "rights", why are they trying to free themselves from those "rights"??? From what are they fleeing??? Don't tell me, let me guess. It is not their "Democracies" it is "Centralism".

What is wrong with all these "Democracies"??? They hold no right to keep and bear arms. That is the Centralist number one difficulty with securing final and ultimate power in the United States. You know, just look to Egypt, where 20% of the vote allowed that "Democracy" to be seized, by fiat and edit, all power, with a signature. Do you recognize it? It's called the Supreme Court of the United States. If this nation decided to get their nation back what do you think would happen? I say this, they will grab their Supreme Court Justices, run for over seas, and display them as their legitimate right to "power". What they did was "legal" so we are very clear here. And who "legalized" it. Bypass any Constitutional Amendment for a provision beyond amendment. The "Commerce Clause". (This "power" needs to be taken from the Federal Government and assigned to the States themselves under a system whereby each State elects an official just like the Governor to oversee it's "administration", that is "regulate" it, in a "federal" setting and beyond a "National" police power, or commerce clause cops administration).

In my opinion, what is wrong with the United States is it's people themselves. They dropped the ball. Their paying it's price. Today, a child born as you read this is $100,000.00 dollars in debt by "right" of that birth. Please, do not bother to try to figure out that child's debt by the time it is 18 years old. Try to measure it with your debt. Both actual and upcoming. And where do you think that child is going to be by way of debt at "18"? Don't tell me, let me guess, it's just "Democracy". What more could I possibly want, the right to bring myself, and nation, to it's ruin. As a
"Centralist" I would reason that is ultimate power (The Supreme Court has changed our minds and decided the power to "tax" is the power to "destroy"). Does anyone believe the Constitutionalist seen the authority to "tax" was the power to wage "war" upon the taxpayer??? The ability to destroy the very basis by which a "taxation" may even exist to secure a commercial gain??? Isn't that .....

If I had told you in the 1950s (forget the 1930s) that our debt would be approaching 20 Trillion dollars in the future, you would of had me locked up as being "mad", out of my mind. Does anyone know how much the Federal government takes in each year? No nation on this Earth cannot operate with that type of money, until we reach the United States. What nation hocks everything it is worth against their debt??? Can someone show me an international court which governs a nations bankruptcy?

Here, now today, we are left with the Executive Branch manufacturing "law" by way of an "executive order" to disobey statutory law. Now, let us review this. We have the Supreme Court making law (in fact, refashioning the Constitution itself, and who have no authority to make law itself); we have the Congress (the body assigned that task) making law; and now we have the Executive Branch (by way of an "Order"), all making law as they see fit to make, not to mention every Federal agency (you know, the ones who edits have the "force and effect" of law).The Centralist will harp everything is in order, so just trust us, and all will be fine, after all, isn't it "in God we trust" here.

I hear all this rabble about why is my life so precarious? You just do not get it. The problem is you. You dropped the ball, and caught the rest us in this thing you label a "Democracy", of what ever sort, we really never learn . Where did you have the right to do this to all of us? Couldn't you of just kept it in your State and leave the rest of us alone? Time to part company, that is the "answer". Don't you recognize it, it's my "Democratic" right to save me from myself. You know, I think you call it your right to destroy and bring to ruin your nation.

A "Republic " restoration is required. A "Democracy", of whatever type, is a system which only fools itself. Let me ask you, those 40 years or older, how many "homeless" did you know or know of growing up? How many do you know or know of today? All this while "immigrants", you know "invaders", try to save themselves from their
"Democracies" at your expense. If you do not see it, just follow the money trail, and it will lead back into the U.S. These "poor souls" cross the borders at $7,000-$10,000 a piece by smugglers. Where did they get the money??? They come over in $200 shoes, $150 pants, and a $100 shirt. Follow the money trail. If the next generation of devoted voters needed for yet another phase of a plan to assert "Centralism" in the U.S.is to be secured it has to be infused with "new blood". Americans are wising up in other words. They need a base whereby their "Democracy" can be used as a basis for yet another round of Centralist innovation and aggression. That is what you are seeing.

Why are they being "dispersed" all over the nation? So that may form the basis for the cost prohibiting their removal. Hell with the cost to disperse them in the first place. In the "camps" they find "indoctrination" in private. Said again, the inability of the citizenry to monitor the going on. Said again, they are prisoners, so stay away while we enforce law here. Your nor supposed to see it. Just follow the money trail, and where do you think it will lead you??? I am wondering if the powers that be will arm them next (you know, the "invaders", ur um immigrants) , you know, to save them from themselves, if not from you. You willing to put all of this passed them??? You willing to make more mistakes you will not recover from ... yet again???

And who do you think the Centralist will turn to pull it off? Please, not the courts of all things. Why would an invader have more rights than you? Please, do not tell me, the BOR secures it. Or is it the "commerce clause"? These immigrants", viewed as property, or a "commercial" asset??? Now we get it, and it is understood. The authority to "regulate commerce" with foreign nations. Is it no wonder none of these foreign governments wants their "immigrants" back??? Follow the money trail. How does Mexico just let them tramp freely over their borders??? How about we Am Track them back to the border, you know, back into Mexico. Isn't it a "Democracy"??? And why would Mexico ignore their passing thru their borders freely??? Follow the money trail. They are not in any way "immigrants", they are the next generation of devoted voters the Centralist has seen as required for future endeavors in a "Democracy". You know, the very "Democracy" the "immigrants" are trying to escape. You getting this yet??? Fleeing democracy???

I will call your attention to another aspect of their "Democracy". In Michigan, just for instance, every city in, or in a posture of, "bankruptcy", have one thing in common. They are ALL democratic strongholds. Here comes Jackson and Sharpton, screaming away at the new Republican Governor, and laying blame for this overriding of "democracy", under his law (an emergency management law). Ignore the elected officials who brought the cities to ruin. What is wrong with that scenario? The "law" was enacted by "democrats", an ability to regulate "democratic administration",
all rooted in a commercial setting. It was transformed into a republican plot in other words. Here, the republican governor brought the State out of debt and itself out of near bankruptcy. The democratic government had all but brought it to ruin. Now, that things are made safe again, with a surplus, they want their stronghold back. And for what??? To milk it for all it's worth.

You want to see an "immigrant" stronghold, go to Detroit. Here, they have displaced the "unions" for labor. They have all but put the unions out of business. I ask you this, are we seeing a purge of the middle class the Centralist holds just so dear to them, after all, didn't they "create" that class? Why are they being purged? It is not a
"commercial" interest, is it??? Are these "immigrants" replacing the valued middle class they created? How many of those "homeless" now on our streets were once in that class? You decide.

And I ask you to note this, in spite of the BOR, and here the Second Amendment, the effort has been made to disarm American society. Their authority for this endeavor? The Commerce Clause. The power to "regulate" commerce "among the states". They have created many classes of people who may not "possess" a firearm under this "regulatory" theory. (Do not confuse the laws enacted under the power to "tax" with the current strategy under the commerce clause. It is two different issues).

They are saying that this commercial interest of theirs says that anything moving across state lines is subject to perpetual regulation. Hence, any time a firearm travels in interstate commerce I can regulate it into infinity. Without getting into all the particulars here, if you do not see it, you'll never get it. That is not "regulation among the states". It is "ownership". When does something which is the object of divestment, here a firearms sale, allow the seller to retain an unabridged right for the seller to retain an interest in it??? As an original matter, the object does not belong to "the government" by which ownership may be declared! As an original matter.

If the boards (wood) on your house came from "interstate commerce", that is they traveled across a State's boarders, the government is in a position to now "regulate" it forever. That is what they do to firearms rights. All personal property under this scenario has been assimilated, NOT "regulated" as to it's passage from one State to another State. You people just do not get it, no, not at all. They walked you right into it. Does not the issue of who may own a firearm come down to the BOR itself? This idea of keeping guns out of the wrong hands (and I invite you to go check all the categories of who may not possess a gun, just because it travelled among the State's, they cannot even control the borders, of all things) is ironic. That's like trying to "regulate" who can have a hamburger. The whole thing is a scheme, a system, designed to progressively walk you right out of BOR protections. Under an evolving concept of 'democracy' (that is evolving "ordered liberty" in other words)!

We are forced now whereby we must manufacture firearms in our own States to evade their theories of implied ownership under "regulatory" guise. Michigan's constitution says, "every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and of this State". Talk about "Sates rights", there's one if anyone ever seen one. So what if the firearm travelled from another State. The whole idea is to walk you right out of the BORs protections. It is just being progressively bred out of you. (A firearms dealing "license" is nothing more than an assimilated citizen enforcing Federal fiat and edit that they may do business, that is, secure a "commercial interest". He has been "deputized" as a Federal agent, or commandeered in other words, in exchange for him to pursue that commercial interest, or his "rights" to play a part in the democratic process).

It has decomposed to what is a "commercial" interest and what are "rights", just like what triggered the Civil War. See it or not, everybody in the nation has been made into a criminal of whatever degree. It is now just a matter of who gets the designation enforced against them. If everything fell apart, like it did in the 1930s, and almost did it yet again recently, from which we are still trying to recover, what State's will change hands to pay the debt under the system we are talking about??? And what would stop this "dissolution" of the "union"??? An armed population. What nation wants to take on 300 million armed nationals??? Arms that are not in the "governments" control??? The idea here is that if am to lend you money, as a government, and I cannot collect upon the debt, by say a State itself being given up on the debt, why should I deal with you? How can I? Your population is armed!

To me it is obvious it is not a matter of saying let's get our nation back. What good would such a distraction serve? Isn't people empowered the ones sending the Centralist up into government by virtue of their vote and from which all of the mayhem proceeds? Hasn't this right to vote been turned into a weapon against individual rights itself? The issue seems to me is those who want to live precariously should be allowed to. Those that want to live with defined and circumscribed rights should be allowed to. They cannot both coexist in the same "form" of government. The
"Centralist" has played upon and distracted the "Democralist" right into their servitude. They have absorbed all who oppose it under Centralist innovation and aggression.

The Centralist only lives for and thinks in "commercial" terms. If the right you believe you have does not serve their "commercial" interest you have no right. If you believe you have an expectation that is another issue, provided it does not interfere with their "commercial" interest. That is why you are always fighting for the right you believe you hold or advance anyway. Legislative rights have one thing in common. A signature created it and a signature ends it! That is the whole idea of playing you into "civil rights". You see how quick your money is taken? That is how quick those created rights can be too.

The whole idea for Centralist innovation and aggression is rooted in taking over the only branch that held no real controls, the Judicial. Everything is made legal this way. The Judiciary delivered the whole scheme we are here talking about. It rethought out and changed everything. It bypassed, supplanted, all controls, and ushered in Centralist domination. Said again, they "monopolized" government itself, and did away with the "Federal" versus "National" distinction that their "commercial" interest would prevail. That is why everything leads back to the "Commerce Clause" and it's judicially created dominance. And who gets to decide your rights and the extent of any right or even any interest? And who decides what the BOR means to you or anyone else anymore? Please, do not tell me it's your vote. All that would be telling anyone is my fate is in your hands. The BOR was all about taking such discretion out of your and government hands.

This whole "civil rights" thing is designed to fool you. It avoids having to submit the issues of today to constitutional oversight by the people in favor of those who hold "commercial" interest above all else. They brought in the lights and mirrors and you went for it big time. A scheme whereby those rights it creates are taken as freely as given. You just do not get it, at all, the "Commerce Clause" has turned into "a police power" of the first order administered and overseen by the Judiciary itself. Everything is now "legal". Forget what is "constitutional" anymore. That is why the Centralist would secure that Branch of "government" and head over seas if this nation ever decided to get itself back.

There's too many of you duped now. It would take a complete collapse or a society reeducated because it has been bred right out of you progressively. You keep turning to the parties are "relief". When that does not work you turn where? Please, do not tell me, the Judiciary! Now you know why your in the fix your in. Now you now why your hocked and indebted. Why your in servitude.

© Copyright 2014 theoryman (mikekrese at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates have been granted non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/2001723-Republic--Vs--Democratic-Form