If you want to learn start here
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

I don't have that much time, but I will try.

Linguistics, study of words is a majior factor. So is history.

Proof is another word for fraud.
Facts are only true if everyone in the world agree's, Exp we live on earth and everyone would agree.

 

I don't know why you waste your time. Willful ignorance cannot be triumphed.

 

Willful ignorance cannot be triumphed? Maybe not, but a person might be able to make the willful ignorant more educated on matters. Don't you think?

 

Look man, I do not have to learn anything more. I passed both my government classes in college with As, so I could give two shits what links you post. Unless they prove your argument in any fashion, then you still have nothing to show as basis for your argument. All you have are you personal opinions.

Compared to what I have told you which are facts. Google every aspect of my first response to you. The post being number 218 if you are curious of which post I was talking about.

Once you can actually show me something in my statement which is false, then you can call them other than facts. But if you look in any history book, you will notice what I am stating is a historical fact, thus proof for this argument.

Now you can either act like an immature child and say what you wish. Or you can start to act like an adult and actually try to have an intellectual conversation by using intelligence, facts, and proof. The choice is yours.

 

The willfully ignorant don't WANT to learn. The only thing that matters is what they believe.

 

to Kimiko

what drives my racism is the niggers ALWAYS whining and saying (My ancestors were brought here as slaves and you OWE my nigger ass) Get off your fat black ass and go to WORK and quit whining and earn it. and to KIMIKO untill you have had 4 or 5 niggers ( They don't confront 1 on 1)with clubs or knives ready to steal your money or car YOU don't know what you are talking about. After dealing with stupid ass niggers for a few years MAYBE you will know what you are talking about but i doubt it! I'll bet you are a democrat and a bleeding heart liberal that thinks all the POOR Negroes should be given 49 chances to change. Wait till one of them hits you in the head with a steel pipe and blinds you (As happened to a friend of mine)then you will change your mind .

 

Good weapons.

 

lost format will try again

 

I see the problem none of you have ever taken a business class, business law.
The Constitution is a contract between We the People and the Government.
Constitution means - Fundamental principles of the organization and is a legal charter, contract.

As you see on the charter is the word article.
　
Article means - A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty. Articles are broken down into sections.
Every corporation in the world uses this basic set up in one form or another.
The contract We The People set up is to protect our rights as they are written in The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

　
The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two separate documents.
They are all one contract
The job of the US Supreme Court is to make sure that the laws that are done by the government are constitutional.
True by contract

In other words the US Supreme Court is going to be using the US Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence when deciding if the law which was created was constitutional or unconstitutional.
False their is nothing in the Constitution to protect, it is the start of a corporation. The contract is with the Declaration of Independance and the Bill of Rights that are gareeteed to We the People

To show you a quick example of this, let me give you a little bit of historical background.
background.
　
The Declaration of Independence was created on July 4, 1776. The essence of this document was for the 13 colonies to declare independence from Great Britain. Thus the name of the document being the Declaration of Independence.
　
The US Constitution was created on September 17, 1787. The essence of this document was for there to be a written document which read the roles and duties of the government, and the original 10 rights of the American citizens. And as you know the original 10 rights of the American citizens is called the Bill of Rights.
　
Here is your quick example.
　
Now, if the Declaration of Independence had been used as a basis for a ruling at the US Supreme Court, it should have been to decide Brown v. Board of Education. Yet it was not, because what was used was the US Constitution for the basis for the ruling. The use of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
False all rulings come from the Decloration of Independance and the Bill of Rights

All of this comes from a basic understanding of contracts.

I hope this makes you realize your faults, and accept you are wrong.

 

I agree, but

I fully agree with the second amendment, and I am a gun owner. What I am against are the semi automatic rifle and pistols. I was in the military too. Civilians do not need semi automatic weapons. The average person needs a revolver, a pump shotgun, and a bolt action rifle. A teenager needs a lever action .22

 

I will disagree with you. We have the RIGHT to own firearms, and a grenade launcher if we wish.

 

What about flame throwers, hand grenades, and Stinger anti aircraft missiles?

 

Well, if they are firearm's then i say, YES.. since they are not, then NO..

Then again if you have enough money you can buy anything..

One other thing, it is not the average person you have to worry about.. as in the case of every counrty that has banned or limited the access to firearms to the genaral public, the criminal element (thug, gangster, mafia, cartel, and the like) will always find a way to arm themselves (self preservation) to stay in control, be it with infomation or firearm's..

 

Where o where are STUMBLER and ELCASANOVA when you show them they know nothing about the Charters of Freedom and our rights as a free People.

This web site is about freedom and our rights and no one knows what freedom means.

Lets see if any one here can tell me where the knowledge came from for the First Amendment.

 

Now I see where you go down the wrong path. If you were are going to use any law to defend any aspects of government, you would have to use civil rights law, yet you chose to use corporate law as the defense to your theory. And to make clear, civil rights law should not be confused with civil law, those are two different types of laws as well. Corporate law is not the correct law you can use for explaining the government, because the government does not operate like a business or a corporation. And I will explain why.

After reading your explanation I called a friend of mine who is taking corporate law, because it sounded like a talk him and I were having when drunk while playing billiards together.

Your premise is based upon comparing the government to a corporate governance. Now, that was evident when you tried to say all those explanations about constitutions being charters and charters being articles and such. The US government is not based on a corporate governance, but more of a constitutional federal republic.

Now here is the difference between the US government and the corporate governance you believe it is. The Declaration of Independence was the document which declared the independence from Great Britain, but according to corporate law, there is no such document. The closest document that can exist which would a charter document, yet that would still not properly define what the Declaration of Independence is. Now as for the US Constitution being the document which set up and created the government and the first 10 amendments, which are the rights of the US citizens, then it cannot be compared to an Article of Association. For the fact that the government works differently than a corporation. There can be some similarities between the two, but at the end of the day, there is a major difference between the two. And you would have to use the Articles of Association in this context, because a Memorandum of Association is more in regards to regulations in context to the international level.

I hope this makes you understand how you cannot use corporate law to define a government, and you should be using civil rights law. Because civil rights are what people in the US were given because of the US Constitution. The definition of civil rights are any rights which are given by nations to those living within their territorial boundaries. The natural or human rights also stated in the US Constitution are defined as rights that individuals have by nature of being born.

I honestly hope that this clears up any confusion that you may have had.

 

The First Amendment rights can be traced back to the infamous pamphlet by Thomas Paine entitled "Common Sense". It can also be said that the First Amendment rights, and some of the other 9 amendments could have come from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It all depends on what you have been taught in school, and what version you prefer. I personally believe that if you compare the first 10 amendments in the US Constitution to the amendments in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, you will see many similarities.

 

Your are missing the laws of nature in the Decloration of Inpendence.

The laws of nature take us back to the begining, Adam and Eve.
Free from cancer, free from laws, free from crime, free from any Governing body. These are part of our unaliable rights. This is what the NTSB does, a plane go's down they solve the problem so it never causes another human to suffer.

I will have more later.

 

Love Thomas Paine's work.

Your missing about 2800 years of history, for the First Amendment. This holds true for the Decloration of Independance as well.

 

You are forgetting that Adam and Eve is a religious story, thus truly cannot be used in this instance, based on separation of church and state. There have been plenty of arguments on here about religion and government. I am not looking to have one. But just know that in this case, you cannot use Adam and Eve as a reliable source for the foundation of the laws of nature.

Now I have no idea how you went from a corporate governance ideology, to comparing the National Transportation Safety Board to Adam and Eve, but that is a very serious stretch. And the NTSB does a lot more than just check planes that have gone down. But you were just giving an example, so I understand.

What 2800 years of history are you talking about now? Please give me some other examples you are thinking which can be related to the source of knowledge for the First Amendment.