The Constitution’s Big Lie

Rossiter II

One of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon Americans at the time of its telling and which is still trumpeted to this very day is the notion that the U.S. Constitution contains within its framework mechanisms which limit its power. The “separation of powers,” where power is distributed among the three branches – legislative, executive, judicial – is supposedly the primary check on the federal government’s aggrandizement.

This sacred held tenet of American political history has once again been disproved.

Last Friday (October 23), the Attorney General’s office announced that it was “closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges” against former Internal Revenue Service’s director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, anyone else from the agency over whether they improperly targeted Tea Party members, populists, or any other groups, which voiced anti-government sentiments or views.

The Department of Justice statement read:

The probe found ‘substantial evidence of mismanagement,
poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the
belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted
them based on their political viewpoints. But poor
management is not a crime.’ (My emphasis)

Incredibly, it added:

We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on
political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate
motives that would support a criminal prosecution.*

That the DOJ will take no action against one of its rogue departments demonstrates the utter lawlessness and totalitarian nature of the federal government. The DOJ’s refusal to punish documented wrongdoing by the nation’s tax collection agency shows the blatant hypocrisy of Obummer, who promised that his presidency would be one of “transparency.”

It can be safely assumed that Congress will not follow up on the matter, as Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), who chaired a committee to investigate the bureau’s wrong doings, admitted that its crimes may never be known.** The DOJ and Issa’s responses are quite predictable once the nature of the federal government and, for that matter, all governments are understood.

Basic political theory has shown that any state is extremely reluctant to police itself or reform unless threatened with destruction, take over, or dismemberment (secession). The Constitution has given to the federal government monopoly power where its taxing and judicial authority are supreme. It will not relinquish such a hold nor will it seek to minimize such power until it is faced with one of these threats.

While it was called a federated system at the time of its enactment and ever since by its apologists, the reality of the matter is quite different. As the Constitution explicitly states in Art. VI, Sect. 2, the central government is “the supreme law of the land.” The individual states are inferior and mere appendages to the national government – ultimate control rests in Washington.

In fact, it was the Constitution’s opponents, the much derided Antifederalists, who were the true champions of a decentralized system of government while their more celebrated opponents such as Madison, Hamilton and Jay wanted an omnipotent national state.

Thus, in the American context, the only method for those oppressed by the federal government is to either threaten or actually go through with secession. Attempts to alter its dictatorial rule through the ballot box or public protests are futile. While there will naturally be outrage at letting the IRS off the hook, focus and anger must be redirected away from participation within the current political system to that of fundamental change.

Congress’ refusal to prosecute an executive bureau that has deliberately used (and is still using) state power to oppress and harass opponents of the Obama regime demonstrates the bankruptcy of the idea that separation of power limits tyranny. Federal power and the corresponding tyranny and corruption which it has bred has never been countered by the checks and balances and separation of powers of the supposed “federal republic” created a little over two centuries ago.

Until the “big lie” of the Constitution is realized, agencies like the IRS will continue to target and tyrannize anti-government organizations, groups, and individuals. The Constitution provides no real mechanism for the redress of grievances from the subjects which it rules. Only when the breakup of the federal Union has taken place, will American liberties and freedoms be secured.

*Tyler Durden, “DOJ Closes Lois Lerner Investigation Without Charges.” Zero Hedge
October 23, 2015.
**Melanie Batley, “Issa on IRS Scandal: May Never Get the Truth.” Newsmax July 9, 2014.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

14 thoughts on “The Constitution’s Big Lie

  1. Pingback: The Constitution's Big Lie |

  2. Pingback: The Constitution's Big Lie | JPPress

  3. Pingback: The Constitution's Big Lie | NewZSentinel

  4. Pingback: The Constitution’s Big Lie | DailyDeceit

  5. Gaffier LeBraum

    The Constitution is based on British Common Law, Vatican’s Code of Canon Law and Admiralty Law (influenced the latter by the Ordinamenta et Consuetudo Maris). As a matter of jurisprudence, this historical document adheres to the doctrine that Admiralty Law prevails over Common Law and goes in accordance with Canon Law — THE LAW OF THE SEA DICTATES ALL ASPECTS RELATED TO GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, MAKING THE LAW OF THE LAND IRRELEVANT AND DEPENDANT ON THE ADMIRALTY, AND THESE SET OF RULES EMANATE FROM A HIGHLY AND WELL-DEFINED HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE.

    According to the U.S. Constitution, all individuals born (and naturalized) within the territories in which THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (an established corporation) exerts an effective jurisdiction, are cataloged as less than human beings (even lower animals are vested with natural and legal rights); these people automatically lose their quality of natural persons either by birth or naturalization; instead, they become Financial Instruments until the day they cease to exist – real or virtual documents representing a legal agreement involving some sort of monetary value.

    Ironically, Americans still believe in the paradigm that they are “free,” when the reality is the opposite and the charter implicitly defines them as subservients: Article I, Section 2, 3rd Clause, first sentence (the legal scope of The Three-Fifths Compromise went beyond the issue of slavery and the Thirteenth Amendment only nullified such ancient practice per se, must not its ulterior purpose).

    Financial Instruments (US Citizens) cannot abrogate the charter (the Constitution); however they are exchangeable or can be treated as common stock for citizenship purposes.

  6. Pingback: The Constitution's Big Lie | Timber Exec

  7. Pingback: The Constitution's Big Lie - Exploring the News

  8. Pingback: Today’s News October 31, 2015 | The One Hundredth Monkey

  9. Pingback: The Constitution's Big Lie | Golden Gate Daily

  10. Pingback: » The Constitution’s Big Lie

  11. Larry Porter

    The fallacy of the argument that the IRS has wronged the people is that the IRS is unconstitutional to begin with. A judge cannot, in good conscience, nor legally, rule on an illegal institution or entity of any kind. The only course is, once the entity is determined illegal, to force it out of existence through legal means. We all know that won’t happen. Therefore, what the Attorney General rules is moot.

    As for the people within the United States duplicating our Founding Fathers: That will only happen if a group of people equal to their convictions and morality come forth. I’m not convinced that will happen again. That was a unique group of men, never seen before that in the history of man and never duplicated since. The thought does persist that we were given a chance never before realized by a politic and we blew it. The single most important thing, in my humble opinion, that they brought forth was not the document, itself, but the fact they saw the flaw in mankind and produced a means for continually correcting the consequences of that flaw. But, alas, each generation, the point so aptly directed by Jefferson, requires men of honor and conscience to fight that battle. He had hope, certainly, but did not have the prescience to understand how unique his group was. This offers little hope for this country’s citizenry but the world is large and perhaps a group will form somewhere that can try The Experiment again.

  12. Pingback: The Constitution’s Big Lie | The Global Macro Digest ®

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s