Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Deception Through Redefinition

Deception Through Redefinition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 62|Likes:
Published by Matt Erickson
Government by Deception through Redefinition exposes the deceptive mechanism used for expanding government beyond the spirit of the Constitution (even as the strict letter of the Constitution is being followed).
Government by Deception through Redefinition exposes the deceptive mechanism used for expanding government beyond the spirit of the Constitution (even as the strict letter of the Constitution is being followed).

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: Matt Erickson on Sep 03, 2012
Copyright:Public Domain


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Government by Deception through RedefinitionThe 2012 presidential election season provides Americans with an excellent opportunity to better understand the errant direction which the United States have improperly headed for 150 years.Both major political parties are currently pushing hard for the candidate of their choice in a greatgame of winner-take-all politics.Expenditures on the 2012 presidential campaigns are on track to overtake the $1 billion that wasspent on the 2008 campaigns, which provides compelling evidence of a sincere belief by many Americansthat the outcome is of profound importance in the direction of our country over the subsequent four years.It seems unquestioned today that those persons elected to political offices (or legislative seats)may move their parameters of allowed operation at will (at least if enough of their colleagues agree), andthus the critical need to elect the “right” persons to those positions.
 Did the framers of the Constitution envision or set up such a system as majority-rule politicswithout boundaries, where the majority may do most anything they desire?
Proponents who argue that those persons elected to positions in power may change their  parameters of allowed action at will must explain why the Constitution sets such low thresholds for determining who wins elections, while it actually sets very high thresholds for changing the power allowed them (and that the parties involved in exercising the power have no say in setting the boundaries).For example, in selecting the President in 2012, under the 2010 census, California will have 55electoral votes, while the fourteen least-populated States such as Vermont, Idaho and Nebraska have butthree, four, or five each, totaling only 51 electoral votes.In the run to win the majority of electoral votes (270), the single State with the greatest population numbers has greater political pull for determining who wins the presidential office all by itself than 14 other States with the least population numbers.When intentionally changing the allowed powers of the U.S. government by ratifying aconstitutional amendment however, the 14 States with the lowest population numbers may — 
all bythemselves — 
 prohibit ratification
even if all 35 other States of the Union
sided with California!What would be a landslide in a presidential election (484 [out of 535 possible electoral votes{ignoring the District of Columbia since it cannot vote on Amendments}]) would fail to even ratify anAmendment (the vote would be 36 for and 14 against [whereas 37 out of 50 States are required for ratification {3/4
-majority, as delineated in Article V of the Constitution}]).It would be absurd to make such a high standard for changing the powers of government if thoseexercising its power may simply change them at will.This provides compelling evidence that matters outside common understanding come into play,and that those who believe office-holders (or those holding legislative seats) may change the direction of government at will are wrong and they have simply failed to comprehend the mechanism used whichcauses the appearance of actual (permanent) change.
 If our Constitution’s framers protected us so well against deliberate increases in government  power, how much more would they protect us against illegitimate increases, of the President, Congress, or the Courts simply taking it upon themselves to do as they please?
As Article V of the Constitution plainly declares, after all, only the
may ratify amendments(or attend conventions) and therefore only the States are empowered to change the powers of the federalgovernment.
Thus the President, Congress, and/or the Courts — individually or combined — are incapable of changing their own powers, at least when we do not understand their mode of circuitous action.Thus all “changes” made by one or more of these three branches of the federal government itself only appear so and will be effectively set aside once sufficient numbers of people understand how these branches have been misbehaving. Limited government under the Constitution once again becomes wellwithin our grasp, as long as we are sufficiently motivated to learn the mechanisms involved and begin protecting ourselves.The illegitimate exercise of discretion outside of allowed parameters, after all, is but a polite termfor tyranny.Since the whole point of declaring our independence and setting up a new form of governmentwas to remove ourselves from despotism and institute free government based upon the consent of thegoverned,
is it really likely that we threw off one tyrant only to accept another 
?Our forefathers did not set up a system of government which may hold us hostage at everyelection cycle (or legislative session or sitting of the courts), but it is incumbent upon us citizens to learnnot only more about our constitutional form of government, but explicitly how our government hasseemed to circumvent the Constitution’s very restrictions against omnipotent government.2012 again provides Americans interested in reclaiming liberty and limited government a specialopportunity to learn where we have been lax and lead astray, our money here providing the example.2012 marks the 220
anniversary of the April 2, 1792 act of Congress which provided thenecessary parameters for minting our first silver and gold coins (which began being coined in 1794 and1795, respectively).2012 also marks another monetary anniversary, the 150
anniversary of the February 25, 1862 actwhich ignobly established the first legal tender paper currency (the Civil War “greenbacks”) sincegovernment under the Constitution began in 1789.That 70 years elapsed between 1792 when our gold and silver coins were first authorized beforethe first legal tender paper currency was authorized in 1862 provides Americans today with a distincttransition period to study.A compare and contrast between these two eras is quite informative in our quest to reclaim our liberty and limited government under the Constitution.Americans readily understand that our gold and silver coins were denominated in terms of the“dollar”. This was the same name given to the 1862 paper currencies, which has unfortunately helpedadd a bit of confusion to the mix.
 Does simply calling different things the same name make them equal?
Certainly not (ask most anythree-year-old if a gold or silver coin is the same as a paper dollar and they will readily answer “no”, butadults, however, seem to equivocate).Americans have been made what Alexander Hamilton called “the dupes of sounds” in a processhe referred to as the “substituting of names for things”, which process this author calls “deception byredefinition”.That America’s gold and silver coins denominated in terms of the “dollar” were effectivelysubstituted by a legal tender paper currency of the same name in 1862 provides Americans today with anopportunity to learn how government seems to operate beyond normal constitutional limitations.The process of deception by redefinition simply gives key terms a new meaning, creatingconfusion and misunderstanding which then serves as an invalid foundation upon which others withinsufficient moral restraint may then hope to profit.
This weak and unsound footing upholding an American legal tender paper currency now supportstremendous weight and is thus prone to give way spectacularly to the smallest measure of truth (which isthe same circumstance as will be found with all government action beyond the spirit of the Constitution).Through understanding the mechanism by which we were deprived of our lawful tender of goldand silver coin, we Americans may then understand how omnipotent government seeks to circumvent thespirit of the Constitution while denying us Americans our rightful liberty which is our birthright.
 May the government which was instituted to protect persons and property be transformed tobecome the most efficient instrument for confiscating and prohibiting our most liquid form of property?
Theanswer is emphatically “no”, except by our ignorance of the deceptive means instituted for such deceitful purposes.As shown by careful examination of our Constitution, the 1862-era legal tender legislative actsand the 1933 executive order which required “persons” to turn in their gold, we cannot be deprived of our  property by government except for public purposes with due process and just compensation (and gold & paper currencies are not equivalents).Though a thorough detailing of these matters is far beyond the scope of a brief article, thehighlights may nevertheless certainly introduce the concept. Readers interested in learning further detailsmay then obtain a free pdf download of 
 Monetary Laws of the United States
atwww.MonetaryLaws.com or at www.scribd.com/matt_erickson_6/collections, which goes into such matters in meticulous detail. Upholding paper currencies as a legal tender in the United States was as simple as redefining “theUnited States” to mean (only) “the District of Columbia” within the act of February 25, 1862 (12 Stat.345) which instituted the first legal tender paper notes.To understand the ramifications of such action one must realize that the original land area for theDistrict of Columbia was specifically ceded over to the government of the United States by the States of Virginia and Maryland and that no State any longer retains
jurisdiction or governing authority for thefederal seat.The significance of this is that in this “exclusive jurisdiction” area created under Article I, Section8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution for the seat of government, Congress may rightfully enactlegislation here much as elsewhere would be handled by a State or local government (since no Statewhatsoever retains
governing authority in the government seat).The District of Columbia is the only place (except various forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yardsand other needful buildings under similar “exclusive legislative” jurisdiction ceded by various States) inthe United States where ONE government handles ALL matters.Everywhere else, government authority is divided between federal and State authority under theexpress terms and conditions of the U.S. Constitution. In all these other areas, federal authority is limitedto that delineated by the Constitution
and the States handle the remainder of matters
(in conformity withthe 10
Amendment).However, when members of Congress enact legislation for the seat of government, they need notfollow the normal constitutional limitations imposed by the Constitution, because this is how Article I,Section 8, Clause 17 directs it be done (as there is no longer any State to handle
these other matters for this area, and these other matters must be handled by someone
Members of Congress are given“exclusive legislativejurisdiction for the seat of government to handle
the federal
State portions of governing authority
 for this area
.Thus one here finds the unique ability of Congress to legislate
of normal constitutional parameters legally and constitutionally. The remainder of the Constitution (outside Art. I:8:17) wasnot meant to limit Congress legislating for the seat of government; the remainder of the Constitution wasmeant to limit Congress legislating for all the States united.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->