Larry Beecraft on the 13th Amendment
LAWYERS CHANGED US CONSTITUTION SO THEY COULD HOLD OFFICE
What others are saying:
The pictures of the original document preserved by the State of Maryland have somehow disappeared since these web pages above were published.
The subject of throwing the whole Constitutional document open for amendment with an Article V convention is up for consideration here. If the same kind of people who did this with the 13th Amendment are allowed to control such an Article V convention (and you know they will be) what will the result be?
Instead would it not be a better idea to use the Constitutional amendment process to treat one or two issues at a time? Would it not be far safer to come up with an amendment to directly repeal the 16th Amendment, and how about the 17th Amendment that turned over the election of United States Senators to popular vote thereby destroying the representation that the States had in the Senate? Would it not be right to repeal that one also, even though it's been proven with over 15,000 certified documents that neither of these were properly ratified? (Research the book by Red Beckman and Bill Benson called "The Law That Never Was".)
Then there is the matter of the stranglehold that the Federal Reserve has on our money supply. The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and a Constitutional Amendment put in place to prevent anyone EVER outside the original Constitutional mandate (the Congress) from controlling the issuing of our currency! The Congress alone should be held responsible for ALL the money they create and spend.
Why is it necessary to open up the whole document to these lawyers? I for one don't want to give any of them a single shot at undoing the original ideas of the founders, especially the whole idea that the people themselves are sovereign, and that the States are also sovereign, and have their own jurisdiction as outlined by Antonin Scalia in the Mack/Printz decision. There is massive confusion about what the 14th Amendment actually did. Read this for an overview:
The whole argument about an Article V convention has caused deep division. This is totally unnecessary since the danger can be easily solved by treating these amendments separately, thereby preserving the momentum for reform of many bad decisions by the Supreme Court over the years, while preserving the the ideas contained in the body of the Constitution and especially in the first 10 Amendments or Bill of Rights. The main idea to be preserved is that Rights come from God not man. The Constitution didn't give us any rights. It just prevented Government from interfering with rights we already had from our Creator. These are embodied in the Constitution itself and especially the Bill of Rights up to and including Amendment 10 which essentially says "if we forgot anything you can't do that either" to the government.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION. The problem is in the judiciary and their officers of the court (bar association lawyers) who are all titled with titles of nobility (Esquire etc.) where in fact the founders considered that each and every one of us are the sovereign lords of our own lives and bodies and properties. The supreme law for the United States is the Constitution. WE DON'T HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! We have God given natural rights. Only government employees have so called "constitutional rights". The US Constitution was written to delegate a very few and specific rights from our God Given Rights to some servants for very specific purposes, and nothing more. WE ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED that document TO GOVERN THE GOVERNMENT and nothing else! We, in this case are the LAWGIVER. Can a lawgiver be subject to his own law without his consent? Was the King subject to his own law without his consent? Is God Almighty subject to His own laws? Not unless he volunteers to be so subject by His own promise!
Who is the lawgiver in the case of the US Constitution? Can those public servants now claim they are sovereign over the lawgivers, We The People? Only by the twisted legaleze of the lawyers and judges who have perverted the Constitution. Read the Mack/Printz decision to find the true jurisdiction of the States and the People. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html Pay special attention to the parts about equal but separate jurisdiction of the states vs the US federal government. The fact put forth by the court is that the federal government can NOT tell the States what to do!
Here is an example of judicial tyranny. This should serve to show you the real problem:
We have a whole country full of servants who have sworn to uphold the Supreme Law and who break their oath at every turn, every day, with complete impunity. The words on the piece of paper mean absolutely NOTHING to them. They are just some words to say to get a paycheck, but the people are about fed up with this tyranny, and are searching for some remedy that doesn't include bloody violence.
THAT REMEDY IS NOT A CON-CON. That remedy is enforcing the original document!
What form should that enforcement take? That is open for discussion and I invite you to join that discussion by clicking on the comments section below and adding your thoughts.
The term CON_CON was invented decades ago when this terrible idea first reared it's ugly head. The founders never envisioned a world with instantaneous communication where mass media could pervert the minds of people to such an extent that we have now. They also said that our form of government would only work for a moral and religious people. Can we save people who are hell bent on denying any responsibility to their creator for their daily actions, or what they think? I think not, and no con-con will save them from themselves. But the Constitution was supposed to protect the good people from the democratic majority decisions of the bad. So now you know why they hate the Constitution. Now you know why Soros and the boys want it gone, and you should be very puzzled as to why people who call themselves patriots are willing to get into bed with the likes of Soros and minions on this issue.
Who is behind it all:
More evidence that the 13th Amendment had indeed been ratified: