Article Image
IPFS News Link • Constitution

The Constitution’s Fatal Flaw

  Many of these criticisms offer the open-minded some reason to at least consider the possibility that the document should be viewed in a light other than that with which is normally shed.

I would like to review some of these criticisms before I come to what I believe is the one, most fatal flaw in the document – the one defect that most directly exposes that the purpose of the document was to enable usurpation, and the one defect that renders as irrelevant the entire purpose that men might normally enter into such a pact, therefore making the document useless for this most important end.

4 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

And nobody signed the Constitution because the taking of the Oath of Office is the way that everyone signs it as he takes office.

So, are we going to accept an affidavit from all the witnesses to the signing, stating that Obama signed it when he did it in secret? Won't he do it in public? I mean, even if he did it in private, he could do it in public a hundred more times just to show the people that he means it.

If we don't put in place a whole lot of mandatory, spelled-out punishments for Government Officials who go against the Constitution, there isn't any need for the Constitution farce.

Who wants the Constitution to exist more than anyone else? It is the Government Officials, Big Business, and the Power Elite that want it. Why? Because it pulls the wool over the eyes and minds of the public so that we the people think that there is some kind of force there to keep Government officials upholding their Government farce. And all the while they are working their way around any and every Constitutional provision.

Comment by Marc Lucas
Entered on:

Dear Editor,

The Constitution did not change the Confederation into a nation.The free colonies did not donate their free-hold lands. They merely ceded or sold land for specific political associations.

Most people do not know about the founding Four Organic Documents. The First Organic Document  - The Declaration of Independence is at the foundation of thirteen free colonies, which later associated through the Second Organic Document - the Articles of Confederation, and  formed a confederacy named The United States of America - not The State of America - which would be indicative of a single nation.


The colonies associated themselves as a federal society of independent nations, and dedicated land and buildings for local, domestic inter-national, or foreign-international purposes - which were expressed through "federal" representatives to the United States in Congress assembled.

After the War of Independence, the lands not organized as colonies were generally uninhabited, and  became "territories" of the United States of America, held in common by the 13 colonies, and were also referred to as the "United States" possessions. This was done through The Third Organic Document - The Northwest Ordinance, which promulgated managerial oversight of said United States possessions to the same government which was charged with representing the newly formed society of nations in inter-national and foreign affairs. Financial issues regarding these territories and other related affairs required a "more perfect" union.

The "more perfect union" did not repeal the Articles of Confederation, as some would like us to believe. The very Code of the United States (USC) acknowledges to this day the FOUR ORGANIC DOCUMENTS. The Fourth such Document, The Constitution for the United States of America, established a "United States" "national" government with exclusive powers over the The District of Columbia, and over territories at that time and future territories held as "United States" possessions of United States of America. Thus, Congress could assemble as either "federal" government representatives of the States of the Union for domestic inter-national affairs, and for foreign international purposes, or as "national" government for purposes related to the "territories" held together as the "United States". This is made clear by the following United States Supreme Court statement:

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?” [Emphasis added]
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

The National Executive orders pertain only to District of Columbia, territories, enclaves, forts, "national" parks, etc., and all "United States Codes"or "State" Codes, Regulations and "statutes" are "territorial".

Nowadays people are not educated to know the common law. Thus, they ignorantly subject themselves to"territorial" jurisdiction. Any "statutory" written "law" is limited to the "situs" owned by "The State", or "ceded" to the "United States" government, or to "privileged" interactions with either jurisdiction.

As an example, California is the land mass consisting of private lands and of the California Republic "public lands" - wherein the "State of California INC" owns land and/or buildings for either the Republic's public interests, or for federal purposes, and wherein concurrent jurisdiction may be exercised by both the State and the federal agencies,  as evidenced in enactments such as The Buck Act..

Private lands are forever held in alodial title with United States Land Patents, for all assigns. People ignorantly "cede" the assignment claim to the "State of ..." administration, via registration of their land purchase, for which the "State of..." charges a fee called "property tax", which is supposed to be used for "public" welfare, as delegated under the Constitution to the federal/State government. Agents and employees of both State and federal governments are not trained in these issues. This results in breach of duty by dis-mis-informed employees, and creates harm to persons and property outside territorial jurisdiction and counter to the constitutional grants of power.

Present "governments" justify themselves "busy" under the "War on ...something"  as the only means to escape "territorial" jurisdiction, which would otherwise provide "national" jobs related only to the 22 territories of the United States of America, to the District of Columbia, and to possessions and enclaves under "federal" purview. After the Northwest territories became independent states, they were no longer under "national" jurisdiction. Thus, the "national" employees had to create jobs for themselves. The justification for war does come under the"federal" delegation of authority ... albeit bogus. A gross misinterpretation of said delegation converted "defence" to "offence" or abstract "theme" wars, by undeclared enemies.

These realizations are essential to preserving The Land of The Free. However, The Braves need to be knowledgeable to do it. See:



Comment by Tom Westbrook
Entered on:

There are two issues with this article:

1.) The 'general welfare' clause is not the problem, the problem is that many have forgotten how to read English. General is the opposite of specific. There's a reason that they used this word. Obama care, for example, is designed to help specific individuals, this is not general and does not fall under the general welfare clause. The same would be true for social security. General welfare would help everyone equally in a general sense. There are not many things that fall into this category. Defense would be one, because everyone  benefits by not being invaded by a foreign invader. Also, the preamble does not enumerate any power to the government, because it is not part of the body of the constitution, which is where the powers are enumerated.

2.) The government's role is not to provide 'protection' for the people. It is to protect the rights of the People to protect themselves. This is why we have a second amendment and why the protection of property is not in the constitution. The government could not hire a policeman to stand at the front of everyone's house, this would be a total tyrannical police state! It would also violate the 'general' clause because it would be protecting people specifically.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

The Constitution was always meant to be a "do nothing" document. The fact that people were convinced over the years that it was important in some way shows us the nature of people in general.

Nobody wants to be king with regard to helping the people. Everyone wants to be king with regard to helping himself. Everyone wants a king... a king who will help him and all the people. Nobody wants a king who will help only himself.

Well, now that we have this king Government, what are we going to do about it?

Not to worry. It is in the process of collapsing itself. I saw a great article in Freedom's Phoenix about Brazil -

Brazilian Portuguese is a relatively language to learn. And it is so similar to Spanish (which is really easy to learn) that if you know Spanish, you have the whole of South America to choose from. Or you could start in Belize (English speaking) and work your way south.

Multitudes of Americans have moved out of the USA, and have found that their new life is better than the old one. They were thinking of returning after the USA revolution/civil war, but they have found that things are much better where they have gone... why go back?