17 April A.D. 2011
In this interim, a summary of fundamentals to keep
firmly in mind is this.
"Constitutions" are package deals -- "all or nothing."
We do not now have, and have never had, a "constitutional
Government." How do we know? "Constitutions" are not severable;
they are package deals -- "all or nothing." Where a part is missing,
the whole is missing.
Statutes are severable. Agreements are severable.
Treaties are severable. Statutes may be severable with or without
the affirmative assertion of such. Agreements and treaties typically
need to include a severability clause. When such is severbale, key
is the standard on which severability is based. For a part of the
whole to be eliminated from the rest of the language, it has to
be what? Right -- illegal or "un-constitutional." What about a "constitution"
is ever illegal or "un-constitutional?" In short, to have in mind
the standard used for severability is to see readily that a "constition"
Therefore, because a "constitution" is not severable,
where we see even one part missing, We´re not just seeing one part
missing. We´re seeing that whole, the entirety, is missing.
"Federal" means "federal."
"Federal" does not mean "national." In other words,
"federal" is not limited to one "level" of government. All government
at all levels is "federal." School boards, municipalities, counties,
states, and the national systems are all "federal." They all operate
"Federal" most certainly does not mean "constitutional."
There is no "constitution." Yes, there´s an old (ancient) document
with some words on it, but that "archived" document has the same
value to us as paper on the bottom of the bird cage. If it were
an active document, it would be in the Library of Congress, not
the Archives. (Feel free to take a minute to reflect on that one.)
The conclusion that there is no "constitution" is not a political
or practical evaluation. It´s a legal evaluation. Legally, there
is no "constitution." Procedurally, "the People" never participated,
i.e., the democratic law-making process was never activated. Substantively,
the term "Citizen of the United States" was nowhere defined. The
analogy is to a trust. A trust exists only where there is both a
beneficiary and a trust res. The failure of either constitutes a
failure of the trust. Here, there is no beneficiary; hence, no trust.
It´s an analogy, but it very clearly makes the point. (By the time
the 14th showed up, the "federal" system had long since already
"taken over," and, still, to this day, the proper procedures have
never been applied.) If any language from the "constitution" is
relevant to any legal analysis, it's because the Supreme Court has
recognized and used that language. (Where they recognize only part
of the whole, what do we learn from that?!)
At the level of a "state," i.e, a body politic, i.e.,
a "church", "federal" means "by compact" or "by treaty."
At the level of the individual, "federal" means "by
In application, all government at all levels operates
This is not a political consent concept. This is a
commercial consent concept, i.e., agreement. We´re talking about
Politics are (largely) irrelevant.
Stewardship, stewardship, stewardship. Time, "money",
and energy are limited resources.
There are, in our present reality, an issue or two
solvable solely via political activity, but, on the whole, as regards
the mechanism by which we defend our property and our liberty from
increasing encroachment, there is no political solution. The problems
are commercial. How do we know? We know because there is no "constitution"
and because "federal" means, at the level of the individual, "by
agreement." Since the problems are commercial, which also means
individual, very, very individual, so are the solutions.
Who holds what political/elected office is irrelevant.
What "political party" has what for its platform or agenda is irrelevant.
What religious influence is marketed to us as "controlling" is irrelevant.
(That WILL change if/when membership in any particular religious
group is compelled. Right now, religious affiliation is still 100%
optional.) What matters in our present reality is our signature.
The legal mechanisms used against us start with what we´ve signed
up for, i.e, the "agreements."
There's a huge part of our nation that'll always put
the source of the problem "out there," somewhere. We´ve all been
taught to play the "blame game," and those who do that the best
are the ones who are the most un-likely to distance themselves from
this present system. Where the "problem" is "out there," somewhere,
then it´s beyond our control. Where the problem is beyond our control,
so is the solution. A huge number of people, including a very significant
percentage of the "patriot" community, take subtle comfort in the
fact that they have no control over the problem. That relieves them
from having to change their minds so as to take control over themselves,
i.e., over the solution. Where the "problem" is "out there," somewhere,
so is the solution, and they accept their victimhood, which allows
them to remain right where they are, and have been.
One of the most notable classes of people relishing
in their victimhood is that of the "constitution-ists." They've
thrown the "constitution" at everything in sight since at least
the early 1950's, and to what benefit or result? If they were interested
in a solution, they'd have started rethinking their legal premise
a long time ago. They'd challenge their most foundational presumptions.
This author engaged that paradigm shift exercise as a direct consequence
of The Terre Haute Litigation. This author went into that litigation
a "constitution-ist" and came out of it forever cured of that perspective.
The experience was hell, and it´s a sickening venture (e.g., to
realize how badly "had" we´ve been and for this long), but necessary.
It´s a wicked paradigm shift, and the vast majority of "constitution-ists"
just can't picture a world without a "constitution." Thus, they
may be unreachable via discussions of the reality. But, here we
are, still living under the myth of the "constitution" for approximately
220 years, now.
We are dealing with a "Beast" system.
Even more important than understanding the "law of
man" is understanding the Law of God. He follows it and applies
it. He expects us to do the same.
What is a "Beast?" It´s a king or government raised
up by God to be an iron rod of correction in His hand. Unto the
"Beast" is also given the powers of War, Famine, and Pestilence
(Disease, Plague). War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" are The
Four Sore Judgments. Who gets Judged? The rebellious. Measured by
what standard? God´s Law.
War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" are also The
Four Horseman of the Apocalypse. What´s an apocalypse? It´s a "revealing."
God revealed Himself to John. God is revealing Himself to us, as
well; unfortunately, it´s via the form of Judgment, as He told John
that it would be.
The "Beast" stays until the rebellion against God
ends. What constitutes "rebellion?" Good question, but we have plenty
of clues from Scripture. What was essentially the first act of rebellion
engaged by Israel after being ordained as a nation (at Mt. Sinai)?
Forging the golden calf. Thus, it was a religious act that defied
and denied the Sovereignty of God. Consequently, We´ve got to dig
deeply to investigate why we engage certain religious practices,
such as "christmas," and "easter," and "lent." Halloween isn´t that
great an event, either, but at least We´re not (yet) saying that
Halloween is based on Scripture. Why do we recognize the "holidays"
that we recognize? Thanksgiving is the one national holiday that
is very close to being Scriptural. This author isn't 100% certain
that we´re being defiant by not maintaining the three main "gathering
of the nation" feasts in this time period (post-Resurrection, pre-Kingdom),
but recognizing those seems a right smart more prudent than what
we´re doing at present.
Regarding the "tithe," the "income tax" consumes the
"tithe," as a matter of law. In other words, those with an "income
tax" obligation cannot tithe, for the first legal obligation is,
i.e., the first fruits are, consumed in/by the "income tax" obligation.
And, while it hasn't been "that" long, it's been since
the mid to late 1960´s that We´ve abandoned the general circulation
of an honest system of weights and measures.
Yes, abortion, and porno, gambling, drugs, alcohol,
and etc., are problems. But, none of the people engaging in those
activities has ever compelled any of us to pursue religious activities
that arise directly from paganism, or to obligate ourselves so as
to divert our "tithe," or to abandon the use of an honest system
of weights and measures.
We can´t fix the problems evidenced by the existence
of War, Famine, Pestilence, and "Beasts" by playing the "blame game."
We fix the problems we can from our own backyards, and then we do
what we can to set the example. It is always the reality that when
the student is ready, the Teacher appears.
This author is 100% satisfied that at least trying,
again, to do things God´s way, in these fundamentals, will be recognized
by God. The fundamentals of God´s Law center on truth, mercy, and
The Believer doesn't apply God´s Law for selfish gain
or benefit. No one earns an admissions ticket into the Kingdom.
Those are given by the Grace (Mercy) of God. The Believer applies
God´s Law to say Thank You to God. The Believer applies God´s Law
for the benefit of those s/he cares most about. God bestows Blessings
on whom? On the obedient. What is it that one wants most? Blessings
for those s/he cares about. Blessings come to the obedient. To set
the example is to show how to obtain and maintain the Blessings.
The Founders understood a great many things, and while
they came up short on the governmental structure issue, we can´t
blame them for our problems. They very clearly and overtly taught
their Posterity, i.e., us, that Liberty is a Blessing. On whom are
Blessings bestowed? The obedient.
Obedient to what standard? It'd be good to start with
recognizing that God is God, and that there is no other God besides
Him, and with practicing truth, mercy, and repentance. We´ll see
what develops from that.
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe: