Conservatives The #1 Conservatives Forum on
Conservative News and Discussion Forum. Home of the Sisterhood Of the Sacred Skillet of Justice.
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Page 2 - Page 3 - CF Forums - Conservative News Source - Newsmax TV
Constitutional Issues - Candidates Action - Economy - Talk Radio Conservative News - Conservatives Directory
Sports - Health - Poetry - Entertainment - Cook, Crafts - Activists Forum - Conservative Activist - CF Chat
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Does having a "living constitution" mean your state can NOT legally exist?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 Send TopicPrint
Normal Topic Does having a "living constitution" mean your state can NOT legally exist? (Read 435 times)
CF Full Member

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 78
Joined: 09/16/17
Does having a "living constitution" mean your state can NOT legally exist?
10/23/17 at 09:50:22
Print Post  
What kind of Constitution do we really have in Maine (or any other state)? I wrote this from a Maine perspective. Insert your states name here and think about the same issues.

There are 2 types of constitution to choose from.

1. Do we have a contract type of Constitution (or)
2. Do we have a con artist (lying, tricking, deceiving) type of con-stitution?

Those who believe in a "living constitution" are really saying the vote to accept the con-stitution was based on fraud. The people were lied to. The con-stitution has no meaning except the particular meaning that is chosen to be found by some judge or justice. This means the "living constitution" was accepted because it was based on fraudulent inducements to obtain the votes and agreements needed to create a contract between the people and the newly created government.

A Constitution must mean today what it meant when it was written to have validity. That means we must have a contract between the people and the government that was created to serve us.

I believe the Constitution never changes its meaning as required to have validity. Do you believe the Constitution was and still remains a fraud because as a "living constitution" its meaning changes based solely on who applies it?

If the Maine Constitution does not mean exactly what it says how could a valid vote have been taken to accept it around two centuries ago? It could not have been valid under those circumstances. How could the vote to create Maine have been legitimate if accepting the Maine Constitution was based on fraud? Are we still part of Massachusetts if Maine's Constitutions acceptance was based on the fraud known as a "living constitution"?

If the con-stitution exists instead of a Constitution then the vote to create the State of Maine was based on fraud.

Black's law dictionary 9th edition (page 1708) VITIATE (vish-ee-ayt), vb. (l6c) 1. To impair; to cause to have no force or effect <the new statute vitiates any common-law argument that the plaintiffs might have>.
2. To make void or voidable; to invalidate either com­pletely or in part <fraud vitiates a contract>. 3. To corrupt morally.

Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426. �Fraud vitiates everything�
Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 "Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments."

ABRY PARTNERS V, LP v. F & W ACQUIS. LLC, 891 A. 2d 1032 - Del: Court of Chancery 2006; To wit, our courts have said that "[a] perpetrator of fraud cannot close the lips of his innocent victim by getting him blindly to agree in advance not to complain against it"[71] and "fraud vitiates every contract, and no man may invoke the law to enforce his fraudulent acts."

FIRST NAT. BANK IN DURANT v. Honey Creek Entertainment Corp., 54 P. 3d 100 - Okla: Supreme Court 2002; Fraud vitiates everything it touches, and a contract obtained thereby is voidable.

If a con-stitution changes its meaning depending on who reads it then we have no rule of law but rather are under the rule of an elite who can change their mind about what our rights are and what the government can do at any time for any or no reason at all. If this thinking is true we have no State of Maine.

I am a literalist. Maine's Constitution means what it says. We have natural rights. We have inherent rights. We have unalienable rights. Those rights preexist the formation of the State of Maine. These rights do not come from that government as a gift and thus can not be modified in any manner by that or any government. This is in line with the founders philosophy of the time of the adoption of both the state and federal constitutions.

Do we have a constitution of limited powers and implied limitations upon government or do we have a con-stitution that means whatever some legislator or judge wants it to mean?

The constitution is a contract between the people and the government. A contract is enforced as it is written.

Back to top
IP Logged
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send TopicPrint
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Does having a "living constitution" mean your state can NOT legally exist?
CF Forums
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Constitutional Issues - Political Polls - Candidates Action - Economy
Conservative News Sources Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin forums
Political Activism, Strategy, Blogs - Conservative Sites - Games - Sports - Health - Poetry - Cooking - Library
Gun Rights - Conspiracy Theories - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5

Conservatives Directory
conservative sites:
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
Sean Hannity Show
Rush Limbaugh
The American Thinker
Breitbart News
FrontPage Magazine
Right Bias
Rasmussen Reports
David Limbaugh
American Conservative Union
Accuracy in Media
News Busters
Newt Gingrich
Chicks on the Right
Mark Levin Show
Tea Party Patriots
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative News
Michelle Malkin
Right Wing News
Accuracy in Academia
Powerline Blog
Conservative News Source
Conservative Activist

Conservative Blogs
Proudvet's Blog
Opinion Editorials
Political Polls
Twitter CF
Conservatives Directory Add Your Site
Conservative Blog Advertising
Forum Rules, User Agreement and Privacy Policy
Registering Information and Forum Rules