Rick
Its a semantic distinction, but I waant to make sure I understand this, when I explain it to others. When you say there was a third Constitution, adopted in 1916, I believe, which established the US as a Corporation.Another way of saying that would be that they took the other 'second' Constitution, and added these 'unconstitutional' and therefore illegal amendments on to it, right?
And these amendments fundamentally changed the nature of the document, and the 'form' of our Gov't.
Much as I might come down here, and add something to this post which would fundamentally change the nature of this post.
So, in one sense it most definetly IS a 'third Constitution' due to the changed meaning, nature and form of Gov't. On the other hand, they didn't literally sit down and write a new Constitution from scratch. They added amendments that stripped the citesenry of their soveriegnity, established Corp. US, etc.Is this a fair description? All without changing the text of the earlier Constitution?Jim
Its a semantic distinction, but I waant to make sure I understand this, when I explain it to others. When you say there was a third Constitution, adopted in 1916, I believe, which established the US as a Corporation.Another way of saying that would be that they took the other 'second' Constitution, and added these 'unconstitutional' and therefore illegal amendments on to it, right?
And these amendments fundamentally changed the nature of the document, and the 'form' of our Gov't.
Much as I might come down here, and add something to this post which would fundamentally change the nature of this post.
So, in one sense it most definetly IS a 'third Constitution' due to the changed meaning, nature and form of Gov't. On the other hand, they didn't literally sit down and write a new Constitution from scratch. They added amendments that stripped the citesenry of their soveriegnity, established Corp. US, etc.Is this a fair description? All without changing the text of the earlier Constitution?Jim
Comment