The Constitution for the United states of America

The Constitution for the United States of America

The Obama administration referred Arizona’s immigration law to … who? You might guess it had been referred to the Supreme Court. But you would be wrong. It was referred to the United Nations for review.

As discussed in an earlier post, we recently saw a Corporation openly defy the EPA as it massively poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. Not only were no criminal charges filed, our federal and state governments allowed that corporation to dictate all facets of the disaster. They even seemed to take control of the Coast Guard, local and state police.

If these things don’t raise your eyebrows about the nature of our government, you aren’t paying attention, so please re-read the above.

I remember when Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for Colorado governor was on trial for openly carrying a handgun during a speech he gave in a Denver park. In court, he raised a constitutional, 2nd amendment defense. To my surprise, the judge said, in open court, “The constitution doesn’t apply here.” I wasn’t surprised by the fact, but shocked by the judge’s willingness to openly voice such a well-kept secret.

Before we proceed, take a look at the preamble of our Constitution. Get a copy online and read it. (Go ahead and do it now – I’ll wait.) It ends with “…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Note that it refers to the Constitution for the United States. It does not say the Constitution of the United States. Words are very important, as are grammatical details such as punctuation and capitalization. While the difference between the words “for” and “of” seems to be an insignificant detail, it is not. These days, whenever people refer to the Constitution, they almost never use the proper name, which is “Constitution for the United States of America.” . They ALWAYS use a different name. They refer to the Constitution of the US, the US Constitution, etc.

Why don’t our governmental representatives refer to this very important historical document using it’s proper name? I would suggest that possibly it is because they are referring to a different document altogether. Perhaps a corporate charter in which a corporation named USA was incorporated. I can not prove this conclusively, but anecdotally there is a lot of evidence suggesting this may be so.

Regardless of whether or not a forgery of our Constitution with a very similar name exists, it is inescapably true that our Constitution is now moot and obsolete. George Bush the 2nd, while President, disdainfully called the Constitution “just a piece of paper”. When did this radical change regarding our Constitution and governance occur? In 1933.

In 1933 Roosevelt took office at the height of the great depression. The very first thing he did was close all the banks. He then stole everyone’s gold under threat of jail for non-compliance. To understand the significance of this action, bear in mind that gold was the only money at that time. People understood very clearly in 1933 what constituted their money, so being forced to hand over their gold was akin to modern Americans being forced to give all their cars, jewelry and real estate to the government under threat of jail. Overnight, in 1933, everyone was flat busted “broke”. They literally had no money at all. They were forced (with no avenue of appeal) to accept green pieces of paper as a substitute for their wealth.

The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was then amended. This act had been written during WW1 (1917) to regulate commerce with such as the Germans at a time we were at war with Germany. American Citizens were specifically exempted from the act of 1917. The act was amended in 1933. The effect of that amendment was to remove American Citizen’s exemption from the act. American Citizens were now included under the statutory definition of the Enemy. Strange as that is to believe, it is true. Look it up. *

Now that American citizens were legally in the legal position of “the enemy”, with respect to their economic activities, FDR began the “New Deal” in which the principles of Free Enterprise that had been the backbone of the American experiment for 150 years were thrown out the window. Suddenly, people needed government’s permission, in the form of license, to conduct commerce. Regulations and governmental bureaucracy, practically non-existent previously, began to grow throughout the American landscape like a cancer.

The amended act gave the President, and the President alone, the authority to enact virtually any legislation he wished whenever the nation was deemed to be in a time of war or national emergency. The President is also the one who decides when the emergency has passed. (George Bush the 2nd called himself “the decider”.) Of course, FDR immediately declared a state of emergency as he began to systematically change the very fabric of what had been the American way of life.

From that time until the present, the country has constantly been under some form of declared “national emergency”. Also, we are now constantly fighting wars. We are fighting “real wars” in which innocent people bleed to death in the dirt, as well as imaginary “wars”, such as the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc… These wars and emergencies are the basis on which the president can sign Executive Orders that become law of the land without congress voting on it, and without the Supreme Court ruling on the legality thereof. This answers many questions, does it not?

What was the congress thinking in 1933 when the Trading with the enemy act was amended? We can only speculate, but I doubt they were given the time to read the fine print. Had they actually read what they were signing, they would have realized that the president alone could decide when emergencies existed, and when they ended. The congressmen were likely given doomsday predictions about what would happen if they didn’t pass the bill with great haste. We saw a similar situation when congressmen passed the bankers bailout bills worth TRILLIONS of dollars (The “No Banker left behind” bill). The congressmen were told at that time that if they didn’t pass the bill THAT DAY there would be martial law by the end of the week. In any case, the 1933 congress passed the amendment, and we are stuck with the foolishness of their decision to this very day.

How about the Supreme Court? Where were they when all this was happening? The Supreme Court fought back. Recognizing that FDR was throwing the entirety of the separation of powers, the very heart of American Law, into the waste can, they quickly issued a number of important rulings overturning as unconstitutional most of the things FDR was trying to do. Good for them! How did FDR respond to their principled stand?

FDR formulated a plan to “pack the court”. He was having congress write an amendment that would allow FDR to name more than 9 Supreme Court justices! He planned to just keep adding court members until he had a majority willing to rubberstamp his policies. In the end, recognizing that congress was going along with the president in this nefarious plot, the court yielded. They suddenly found constitutional grounds for everything the president wanted. This despite their belief just weeks before that they were unconstitutional. The rest is history. The Constitution for the United States of America, which we have studied about in school, was rendered moot and obsolete when the Supreme Court was subjugated in 1933.

There is much more that needs to be discussed and understood. We need to recognize that the Constitution calls for all treaties to be “the law of the land”. Treaties are equal in law to anything found in the constitution. They are equal to anything that the congress passes. So, think about this! There are hundreds of treaties in force. If there is a little-known Treaty with say, Mexico, that allows Mexicans to travel freely in Arizona, then it is the Law of the Land! Does such a treaty exist? It would not surprise me. That would certainly explain much. Is there a treaty with the UN that gives the UN jurisdiction over the issue of Mexican immigrants in Arizona? It now seems there must be.

Perhaps the most important thing we must understand I haven’t even touched on. That is, why 1933? Why did all this happen in 1933? What was so special about that year?

The answer to that question is to be found in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Federal Reserve act granted the Fed a 20 year charter, which was to end or be renewed in 1933. The Fed could have been, should have been, abolished in 1933, as it had proven itself a disaster, particularly during the years 1929-1933. But their charter was nevertheless inexplicably renewed. Soon I will post a discussion of why the Fed, which had created and overseen the misery of the great depression, was rewarded with a renewed charter.

Also, we must get a clear understanding of the answer to the very pertinent question: “What did FDR do with all the gold he stole from the American people in 1933?” Who was the beneficiary of the entire, complete, accumulated wealth of the United States of America?



  • According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b), everything the President or the Secretary of
    the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved:

    “The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken,
    promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since
    March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of
    October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a],  are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, 
    c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]”.


Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top