http://www.themountvernonstatement.com/In another local meet-up forum that I participate in some of the members keep pushing the idea of returning to the foundational principles of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc. Their latest attempts to put pearls on the 14th Amendment democracy pig is the Mount Vernon Statement. A petition people can sign that makes themselves feel as though they have washed themselves of the mire, but what does the Scripture say about a washed pig? For those that want to waste time trying to dress up the 14th Amendment democracy to look and act like the dejure republics are going to be very disappointed when that imitation returns to wallow in the mire.
I post threads asking them if they themselves, on a personal level, are making changes to their lives, which would re-align themselves and their affairs with the principles established in the Constitution and Declaration. I ask them questions specifically about Article I, Section 10 regarding the gold and silver coin clause as payment of debt rather than using credit cards and bank checks, which help to perpetuate the Federal Reserve system, and I ask them about the "no law impairing the obligation of contracts" clause. I ask about their personal dealings in interstate commerce, which may pull them into a similar situation as Mr. Filburn, the small farmer that accepted a government benefit for price controls on wheat, but limited the acreage he could sow wheat, and he failed to bear that disadvantage and lost, even though he never sold any of the extra wheat on the open market, but kept it for himself for personal use, See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111.
The Wickard case, to this day, even upsets civil law attorneys, they don't understand the Court's decision, but that is due to the fact that today even attorneys are not taught the common law or its maxims. The court made two astounding statements in the Wickard case that is the cause of all the controversy:
1) "The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution..."
2) "We can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances, particularly since it is
even doubtful that appellee's burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due
process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes."
Compare those two statements of the Court with the following maxims of the common law and you decide if the Court made the proper ruling:
He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
Favors from government often carry with them an enhanced measure of regulation.
One who avails himself of the benefits conferred by statute cannot deny its validity.
A privilege is, as it were, a private law.
Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.
The contract makes the law.
He who contracts, knows, or ought to know, the quality of the person with whom he contracts, otherwise he is not excusable.
Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supercedes such understanding as the law would imply.
He who does not deny, admits.
He who has committed iniquity, shall not have equity.
It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.
Long time and long use, beyond the memory of man, suffices for right.
Custom is the best expounder of the law.
Custom is another law.
A prescriptive and legitimate custom overcomes the law.
Custom leads the willing, law compels or draws the unwilling.
Usage is the best interpreter of things.
Custom is the best interpreter of laws.
What is done contrary to the custom of our ancestors, neither pleases nor appears right.
Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred.
All these people running around believing that the government has usurped power not delegated and that the government has taken away their rights are in error. The government has done no such thing. The people have done it to themselves out of their own ignorance by consent and contract. They are pearl wearing pigs wallowing in the 14th Amendment mire.
The choices are simple once the problem is understood, either keep putting more pearls on the piggies
or stop acting like a pig by taking off the government's "fake" pearls, moving out of the government's 14th Amendment quagmire, washing yourself with the Red Amendment and a big bar of common law maxim's brand soap and taking full responsibility for all your actions, contracts and obligations.
Home
