The U.S. Constitution does not change

By Steven D. Miller

America was founded by those who ordained and established the Constitution FOR — not of — the United States of America. Ordain is a religious term.  They were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. The U.S. was not founded by atheists or agnostics.

They wrote a Constitution that cannot be changed, only amended.  Just in case you think a law or an amendment changed the intent of your Constitution, think again.  A congressman cannot swear an oath to support and defend your constitution and then suggest an amendment to change something that he is sworn to perpetuate. Article V allows amendments TO the constitution, there can never be an amendment OF the constitution. It’s meaning does not change.

Liberals will say that the Constitution is a living document, and that it is reinterpreted whenever we vote for a new law.

But the Constitution does not change.

The Constitution is NOT a living document that changes with the whims of politicians. Politicians must swear oaths to uphold and perpetuate the supreme law that controls them.

The 1905 U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. U.S., 199 US 437:

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now…”

In the 1966 famous case of Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court said of our rights:

And in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured “for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it,” (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 in 1821).

The 1901 Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwill, 182 U.S. 244, ruled:

It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”

The Federalist Papers are not just some antiquated editorial opinion, they are, according to the Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia, the exact record of the intent of the Constitution. Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 at 418:

The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927) repeating their earlier decision in Boyd.

…and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Headliner note to Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264

The Supreme Court will construe provisions of Constitution which appear to be repugnant, so as to preserve the true intent and meaning of the Constitution… “

The U.S. Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, Page 635

illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon. “

The U.S. Supreme Court, Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 page 442

An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 page 491

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US 137: All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void

President John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

President Andrew Jackson: “The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

STATUTES MUST CONCUR WITH THE CONSTITUTION

Before there were United States Codes, the Acts of Congress could be compared to the national constitution to see if the statute was valid.

Federal Statutes Annotated, Vol IX, page 77; U.S. v. Burlington, etc., Ferry Co. (1884) 21 Fed. Rep.334.

Constitution and statutes must concur. …
In order to give jurisdiction to a federal court in any case whatever, the Constitution and the statute law must concur. It is not sufficient that the jurisdiction may be found in the Constitution or the law. The two must co-operate; the Constitution as the fountain, and the law of Congress as the streams from which and through which the waters of jurisdiction flow to the court”.

See also In re Barry (1844) 42 Fed. Rep. 122; and In re Metzger, (1847), 5 NY Leg Obs 83, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,511.
TREATIES ARE ALSO THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

The phrase “supreme Law of the Land” is used in the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 2 to refer equally to treaties as well as to your Constitution itself.

A treaty with Tripoli ratified by two-thirds of the Senate and signed by President Adams in June of 1797 correctly states in Article 11: “… the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”. This quote is from the English language version signed by President Adams, in U.S. archives, even though the original foreign version of this treaty is missing this controversial clause. President Adams and two thirds of the Senators in 1797 knew the truth about the overthrow of Washington DC. John Adams would have known the truth, after all, he was, with Ben Franklin, a signer of the Peace Treaty with England that ended the war and authorized the U.S. to exist.

Welcome to your Novus Ordo Seclorum secular new world order.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that we need a government. I am not suggesting that the Constitution is legitimate, nor that it can be imposed on the State governments that refused to ratify it. I am not suggesting that the debt of the constitutors became our debt. And I’m not suggesting that high ranking Freemason Cornwallis surrendered to lower ranking Freemason Washington at Yorktown.

* ~ ~ ~ *

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN

Democracy

America’s Lost Liberty

Subscribe to my monthly newsletter