A31-059 – No Record of Repealing First Constitution

by | Dec 13, 2015 | Show Notes | 0 comments

Easier to fool a US Citizen than to convince him he's been fooled.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download () | Embed

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Email | RSS

Easier to fool a US Citizen than to convince him he's been fooled.

Corey and Todd explore the history of the Iowa constitution, its versions, what the government that everyone interfaces with considers the definition of “original” to be, the term codify, and why these answers are important to having the wherewithal to question conventional authority if one is to successfully live as a state citizen, not a US citizen. Special thanks to James Getman for prompting the dialog in Iowa via the SuperLiberty Meetup Listserve. 

3 Cent Letter Todd to Corey Non Domestic Dec 2015

Super Liberty Meet Up Thread Informs Much of this Podcast

On Dec 6, 2015, at 1:37 PM, James Getman wrote:
Dear Archivist
I am writing to request the legislation that repealed the 1849 Constitution of California.
Reply: “Because there is no clear evidence of any repealing legislation, we must rely on you to provide the specific statute citation in which you are interested.”
http://www.agenda31.org/a31-058-low-risk-high-reward/
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Michael D. Elliott wrote:
There is no such thing as repealing a constitution.  So the question should have been, “was there a constitutional convention in which the constitution was rewritten.”Also, the constitution must be ratified by the people in order to be considered adopted, so was there a vote by the public to adopt the new constitution.If there was not, and the government made the change without the authority of the people, then, and only then would you have a case of defacto government.A constitution is never repealed as there is no legal procedure for repealing a constitution….  It is either amended, abandoned or suspended.

On Dec 6, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Todd McGreevy wrote:
Or, the original constitution stands, as it did when that state admitted into the Union by Congress.
And, then a new constitution is created and approved by the people, but it is a constitution for an administrative division of Washington, DC, calling itself a state with the same name, having no geographic boundaries of its own outside of where it is located, in DC, and rather than be acknowledged by Congress as a new state within a state (which Congress is precluded from doing per Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1 http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/4/essays/125/new-states-clause) it is operated as a franchise of DC, where DC has every right to have its own citizens, aka US Citizens.

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Michael D. Elliott wrote:

Admittedly, I think the citizens were foolish and didn’t understand what they did, but it did in fact replace the other constitution.
However, the people are always free to hold another constitutional convention and institute a new constitution to protect their liberties.
And as I see it, when the federal government financially collapses, the people will probably have to do such a thing anyways since there will no longer be a federal government.
On Dec 6, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Todd McGreevy  wrote:

We agree to disagree, Michael.

Has yet to be proven that it was replaced, otherwise, the 13th Amendment is not being enforced.
Slavery is not required by those of us who do not consent.
We play a Rand Paul Bernie Sanders clip at the start of our latest show (that James linked to below) that calls out the slavery card.
There’s a lot more over the two hour podcast… but the “in fact” you state has yet to be proven.
The quote James posted states “there is no clear evidence of any repealing legislation” and we talk about having to look up the Act in California legis history that enabled the convention. 
The same research needs to be clarified in Iowa. 
On Dec 7, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Michael D. Elliott wrote:

http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/services/collections/law-library/iaconst

Iowa has had three constitutional conventions, all held in Iowa City. The first was in 1844, the second constitution was drafted in 1846, and the third was in 1857, which drafted the document still used today (although greatly amended).

Each of the conventions had central disputes which were the subject of debate. Unfortunately, as the records of the 1844 and 1846 conventions are fragmentary, the full extent of the discussions is unknown. In the course of the 1857 convention there were many arguments over matters which may not be guessed by looking at the mere words of the document, including the role of race in all aspects of life in Iowa.

The latest constitution was drafted over 39 days from January 19, 1857 through March 5, 1857. It was narrowly approved at a referendum in August and went into effect by proclamation of the governor on September 3, 1857.

Since that time, Iowa’s Constitution has been amended 46 times but the basic document still remains. It is now one of the older state constitutions in America.

You can read and search the debates that took place during the drafting of the third constitution in the scanned versions of the two volume set: The debates of the Constitutional Convention on the State of Iowa, assembled in Iowa City, Monday, January 19, 1857. Being a full and complete reopt of the debates and proceedings, by authority of the Convention; accompanied, for the purpose of reference, by a copious index of subjects, and remarks of members thereon. W. Blair Lord, Reporter. 

On 12/7/2015 12:15 AM, Michael D. Elliott wrote:
Iowa’s first constitution was approved when Iowa first became a state in 1846. Though an earlier constitution had been drafted and accepted by the United States Senate, residents of the territory of Iowa rejected it twice. The state’s current constitution was drafted only 11 years after the first was adopted. It was adopted in August of 1857 by a small margin, 40,311 to 38,681.
On Dec 7, 2015, at 9:01 AM, john wrote:
When did Iowa change the Constitution where our right to a Grand Jury was taken away from us.  I have demanded 2 in the last two years.  My opinion is, absolute corruption has corrupted absolutely.  I have heard it said we haven’t had a Grand Jury investigation in Scott Co since 1972.   Iowa’s Constitution demands a Grand Jury investigation for anyone in jail over 30 days.  When did we lose that important check and balance?  
On 12/7/2015 9:17 AM, Michael D. Elliott wrote:
Just because you have a constitution doesn’t mean it is enforced.
In fact the only mechanism written in the constitution to be used to enforce the laws of the constitution is in fact the grand jury.
The courts do a great job of preventing people from getting access to the grand jury, but a much bigger challenge is that the public as a whole is completely ignorant of the purpose and power of the grand jury in a constitutional republic.
Without an educated public I’m afraid it is very easy for the government to pretend to be a constitutional government and yet deny any citizen their rights and prevent any citizen from investigating and indicting their public misconduct in office.
The grand jury today is a lame duck because the people are ignorant.
Until the public is educated you essentially have no grand jury system.
Btw, we are one of the last countries in the world with a jury system.  It has all been eradicated world wide over the last 200 years.
We are the last…..
On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Jim Milam  wrote:
My hope now is that we can get to an election next year without Obama declaring martial law for some reason, and remaining in office. He is certainly stirring up enough pots for that to happen.
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SuperLiberty] The whitewash continues

Every four years liberty lovers around the USA worry about a president staying beyond his legally allowed stay by declaring martial law and every election it doesn’t happen, even though, it probably could very easily.The reason however this does not happen is because the government is not the president.  The president is a hand selected stooge for the powers that be.The powers that be are not threatened by any outside citizen force to declare martial law.  The purpose of martial law is to stomp out  the brush fires of liberty and rebellion against those in control.We are no threat to those in power.  Like I said before, you have a dumbed down society where most beg for government to get them their share of the public treasury in one way or another and for one reason or another.There is no benefit to declare martial law when you already own and control every citizen.Like I have said before, if you can’t even change anything in your own backyard, what makes you think you will change anything state or nationally??If you want to change some things, start right here in Scott county.  Make this place the oasis of Liberty as Todd has coined in the past.Challenge your local government politicians, get your neighbors up in arms(figuratively) and demand your government be a protector of rights rather than a violator.  Educate your neighbors and get them actively supporting pro Liberty activism.

That is the purpose of superliberty.

Let’s pull together people and friendly organizations from all the corners of Scott county and let’s work together to make real change in Scott county.

Michael D. Elliott

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Silver Eagle Trust  wrote:

I see U.S. citizens (with socialized security numbers) as inmates in an insane asylum who are allowed to vote for their warden who does not own the institution but who will execute their protection for them from such things as someone selling cigarettes to them over the fence, healt care, etc. etc.   To appease the inmates, the gov. urges people to VOTE if the people don’t like their present situation in the institution.
Either you are an inmate in the asylum or you are completely out of the asylum of having someone tell you what to do and you are a free man.  There is no in between.   
Al Barcroft is the only one that makes any sense for someone to stop flopping around in the admiralty and return to Seventh Amendment “law” and get free from statutes identified in Iowa Code 4.2:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-673826.mp3 and starting at about 22 minutes here:
Possibly, the Donald would have stamina like the rich JFK who was no banker’s puppet and who had to be taken out because he upset the asylum owners and wanted the American people to be “as they were born to be, free and independent.”
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [SuperLiberty] The whitewash continues
Elliot thank you for the links and notes on the history of Iowa’s constitution as told by those that wish to interpret it… excellent places to start… they have updated the site at the state archives since I last delved deep into this many years ago.
I am having a hard time finding the 1846 Constitution, the first one purportedly ratified by the people.
my emphasis in yellow
critical to understand how the asylum (I agree with Merle) operators view things
i do find it fascinating that subscribers on this list are willing to find it plausible that gov-co may have perpetuated a hoax like Sandy Hook, but find it hard to swallow that gov-co could have also hijacked each of the several states through conventions and “new” or “original” constitutions that changed the relationship of the people who knew no better with the government.
Why is the first constitution ratified by the voters not available?

The archive page at http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/services/collections/law–library/iaconst that you provided mentions 1846 version but does not state it was ratified like the legis.iowa page citation below does. Nor does the archival page provide a link to the 1846 version. I have a purported copy of it somewhere in my files…. not necc a certified copy, which I will be fascinated to see if we can get one from the overlords at the self proclaimed “original state” of Iowa.

Constitution

Iowa Constitution – Codified: This printed version of the Iowa Constitution incorporates into the original document all amendments ratified by the voters through the 2010 general election and omits certain provisions apparently superseded or obsolete. The amendments to the Constitution are presented at the appropriate place in the text, followed at the end of the section by a footnote referring to the latest amendment, identified by year of ratification and amendment number, that affect the text.
Iowa Constitution – Original: With the exception of the table of contents, which appears at the beginning of the Constitution, and the catchwords, which precede each section, this printed copy of the original, handwritten Constitution is a verbatim copy of the original 1857 Constitution on file in the Office of the Secretary of State, with a small number of spelling, punctuation, grammatical, and clerical corrections made over the years by the editor of the Code of Iowa. Following the original text of the Constitution, the amendments to the Constitution are presented in the order of the year of their ratification by the voters.
Iowa Constitution – Original Scanned Version   Iowa has held three constitutional conventions, in 1844, 1846, and 1857, with the first constitution rejected by the voters and the second and third constitutions ratified by the voters. The document drafted and amended by the 1857 convention is the current, original Constitution of the State of Iowa. This copy is a scanned copy of the handwritten 1857 Constitution on file in the Office of the Secretary of State.
I also find it intriguing that when you trace the bread crumb navigation links at the page that has this copy above it
The Iowa Legislature > Iowa Law & Rules > Iowa Law > Constitution
You trace back to “Iowa Law” page… and that page leads with:

Iowa Law

Iowa Code

– Composite of all permanent laws enacted by the Iowa General Assembly.

Then there’s this page http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/services/collections/law–library/iacon that reads, in part:

Both the 1844 and 1846 documents had one feature that is interesting as a historical curiosity. Both of them prohibited banks in Iowa. The “banks” which were prohibited were the then frequently existing “banks of issue.” These banks printed and issued notes which were similar in appearance and use to our paper currency today. These banks were numerous in the early 1800s and were often wildcat operations. When one of these banks closed, those who held notes issued by that bank suffered a significant financial loss. Another kind of bank, a “bank of deposit,” was not prohibited.

The 1857 constitution was drafted because of the soon perceived problems with the 1846 document. This convention, however, continued to follow a similar governmental structure as provided for in the earlier documents.

I think that what Corey brought up on the Episode 058 of Agenda31 podcast, which is the link that was posted by Getman at the start of this thread, is paramount to understanding which Constitution in a state in which one wishes to claim domicile can access the protections of the US Constitution… the one ratified by the people then entered into the union by Congress, or the one ratified by the people and then __________ what? Did the Congress accept the “new” “original” Iowa of 1857 Constitution into the union of several states as they did the Iowa constitution presented by 1846? (see state #29 at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union)
I propose that the 1857 “original” constitution as the modern day Iowa gov-co wants to call it does not represent the state that entered the union of states and is technically the administrative division of DC. I need to find where the Feds did anything with the 1857 version and recognized it and how. And, i need to get authenticated docs of the Congressional record when Iowa was admitted into the union… how can the 1857 version be the “original” when n1846 got it into the union? It’s the original codified version.
I have some more research to do to further back this up… and as memory serves last time I went down this path, I found that there may be some question as to whether Iowa was entered into the union due to boundary disputes and a Congressionally ordered re-survey which was never resolved… to which may mean we are more screwed than we think.
If you’ve read this far then you get a gold star.
I would love to hear feedback from anyone who has listened to the Agenda31 podcast.
Cheers,
Todd

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, Mike Berntsen wrote:

If the 14th ammendment was ratified in 1868 and the current Iowa constitution was ratified in 1857, then how would gov-co(admin state of DC) have established a new admininstrative state that oversees it’s federally domiciled “inmates” in Iowa?  Through ammendments to the 1857 consitution?  How would that work?   in Cali it sounds like a brand new constitution was ratified(but was the constituion for the DC admin state- an entirely different government/jurisdiction), but in Iowa could they establish a new gov/jurisdiction via ammendment to the actual people’s state of Iowa?  

Trying to grasp all of this.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Mike Berntsen
Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [SuperLiberty] The whitewash continues
To: SuperLiberty-list@meetup.com

Todd, are you saying Iowa may have never legitimately been a people’s state because of territory disputes?  If that’s the case, would Iowa exclusively be under gov-co admin jurisdiction?  I believe I’ve heard you and Corey reference New Jersey in the same light. 

Thanks,  Mike B

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Silver Eagle Trust <seagle@netins.net>
Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:32 AM
Subject: 1846 Iowa Constitution
To: Todd McGreevy

For 11 years banks were out-lawed in the state of the Union named Iowa.
On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:27 PM, Michael D. Elliott <info@meetup.com> wrote:
It’s less of a question of the federal government somehow pulling the wool over the voters eyes and installing a different constitution and more of a question of statutory law vs common law.
I covered all this in my show yesterday night.
The constitutions are created under common law and the gov Corp issues are directly related to the statutory laws that both the state and the federal government try to impose on citizens as if they are employees of the government.
A citizen is not under the justification of statutory law and yet everyone continues to file for marriage licenses and various other licenses all the time.
In some states common law is not recognized within their statutory system.  Does that make your common law right to contract or marry any less valid?  Nope.  It just means if you want the gov Corp to give you their gov Corp benefits you need to use their system rather than the common law system.
Two totally different legal jurisdictions.  Two different rights and responsibilities as well.
On Dec 8, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Michael D. Elliott wrote:
Here is a great website that helps to explain the differences between the common law system and the statutory(legislative) system.
Remember, the people determine the law and are the final arbiters of the law.  The government is inferior to law and can only write statutes.
All are equal under the law, no one is equal under the statutes.
The law concerns human rights, statutes concern government granted privileges.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, Michael D. Elliott wrote:

Here is another way to describe the differences between common law and statutory law.
Common law are based on the natural law principles and are commonly referred to as negative rights.  They do not grant anyone anything they don’t already have and they cannot impose anything on anyone through their action and existence.  Common laws are discovered through case law and jurisprudence.
Statutory laws are man made and can impose obligations on others based on their consensual contracts and agreements.  Other variations obviously are contract law, administrative law, admiralty law and so on…  These are called positive laws.  They are created by a law making authority whether it be an individual or a body representing people.
Here is a basic dictionary description of what I am talking about.
P.S.  Non of this has anything to do with lower case or capital letters, old or new constitutions or any other complicated explanations.
It just two different jurisdictions of law.
Remember, I have actually fought and won in courts using common law and juries.  Statutes are irrelevant in those cases.
I currently have a driver’s license only under duress and harassment  and I have filed a public statement with the recorders office that I always file with any court documents should the need arise.
I did not get a marriage license when I got married and I opt out as often as possible and as far as my wife allows, hahaha
You are under no obligation to subject yourself to the statutory legal system, however, agents of the government are extremely ignorant of legal systems and you may face some injustice and hardship from not consenting willfully.
There is nothing lawful or peaceful about being forced into contract with the government or any of its departments and that is what we need to address and fight against as a society.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Mike Berntsen
Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:29 PM
Subject: [SuperLiberty] The whitewash continues
To: SuperLiberty-list@meetup.com

That all makes sense, but I find Corey and Todd’s concept of state citizenship very appealing, and if Corey is succesful in bringing state citizenship(as opposed to residency) back from just a paper government it would be a beautiful thing.   I’m afraid that you having a drivers license, under duress or not, will classify you into govco jurisdiction and judges/law enforcement will give no shits about your duress and treat you as chatell. I am curious about your successes with common law.  Can I learn about it on your recent podcast?  
 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Michael D. Elliott
Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [SuperLiberty] The whitewash continues
To: SuperLiberty-list@meetup.com

My show isn’t specifically about teaching anything.  It’s more of a debate and social entertainment show on YouTube.
If you want basics about maintaining the proper jurisdiction, protecting an impartial court and how to win a jury trial, that would have to be a one on one thing as I am not an attorney and I’m not about to put lessons online, hahaha