This is all well and good EXCEPT for the fact that....
The United States is a Foreign Corporation. Therefore, the Constitution as we know it doesn't apply to them (meaning the powers that "want" to be). When they incorporated, one word they used changed everything.

The real nations' Constitution was called: The Constitution "for" the united States of America.

After incorporation it was called: The Constitution "of" the United States of America.

The simple change of the preposition changes the meaning.

The Federal government is a foreign entity its' powers/jurisdiction limited to Washington D.C.

The States of the union were the ones who had autonomy. The Federal Govt. position was to act as a facilitator between the States. Nothing more.

A thread was posted on this forum which showed that Congress is basically empty. Those who occupy the seats there are Contractors for the govt vs. representatives of the people.

"...The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871."

What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land..." more at
[link to www.serendipity.li]

We have not been governed under the Constitution since this change. There have been two tiers of government. One for those that know this and one for the "sheeple" that gives the impression that things never changed.

Why do you think none of the courts have actively addressed the legality of the current president? Why do you think that the inhabitants of congress have basically said a big Screw You to the people of this nation by committing obvious illegal acts under the "so-called" Constitution without fear of being impeached or retribution for violation of the oath they supposedly took? I could go on but I believe you get my point.

This is the power they have over many--As many fail to see that under everyone's noses, they have changed the rules. That which was supposed to be the facilitator on behalf of the States, has become the Dictator "to" the states.

The Constitution has been replaced by contract law. Failure to voice ones' dissent, has allowed for an implied agreement between the parties involved to set the precedent(s).

Also, I am wondering if the Constitution was ever valid in the first place, as some of the signers of said document, were also lawyers under (and for the court) of King George.
I have not seen anything,whereby those individuals renounced their title of Esquire either before or after their arrival in the new world.

I believe any binding legal agreement under English or Napoleonic Law, must have distinct separation with regard to involvement. Like your lawyer can't negotiate for you and the person you are suing and then sign off on the agreement on both your behalf. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like the Founding Fathers did just that. They did not renounce their legal status under King George, they merely renounced various other behaviours/demands set forth by the Crown and sought to create a government "of the people" in the New World.

If this is true, then one must begin to deal with "them" on the level of Natural Law by understanding where "they" stand and what "they" believe gives them authority to make the decisions they do. When one finds that, one has the key to peacefully putting things back on track.