No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Which law would that be? It is stated that Congress has the power to declare war however as I am coming to the realization that the ONLY legitimate Law is the Bill of Rights I posit that no soldier shall EVER be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner. Who is the ‘owner’? Now I ask have we (American Nationals) ever been the owners? Why is ‘owner’ capitalized?
Ownership is a right. It has existed and exists in direct correlation to the will to enforce that right. Anybody who thinks I don’t own my guns need only try to take them from me and I will establish ownership by shooting them in the face, and as they do not get my gun and I keep it, I own it.
As there has never been one legal transaction made by the treasonous aristocracy in their fiduciary capacity, they own nothing but the rope that belongs around their necks.
Our absolute law was obtained at the barrel of a gun and those who wrote it down and ratified it made it clear that ultimately that is how we would have to maintain it. In reading the Anti-Federalist Papers, you can see that those who wrote them knew exactly what the intent of the aristocracy was and is, and that is why the common law/Bill of Rights is constructed the way it is.
I believe our true founders knew that the first goal of the aristocrats would be to remove our courts and usurp our authority.
As to why the word Owner is capitalized, I have to say you’ve got me there.
It is in fact an erroneous word as true ownership comes down to patent. You can say you are the owner of the property, but the corporation holds the patent on the property. This is how they can charge you tax on your property, because only the person who holds the patent can make money from the property.
In the past, there were those among us, generally not the common people, who held allodial title for their property. Those people owned their property. Now, except for the international elite, none can obtain allodial title for their property. Why? Because of that 14th Amendment. A subject cannot own property. A subject and everything, including the clothes on his or her back, belong to his or her sovereign, including their very being.
Enough to make you want to kill the sovereign, huh? Especially when your sovereignty has been removed through fraud by someone so spineless and weak they couldn’t roll you over if you were dead.
When we put the Bill of Rights back into operation, we will have our allodial title, and it won’t be through the charter of a crowned head of Europe or an international church like the Catholic Church. We will have a united states patent office, controlled and administered through the common law and each one of us will protect our allodial rights, first through the courts and if they are usurped, then through our guns, and we will do it as a people as we stay individuals as we will have to deal with collectives like the aristocracy we face right now, who though they are cowards will hire mercenaries to take that which we own.
This is why we have to get every goddamn one of them, clear up to the top of the illuminati if we are ever to know peace, because they will never stop trying to take that which is not theirs until they are in the ground.
Best I can do.
13 thoughts on “The 3rd Article”
One more point for clarification.
‘but in a manner to be prescribed by law.’ Listening to the CD you state the law refers to our law, the BoR/ common law How does our law have the authority to tell me I may have to quarter soldiers? This is bugging me.
If the militia was fully engaged in the defense of a town, wouldn’t we want to move all of our non-combatants out of the war zone, and wouldn’t we want our militia sleeping in the house instead of out in the yard in the snow?
In the case of we the people, I think we would all volunteer our homes to shelter those dying for our liberty. It would be on a war footing. But even if you said no and they did it anyway, the redress for your grievance would be there and the person you would have to file it against would have to be the one who died and killed to maintain your right to do so.
Mary, don’t forget the original lie of the constitution was that our servants were there to bring the unorganized militia together to fight a foreign invasion, but the unorganized militia is also the American free nationals, separate and apart.
Tench Coxe noted the possible probable scenario where we might have to come together as a people to put our own rogue government, which we do now have, out of this country or send them to the gallows. I fear that we both know that the latter is the case in this instance. And if this criminal rogue occupation attempted to quarter THEIR soldiers in our homes, we would enforce that 3rd Article with our 2nd Article. It was kind of a remedy for both situations.
And just one more thing.
Your house might be in a fighting position necessary to win an engagement, in which case the militiamen fighting for the Bill of Rights would have a pretty good reason to give the jury as to why they had to force their way in.
Again, a fluid situation.
Better be bacon and eggs at the ready at day break as well. Homemade strawberry jam and toast, hot coffee and a danish with fresh fruit wouldn’t be a bad Idea either. 🙂
All excellent points Henry. Thank you. Of course I would gladly and willingly provide for our militia. This is one Article many seldom give much consideration but may need to as the time draws near. I have been making provisions for just such a scenario. I love the discussion.
So, if I am correct in the translation, and I’ll use an example, while admitting my density to grasp: my father owns 5 acres up north, this is his acreage, he doesn’t ‘rent’, or make monthly payments to whom he bought it from, and assumes he can do as he pleases on said acres. However, since he pays property/real estate taxes on said acreage, he does not truly “own” (in the constitutional def” those 5 acres?
That’s right Dani, he is actually leasing it from the government who claims ownership.
Hence the building “permit”, the fence “permit”, the safety “permit”, the zoning “permit”, etc. ad infinitum. They are all requests for permission as in “I will ‘permit’ you to do this to MY land.” The land rental/lease is what their courts recognize and that’s why they would throw him off “his” land and be recognized as “legal” with him having no recourse on his behalf because it was all done “legally”. Like marriage licenses, it is merely an introduction of a third party into a 2 party agreement. One of the caveats of introducing “gay marriage” wasn’t to benefit gays, it was to push an agenda as well as to feed divorce lawyers, enrichen the court coffers and give them access to wealth that would have remained between the 2 parties involved. Marriage license between a man and woman was already beyond their so-called “powers” but through propaganda they touted it as “making it all legal”. Yes, it was “legal”(and absolute degenerate rubbish to undermine the traditional nuclear family), but certainly not lawful. The average divorce cost in legal fees, per side, is 10-20k for every year it drags on. Foreclosure and seizures will ultimately happen due to the inability of either side to pay even the taxes and the money pit is put back into play for the next rube to “buy” the illusion. Sadly, the illusion is the only thing purchased.
great comment Martist….and that illusion bubble is about to pop
“Eminent domain entitles the government to take land for public use. · Property owners are rarely successful in stopping governments from taking …”
wiki def– notice how wiki calls you a property owner, LMFAO!
eminent domain.. yet another unlawful act of treason committed by the enemy force in occupation. look up Eminent. merriam Webster’s first definition. Eminence. just like registration.. regis.. regal.. king. permit.. permission.. register for a permit.. ask the king’s permission.. fukin siknin people put up with this.