Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The God-Given Right to Contract v. The U.S. Commerce Clause

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    The God-Given Right to Contract v. The U.S. Commerce Clause Arnie, I can faithfully say that I am a constitutionalist in every sense of the word. However, I am
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment


      The God-Given Right to Contract
      v.
      The U.S. Commerce Clause


      Arnie, I can faithfully say that I am a constitutionalist in every sense of the word. However, I am very much a Bible Believer. When the two come in conflict with one other, it is obvious which authority I must yield my allegiance to.

      When our Forefathers wrote into the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, their supposed powers to govern commercial activity, I do believe they over stepped their bounds.

      Commercial activity preexisted governments, and was established by God Himself. Hence, it follows that since commercial activity is purely within the providence of God, it is beyond the powers and authority of governments to detract, diminish, or expand upon this God ordained activity. Christ Himself stated "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."  Matthew 22:21. Commercial activity is clearly an activity which exists within the powers of contract. You and I have the unlimited power to contract with one another without the interference of governments. This is so even if you are on one side of the border and I on the other of a state. The power to enter into the question lies only if the one of us beseeches government settle a dispute that might lie between us, but not to legislate the powers to contract.

      The Constitution is in contradiction with itself on the powers of the right to contract. Article I, Section 10, Clause I sets forth "No state shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts." While we understand these words, we do not follow them. For instance, we have the California Contractor's License Bureau that authorizes one to contract with another. But we ask these questions, is California a State? If yes, then is the law governing the Contractor's License Bureau a law? If yes, then does the Contractor's License Bureau deal with the right to contract? If yes, then is not California violating Article I, Section 10, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution? The answer to this is quite clear, YES! How do they get away with this? Either no one is challenging it, or the courts are not respecting the Constitution. Of course, you know my opinion on that, and it is the latter.

      I fully agree with Article I, Section 10, Clause I that it is not within the powers of state governments to interfere with the God-given right to contract. But then what about the federal commerce law. The only way it can be argued is that the federal government can interfere with the God-given right to contract, but the states cannot. That's like me saying that you cannot violate the laws of God, but I can. God's laws are God's laws, and being a confirmed covenant, no man may add thereto, nor diminish therefrom, Galatians 3:15. Either the laws preventing states from interfering with the right of contract must also apply to the feds, or both my interfere with the God-given right to make covenants.

      In I Thessalonians 4:10, & 11, God commands us to work with our hands, "[W]e beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more; And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;" Now where do we see therein any authorization by Congress or the Constitution to obey or not obey this command? There is none, nor can there be one. In fact, Congress is forbidden from making any such law, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," First Amendment. So what does the word "NO" mean? It means that the God-given right to contract is off-limits to both Congress and the states, for the states cannot argue that they can make laws respecting the establishment of religion, but Congress cannot.

      So, the U.S. Constitution is contradictory. Am I going to therefore throw it out? No. But I still refuse to recognize that particular mandate as within the powers of government.

      As to your question, I do believe you have a right to argue this point within either state or the federal courts. But you very well know what I believe when it comes to reliance on the honesty and integrity of our judicial system. Hence, your question is within the subject of the establishment of JAIL4Judges. When things get bad enough, maybe the People will pay attention to what I am saying. Until then, everyone is going to have to go along with the governments view that it has the powers to overcome God's Word.

      Ron Branson
      VictoryUSA@...





      Arnie Rosner wrote:
      Dear Mr. Branson,

      You are held in a very high position of esteem based upon my perception of your knowledge of the law.  From a previous exchange, we have already established I am just a typical person, uneducated in the law.  Therefore may I pose the following question for you to answer drawing upon your infinite legal wisdom and expert knowledge of the law. 

      Admittedly, Mr. Branson, I may be way off here but some of these things simply do not make any sense.  Can you please explain why a private company in America, the "Land of the Brave" and "Home of the Free," must even bother to spend time, effort and money, to file suit against the federal government just to be free to conduct business on a fair competitive basis against other companies which might be owned by Muslims?  Muslims, who are exempt from the same requirement this company had to file suit to achieve this measure of equality.

      Even putting this direct discrimination, based on unfair competitive reasons, aside, are not these types of undue burdens the very same types of restrictions placed upon the colonies and precipitated the issuance of the "Declaration of Rights," circa 1765? 


      Besides being outright discriminatory based on a class distinction, Islam being a cult, does this not also constitute restraint of trade?  Does this not interfere with our inalienable or unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator and the Constitutional protections to earn a living by imposing an unreasonable burden on all of we the sovereign citizens? 

      By the way, according to Senator Feinstein....The U.S. Constitution, (organic) is current in effect.

      Your comments would be appreciated.

      Arnie
       
      Available 24/7 - Defending freedom has become a full-time job!
      arnie@...
      714-964-4056
      714-501-8247 - mobile




    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.