:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Conference Call every Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning; at: 8:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Our Conference Call number is: (857) 232-0158
Conference Code: 110045

While on the Conference Call:
To mute your phone: press: 4*
To raise you hand for a question or comment: press: 5*

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

In conjunction with our Success Network
We announced our participation in the
Self Made Man Contest
on our Facebook and Twitter pages.

What is the new Self Made Man platform?
It’s kinda like Netflix, but better.
The content and platform will help you change your life, and the world…

It launches: February 20th
And, to celebrate,
they’re giving away over
$35,000 in cash and prizes!

Click here to
Enter Now!!!

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by moving your cursor to the upper right corner of the announcement's green background and clicking the “X”.

Two Constitutions Source?

The forum is for discussing the myths found on the Team Law website's Patriot Mythology page.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday January 10th, 2011 6:35 am MST

Two Constitutions Source?

Postby MarushiaDark » Tuesday January 11th, 2011 5:43 am MST

I have heard on numerous sites that there are two Constitutions. Your own site (under History) makes this claim as well, suggesting that there is a difference between "Constitution of the United States of America" and "United States Constitution." I understand the logic behind this; but by your own standards, without a substantial source, it is simply rhetoric and patriot mythology. I have been to your Online Resources page and even followed a link under "Searchable Documents" that said "The U. S. Constitution, (Corporation’s version)," thinking that you guys had linked to a source for such statements. Upon review, this is what I found: Amendments 11-27

In your History section, you allege that the United States Constitution's 13th Amendment was not the slavery issue, but in fact the Amendments had been renumbered and shifted, with such a matter being absent (thereby suggesting that slavery was permissible in Corp U.S.).

Furthermore, you say that the original Constitution already had a 16th Amendment, but I cannot seem to find a source for that either. I am aware that, during the original drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there were two Amendments that didn't get passed, but this would only bring the total up to twelve, and I would assume such failed Amendments would not still be included in the document by the time it came to determining a 16th. Even still, such a thing would necessarily require the reordering of ALL the Amendments, not just the later ones, if that were the case.

So what's the deal here? Why can't I find it? Are you holding out on us? Is the NWO really that good at hiding this other Constitution from us? I'm already aware of the Standard for Review and all that and I'm telling you I looked and it wasn't there. I want a real source this time, that I can compare side by side, or an explanation, or a retraction. [no]

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Two Constitutions Source?

Postby Admin » Tuesday January 11th, 2011 11:33 am MST

:h: MarushiaDark:
Sometimes some people look at some of the things we present on our website and they imagine we are anti-government. However, nothing could possibly be further from the truth. We are dramatically pro government; which should be obvious by the nature of our constant plea for the people to awaken and learn the law so that they can return to their obligation to control the government and require it to follow the law.

Elemental to that quest is the discovery of the Constitutions themselves. You noted that we published the acknowledgment of more than one Constitution; but, you also implied that we were saying the same thing you found on numerous other sites and provided no evidence of the fact. To that issue we remind you that it is not our intent to do your work for you; rather, it is our intent to inspire you to do your own research to prove the facts for yourself. Though Team Law is an educational organization our purpose is to inspire people to learn how to learn the law and its history through self-education by doing their own hands-on research. Thus, we appreciate your actually embarking on such a study. However, we remind you that it is not our purpose to do your work for you. Thus, we have made many claims without providing the actual evidence itself; which proves the claims. Instead, we provided many references making it reasonably easy enough for anyone with a desire to find such evidence.

For example: you referred to our website’s reference to there being more than one Constitution “under History”. A review of that linked reference will find a historical discussion where close reading will point our three distinct constitutions by the names:
  1. Constitution for the United States of America:
      This is the original Constitution as it was generated from the college of deputies that sat in convention to do what was necessary to resolve the problems of the Articles of Confederation. This Constitution had only the original seven Articles and no amendments. It formed the government after the pattern of a Trust; wherein, the people granted a limited portion of their individually inherent sovereign authority to be collectively used by the government in accord with the conditions stipulated in the Constitution; thus, providing the limited collective sovereignty necessary for the government to function. This Constitution bears the signatures of the signatures of the deputies so convened and its Title is found in the last seven words of its Preamble: “Constitution for the United States of America“;
  2. Constitution of the United States of America:
      Again our presentation of History provides this original Constitution was formed by adding the Bill of Rights to the first Constitution listed hereabove. It was formed as a limiting contract each elected official of said government is required to take an oath of allegiance to; in order to serve in the capacity of the office so held. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights not only clearly distinguishes the distinct nature of the original Constitution (listed at “1.” above) by both acknowledging its Resolution was made by the Congress that had been so formed by that Constitution and by acknowledging that several States had already adopted it and respectively requested that the Bill of Rights be amended to it; then designating the so amended document as the “Constitution of the United States of America”; and,
  3. United States Constitution:
      As per our presentation of our History this final Constitution was not generated until 1871 where it acquired its ratification and name in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. It was simply called the United States Constitution. It can easily be distinguished from the two original constitutions by its lack of the original 13th Article of Amendment that was passed and ratified in 1818 in accord with the laws of our nation. Again, it is not our job to do your work for you. Rather, if you have an interest in discovering the evidence that supports the History as we presented it; you can certainly follow the trail we provided to discover that evidence as well.
The trail is actually quite well marked and we provided sufficient information about it to get you going on the correct path. The key is to follow the Standard for Review and use the actual records of documented law and its history instead of third party input.

As a side note to that, we followed the path you described in your inquiry to our Online resources page’s reference to Searchable Documents where we followed the link, which had been provided as you said: “The U. S. Constitution, (Corporation’s version)”. We found that the site located at that link had changed a bit to include the National Archives presentation of not only the Corp. U.S. version of their Constitution but also now included significant other original jurisdiction documents as well. So, we changed the verbiage at that link to be more appropriate for the documents now found there.

Respectively, thanks for pointing that necessary adjustment out to us. (Such is the danger in linking to external sources—they do tend to change over time necessitating maintenance—so, thanks again.)

You incorrectly alleged we indicated Slavery was permissible in Corp. U.S.; however, we cannot understand what you derive such an allegation from. You also questioned the existence of the original 16th article of amendment; which had nothing to do with any amendment offered but not ratified (as was the case of the absent 1st and 2nd articles that were not originally ratified in the Bill of Rights). The original jurisdiction Constitution grew to contain 16 amendments the 14th of which was what the Corp. U.S. Constitution numbers as their 13th amendment. The original order of amendments in our Constitution is the same as the order in Corp. U.S.’ with the exception that Corp. U.S. removed the original 13th article of amendment and renumbered the original 14th, 15th and 16th articles as their 13th, 14th and 15th articles of amendment. That is easily observed by reviewing official publications of the Constitution of the United States of America from that time and comparing them to the United States Constitution as it has been published since that time. Again, we are not going to do your work for you and provide you those original publications but you may easily find them on your own to justify your curiosity on that matter. It is a quite well established fact of record.

You claim that you looked and could not find the original 16th article of amendment. We expect your difficulty was you were looking for the wrong thing. The amendment you are referring to is numbered 15 in the United States Constitution. Accordingly, it is quite easy to find. We expect you may have a difficulty in finding it numbered that way because as several amendments were, it was passed and ratified as a proposed amendment without any designating number. Just as is the case with Corp. U.S.’ 27th article; it was originally proposed on, Sept. 25, 1789, as the First Article of the Bill of Rights twelve articles; however, it was not ratified as an amendment to the United States Constitution until, May 7, 1992. Thus, it only received a designation as a constitutional amendment when it was ratified. On, February 3, 1870 the 16th Article of Amendment was ratified with its contents as follows:
    Section 1.
    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
    Section 2.
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    The 16th article was simply the 16th amendment to be ratified
Whereas that amendment was so ratified such a short time before the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 was passed, finding publications of it numbered as the 16th amendment may now be virtually impossible. Quite frankly, we expect pursuing such a thing is likely a complete waste of time; given the fact that such a publication could not possibly change the fact that it was the 16th article to have been so ratified to the Constitution of the United States of America. Thus, proof of its publication as such is verified by the historical record of its well established timely ratification on the date shown above; which is a certainty in the History of the United States of America.

To delve into this matter further would require Team Law beneficiary support; however, the essence of all of what we provided here is already on our website, so we can give you this much of a hint to help you as you continue to study and learn the law with its history. Please remember as you continue on that path—it is not Team Law’s responsibility to do your research for you. We stand by what we have presented on our websites. Our purpose in presenting so much information is to inspire people to study the law. That does not mean that we will do your research for you. If you have looked for a particular piece of evidence and have not found it, that places neither a burden upon us to do your work for or to retract anything we presented. You are welcome to continue to research the law until you find the evidence you seek or not—it is your choice!

Further, at that level of inquiry, the only way we would be able to help you learn how to study or understand the law or its history better would be if you were a Team Law beneficiary. Until then you will have to do with the information and resources we have already provided.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.

As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Monday January 10th, 2011 6:35 am MST

Re: Two Constitutions Source?

Postby MarushiaDark » Tuesday January 11th, 2011 3:04 pm MST

From your response, you seem to suggest that I ought to look in the D.C. Organic Act for the answer I seek. I will certainly try that, if that is indeed what you are suggesting.
Admin wrote:You incorrectly alleged we indicated Slavery was permissible in Corp. U.S.; however, we cannot understand what you derive such an allegation from.
The reason for the confusion and why I thought slavery was somehow permissible in Corp U.S. was because the National Archive page (linked on your Online Resources page) claims that the 13th Amendment was the one that freed the slaves, which was ratified in 1865. But the D.C. Organic Act, which you say removed the 13th Amendment, didn't come out until 1871. So I presumed that the Amendment they were removing was the slavery one. But it seems that's not the case.

So I guess the question now is what the original 13th Amendment was that got removed. :?

User avatar
Posts: 11
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 3:01 pm MDT

Re: Two Constitutions Source?

Postby Tnias » Friday January 14th, 2011 1:48 pm MST

As Team Law has already provided the information you now seek regarding the original 13th Amendment is a matter of historical record anyone can easily research. Accordingly, you should look that information up for yourself using the many resources available to you especially as you have already found available through direct links from Team Law Online resources page.
"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom, and of our spouses, our children, and our peace."

Return to “Patriot Mythology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest