Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

ConstitutionGovernmentHistoryOpinionPoliticsSupreme Court

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED Used to Be What America Was All About

by Mike Martin
Clash Daily Guest Contributor

A Constitutional Government (U.S. Constitution) requires the consent of the governed. We are no longer governed by a Constitutional Government. Do they have our consent?
Many people/voters/useful idiots think that we are a Democracy. We are NOT a Democracy. Get an education people/voters/useful idiots – we are a Republic.  It has been said that a Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch. . . which is true enough, but there hasn’t been a good definition of what a Republic is that I have discovered to date.  
I believe that a Republic requires good, honest men to try to run the government for a limited period of time, before they get corrupted by the power they wield and become “Politicians” and gorge at the public trough. Unfortunately we are being governed by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. When is the last time that an Administration held a prior administration accountable for the fraud conducted/authorized by them ?
Don’t look for John Cornyn to make a difference. He too frequently votes like a Democrat – see Breitbart article link that follows –
Congress is now so corrupt that they happily ignore the wishes of the voters, so I find my consent to be governed by them lacking, as they lack the honesty to represent the voters.
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect us from these idiots who write unconstitutional laws; instead, they ignore the clear meaning of words to twist and contort unconstitutional law by finding clearly unconstitutional provisions/laws as constitutional. I have sincere doubts whether five or six of the Justices have even read the Constitution and its amendments, or if they have read it then they clearly lack the understanding of anyone with a sixth grade education. Since they are no longer fulfilling their Constitutional Duties, I can clearly not give them my consent to be governed by their decisions.
What about the President and his “executive orders”? The purpose of executive orders is to provide direction to employees of the federal government in doing their job, not to provide direction for civilians. Thus, probably, the majority of his “executive orders” are also unconstitutional, and he doesn’t have my consent to issue them.  If you believe that I will submit to what I consider to be an unconstitutional executive order, then I have a N.Y. bridge that I’d like to sell you !
On a recent note, both my wife and I received jury duty summons this past week, requiring us to answer a questionnaire, and requesting that we do it over the internet. My wife completed hers online, while I requested a paper application. It must be completed truthfully to the best of your knowledge and belief or you can be charged with felony perjury. This in a country where an ex-president states that it depends on what your definition of “is” is. It’s abundantly clear to me that I don’t have the same understanding of words that our government has (note – I retired with over 30 years of government experience which included time spent in writing “governmentese” instructions to implement some law and regulations ). For example, the internet version requests you check your race – Asian, Pacific islander, White, Hispanic, African-American, etc. All the above was not a choice, neither was “human” race.
How about all these fines for not making a “gay” wedding cake ? The defendants allowed the case to be heard by an Administrative Law Judge (alj) who works for the agency who made/wrote the asinine regulations that they were fined under. If you find yourself “charged” by an alj do not make a plea, as that can constitute acceptance of that venue for your case. Instead, state that you are entitled to a trial by jury in front of an elected judge, therefore you refuse to recognize the alj’s jurisdiction of the case. I would find it unbelievable that an actual jury would fine the defendants for following their religious beliefs. Think about it. 
My wife requested an exemption based upon her age and infirmities. She will probably get one. I won’t request an exemption, but probably won’t be called, and if called – won’t be selected to serve on a jury. I am probably too knowledgeable on our constitution and laws and jury responsibilities for them to want me to serve. We’ll see. More to come . . .
Lord, grant me the wisdom and courage to write in accordance with your wishes as a part of your plan to do thy will, even if I only serve as a bad example – let thy will be done! In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.


mike martinMike Martin thanks you for the opportunity to express “different points of views”, and if you were to ask his family they would probably tell you that he’s as different as they come….

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *