Original 13th Amendment — “Package deal” case study

The “constitution” is a “package deal.” It’s not a group of
concepts that may be accepted in part. Where those concepts are not accepted, and
implemented, collectively, in toto, the “message” is that it’s
just simply “not there,” at all. The “constitution” is one
of those classic “all or nothing” matters.

https://www.ixquick.com/do/search?keyword=%22original%2013th%20amendment%22%20%2Bbill

“Partial” application is the confession of our present legal reality
that we do not now have, and have never had, a “constitution” as the
language that brings the national governmental system into existence. Since the
“constitution” is not now and has never been “admissible
evidence of law,” it not only didn’t create the national system but also
can’t limit the national system, either.

That hardly means that this “federal” system is without limits, for
it surely has limits.

It just means that the limits are within the individual’s hands to exercise.

Since the system functions commercially, the problem and the solution are both
in the hands of each individual.

While the use or non-use of funny money is substantially beyond the control of
individuals, the decision to “volunteer” into the various
“gotcha agreements,” the “choice of law” of which is
greatly influenced by the existence (and use) of the “funny money,”
is 100% within the control of all individuals. It may be that one prefers life
on the (commercial) plantation to life without the “gotcha agreements.”
For those who are able to trust God [YAHUWAH] to provide, life off the
(commercial) is certainly survivable.

All that in mind, the recent discussion about the Original 13th Amendment is
just one more “perfect” case study that proves that we
not only have no “constitution” now but also have never had a
“constitution.”

The practical question is this: how does original language, allegedly “law
of the land,” simply get removed from the printed versions?

Answer. It doesn’t.

So, what went with the Original 13th Amendment?

It was simply “edited” out.

How can that be?

Because the whole of the language was never “admissible evidence of
law” in the first place.

Where only “part” is “as good as” the whole, and where the
whole is a “package deal,” “all or nothing,” it follows
that where part is missing, it’s not just the part that’s missing but rather
the whole that’s missing.

It’s been that way from Day One.

We’re not dealing with a “constitutional” system.

We’re dealing with a “federal” system.

“Federal” means “federal,” as in, “by agreement.”

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : [email protected]