it-was-asserted that-legitimacy-of-the-Constitution-derived-from-the act-of-ratification.

please note that the 'WEST' demon-autcraz-y has only subverted sovereign-authority-by-weight-of-numbers and-by-owning-policing-and the courts after-killing-off-the-indigenants-,and-bringing-in -ever-more-NEW-austr-alians
[to wit in-australia ,by killing the 25 million-AB-origonal's down to 400,000 ,then forcing might-is-right upon them via jails and a 'just us system'
[while dumbing-them-AND-us-down,via-a-failing-re-education-system and holding them-in-the-deserts-and-us-in-suburban-seclusion-in isolation-in-suburbia, after killing off their leaders]
SOVEREIGNITY-WAS-NEVER-CEEDED
AND_THE_REST_OF_US_WERE_CONNED,by-a-teo-party-farce-[both-run-by-beuroc-rats]

Adoption-of-the-Constitution-required-ratification-by-the-requisite nine-of-13-states.[or-the-implied-uninformed-concent-of-a-afew-thousand-people-near-a-100-years-ago]

via usa inc invader constitutional requirments
but even by our federal constitution-no-108'

[''EVERY_LAW_THAT_IS_IN_FORCE-in-a-coleny-that-becomes-a-STATE
relating-to-any-matter-within-the-powers-of-the-parliment-....
SHALL-subject-to-this-constitution-,continue-in-force-in-the-state''

[ie sovereign ab-origonal law [that preceeded this con-stitution, can in no way be subverted or nulified, by the act of this colenisation-con-situation
THE constitution can only apply to those under the constitutional boundry[or by] under any act of the constitutional powers
This point needs to be stressed.con-isnt-law-nor-legal-but-maritime-juris-stiction--might-makes-right-[for-its-own]

Authority for the USA Constitution derives from no sovereign or transcendental power but by “we-the-people” who alone gave their ratification.
[but not from the-sovereign [invaded]people who's right cannot be subverted , only surrendered in ignorance]

under-the-constitution-are-laws-affecting only-those-belonging[or claiming to belong] to australia-incorperated under-the-powers-of-the-constitutions
[those having [or using federal or state birth registration , become serfs thus fall under the courts maritime powers by applying for birth /or licencing-regestration that allows the elites to rule over the australian-civilians ,

thinking the constitution empowers-them [it-dosnt it-ensures-we are allequally-powerless [WE-have-to-vote ,WE-have-to-regester [cars-people-land-contracts-buisnesses-taxfiles-etc , WE_have-to-pay rates-tax-even-water-THE-Right to-pay through the nose etc-to-pay-for-those-working-FOR_us?

[WE-have-to or face the-weight-of-the-law court-orded-fines-adminestered-by-an-inbred-beurocratic-beurocracy, that-adminesters-these-things-NOTING-their-pensions-are-in-a-60-billion-trust-fund-safely-paid-up-front-by-howard-and-co ,raised-from-selling-your-telecom/telstra,for who-s-bennefit?]

THERE IS NO doctrine of the separation of powers; [lawyers become judges [or polititions making-ever-more-laws-acts , trusts , colluded deals for-their mates]

it included an Executive, a Legislature with two houses, each to check the other and a Judiciary separate from the other branches of government.
[but none of them legitimatly holding title to the land or its resources]

The inclusion of the judiciary was a distinctive contribution by the USA framers to the wholesale slaughter of indigenants and strealing their assets [by slave labour] ie the working wage [1/60th what it was in the twenties]look at the gross bonus paid to the bankers stealing it all with paper money

[read your own con115;A_STATE_SHALL_NOT_COIN_money-NOR-make ANYTHING-but-gold-or-silver_A_LEGAL_tender-in payment-of-debt
ie not any debt
nor even the stolen wages

Interesting article, I really enjoyed reading it. I'm also enjoying the way how different posters see history. That's why history is one of the most fascinating subjects.

And isn't it predictable how those who loudest proclaim the superiority of the 'democratic West' are most dismayed about differences of opinion?

Try and separate the concept of democracy from political philosophical ideas. Right wing conservative does not equal democracy. That's the thing with allowing the plebs to vote, you just might not get the outcome you like. Some of the unwashed masses just might not know what is good for them.

PS

Democracy is dead.

Just for the record.

Paul.L and Cowboy Joe

First, Paul.L, I hate to admit it but your piece made me laugh, and not at you but with you (apart from the occasional lapses into attacks ad hominem.)

Cowboy Joe suggest we lefties go to Cuba. Of course US imperialism's blockade of a small island has destroyed its economy. But an even more important point is that Cuba is not and never has been socialist. The working class as a class played no role in the overthrow of Batista. Wage relations continue. Castro's "I am a Marxist-Leninist" speech occurred 2 years after his petit bourgeois conquest of power when it was clear the US was not sympathetic and he had to turn to the Stalinist USSR for support.

The mistake Cowboy Joe and Paul.L make is to equate Stalinism with Stalinism and to berate those of us who view this state capitalist monstrosity as the antithesis of socialism. Socialism is the democratic rule of the working class to ensure production occurs to satisfy human need, not to make a profit. Stalinism is capitalism.

The rise of Stalin was the defeat of the revolution.

I know this is a dialogue of the deaf (and maybe I am very hard of hearing too) but it does help if people leave aside stereotypes and think independently and critically for a change.

And Paul.L I would like you to address my historical analysis (something Ellen might do too) that, basically, freedom and democracy are a consequence of the struggle of workers and others (ie from below), often against the wishes of the dictatorship of capital.

One of the downsides of raw democracy used to be that if you were
affiliated with a group that was less fecund, the more fecund other(s)could change the law to take away your chattels, or stop you from chatting at all.

To mitigate against this liberal societies enshrined inalienable -individual rights.

Three centuries ago the trend was for power to move from the few to the many but now it has reversed. The rights of few now often override the rights of the many. We now have the rights of terrorists to a good nights sleep, to personal space , to a seat. And the right of lawyers to grandstand. And some (minority) groups now have -special rights- like the right to special reseves, or right to reserved seats in parliament.

For all of that …it could be worse.
Imagine –a democratic UN (without veto powers). Where the national representatives have had ( benefit of) the same history professor as Johncee1945 or Passy, and see colonialism-imperialism as a peculiar Western contagion (despite all evidence that everybody, at one time or other, was involved) and were hell-bent on seeking ‘just’ recompense. Now that would be tyranny of the majority.

V ictoy for justice & democracy –only if you have a myopia

Don't know whether you are an academic, Passy, but you've sure got the insight to see that Western capitalistic democracy has never really been built on fair play.

Even Adam Smith, father of Laizess faire gave mention, when he warned that because capitalist competition is based on the need for human greed to take its course, we do need the historical Avant Guarde to be ever prudent.

Regards - BB, WA.