The Constitution Is A Technical Document

It is a highly technical document. So highly technical that no man of that time could understand it and no one knows what it says or means today. The comman man waited outside the convention hall and asked “What have you wrought us?"

Well if they wrote it why ask the question? Everyone said it was written so the common man can understand it. BA HUMBUG. That’s the Myth you will find in the Informer’s book. Yes you think I am nuts. So go here to see just how highly technical it is.

This proves not even the best of patriots sits down and tears it apart. They accept it at face value they THINK is what it says. Person in mentioned only once and that’s all. The Solicitor General of the US says so with proof. That is the fraud of the con job. No common man wrote it. The Founding farters ADOPTED it. It was not their writing. So rather giving you the whole article I will give you just what Whiting stated about your so common document everyone can understand.

Whiting’s words. Note he says the con job was written in TERMS.

Ever hear of that before? So the common man knowing nothing of law writes TERMS?

Chapter 5
TECHNICAL LANGUAGE TO BE CONSTRUED TECHNICALLY.

The language of the Constitution is peculiar; it is technical; and it shows on the face of it an intention to limit the technical operation of attainders, not to limit the scope or extent of legislative penalties.

If the authors of the Constitution meant to say that Congress should pass no law punishing treason by attainder, or by its consequences, viz., forfeiture of estate, or corruption of blood, they would, in plain terms, have said so; and there would have been an end to the penalties of attainder, as there was an end to bills of attainder. Instead of saying, “Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but shall not impose the penalties of attainder upon the offender,” they said, “Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.”

This phraseology has reference only to technical effect of attainder. The Aworking of forfeitures” is a phrase used by lawyers to show the legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts. Note. Since the publication of the seventh edition, it has been decided by Underwood, J., in the Eastern District Court of the U.S. for Virginia, in the case of U.S. v Latham, first, that the Confiscation Act above cited is authorized by the Constitution; second, that by the terms of that Act (dated July 17th, 1862, ch. 195), as modified by the joint resolution of July 27th, 1862 (No. 63), the punishment of treason is not limited to forfeiture of the life estate of the offender, and is not required to be so limited by the Constitution; but the forfeiture extends to the entire estate in fee simple.
See END Note #13

THE CONFISCATION ACTS OF 1862 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER, NOR AN EX POST FACTO LAW

This act is not a bill of attainder, because it does not punish the offender in any instance with corruption of blood, and it does not declare him, by act of the legislature, guilty of treason, inasmuch as the offenders guilt must be duly proved and established by judicial proceedings before he can be sentenced. It is not ex post facto law, as it declares no act committed prior to the time when the law goes into operation to be a crime, or to be punishable as such. It provides for no attainder of treason, and therefore none of the penal consequences which might have otherwise have followed them from such attainder. ACT OF 1862, SECTION VI, DOES NOT PURPORT TO PUNISH BY TREASON If the death penalty is not influcted on the guilty, and if he be not accused of treason, no question as to the validity of the statute could arise under this clause of the constitution limiting the effect of attainders for treason. No objection could be urged against its validity on the ground of its forfeiting of confiscating all the property of the offender, or of its depriving him of liberty by imprisonment, or of it exiling him from this country. . . .But the crime punished by section 6 is not the crime of treason; and whether there be or be not a limitation to the power of the legislature to punish that crime, there is no limit to its power to punish the crime described in this section,*. See Note, page 111 United States v Latham.

Though treason is the highest political crime known to the codes of law, yet wide spread and savage rebellion is still a higher crime against society; … If the death penalty is not inflicted on the guilty, and if he be

See END Note #14 End of Excerpt

Now tell me, how many Americans that can read what they think are words, does not understand a damn thing it said. Not even you have been exposed to this. This is the first time it was ever shown you. Read the rest of it in terms and there is a lot more than this. Let’s see if you can find them.

The Informer