Black labor, Indian Land and the Constitution
Black labor, Indian land and the Constitution
by ALTON H. MADDOX JR.
Originally posted 9/1/2005
It is frightening that a majority of the persons who are allowed to freely exercise the franchise are clamoring for Supreme Court justices that will construe the Constitution according to its “original intent.” President-select George W. Bush is leading the pack. The Federalist Society is riding shotgun.
In 1787, white male slaveholders met secretly in Philadelphia to conspire against enslaved Africans, Indians and women. The co-conspirators penned a supreme law over stolen Indian land to empower themselves and to oppress all others. White males would enjoy rights. Others would be saddled down with burdens.
White philosophers who inspired its rationale described the Constitution as a social contract. If the Constitution were subject to contract law, it would be declared unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. Instead, it is employed to oppress the powerless.
The common-law rule defines unconscionable as being so one-sided as evidencing a lack of bargaining power and a lack of consent. The lack of bargaining power is also the trademark of an enslaved people. In this situation, courts abandon the rule that a contract must not be questioned. This is not the applicable rule for the Constitution, however.
Looking at the Constitution as a criminal instrument, a conspiracy arose when the founding fathers agreed to commit an unlawful act or commit a lawful act by unlawful means. An agreement to injure another person is, at least, an actionable tort. If the agreement involves the theft of property or the enslavement of humans, it is also a criminal conspiracy.
With respect to enslaved Africans, the Civil War Amendments –Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth – wittingly failed to overthrow the crimes in the original and fundamental principles of “American law.” More importantly, no Blacks were allowed to sit in Congress when these amendments were written.
Their porous language has allowed the Supreme Court to sanction apartheid in the United States more than 137 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. In short, these Civil War Amendments actually give constitutional recognition and protection to Chief Justice Roger Taney’s decision in Scott v. Sanford.
We are at the bottom of the world’s totem pole because we are still in slavery. No other people have suffered this long-standing plight. The Japanese are thriving under a constitution written by Gen. Douglas McArthur after suffering a military defeat in World War Two.
The United States rebuilt the Japanese economy while only limiting Japan’s use of force in its constitution. Japan fared better from Uncle Sam than our ancestors even though it bombed Pearl Harbor. This shows Uncle Sam’s continuing contempt for and repressive mens legis towards descendants of enslaved Africans.
Even if you believe the lies of Bush 43 that Iraq possessed WMDs and was fomenting terrorism, the Iraqis have also fared better than descendants of enslaved Africans. The Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds were at least invited to the lop-sided bargaining table.
Black puppets were not even allowed to participate in the authorship of the Civil War Amendments. This is not the case in Iraq. We are protesting everything except our legal status in the world while we constitute the only group in the world without any semblance of sovereign rights.
On its face, original intent is not a bad word. Intent permeates the law. The different types of intent include but are not limited to testamentary intent, objective intent, transferred intent, predatory intent, donative intent, legislative intent and original intent. Intent is like a substance on the lens of a microscope. It must be dissected.
None of these types of intent are applicable to the construction of the Constitution since it was authored and ratified to protect a kleptocracy. Humans of African ancestry were redefined as chattel and communal property was redefined as private property.
The Constitution gave legal protection to these illegal conversions and established a timocracy. White men enjoyed affirmative action without the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment. Land and labor are critical pillars of capitalism. Whites are still enjoying the fruits of stolen labor and land.
When kleptocrats agree to steal property or kidnap humans and commit an overt act in furtherance of a criminal agreement, prosecutors will construe the transaction in light of criminal intent. On the other hand, oathtakers must legitimize the founding fathers in construing the Constitution. That being the case, original intent has become a euphemism for criminal intent. It is not a synonym, however.
The founding fathers had criminal intent in framing the Constitution. Mens rea connects the dots. This interpretive theory is the approach that Taney employed to define the lack of rights of enslaved Africans and their descendants in the United States. Today, it is euphemistically called original intent.
Blacks herald Brown v. Board of Education as the greatest decision in Supreme Court history. Yet, it was written with criminal intent like Dred Scott. Aside from its false premise, the ruling’s enforcement called for “all deliberate speed.” This is criminal fraud.
A half-century after Brown, the school system in this nation is still separate and unequal. New York’s state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, has successfully argued in practice, so far, that Cummings v. Richmond County Board of Education is still good law.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that, despite Plessy v. Ferguson, Black children are only entitled to an eighth grade education. In 1954, the Supreme Court refused to overthrow Jim Crow. Today, in New York, Black children are squeezed into the lowest spending districts in the state.
Even Spitzer’s mentor, Robert Abrams, has condemned Spitzer for making this Jim Crow argument. Nonetheless, no Black leader in New York has followed suit. Instead, they are all gearing up to endorse Spitzer’s gubernatorial bid. When you are Black and in the Democratic Party, you must follow the party line.
Spitzer won in 1998 on false pretenses and because of the Black vote. Aided and abetted by every Black leader in New York, he is destabilizing the Black community. Our leaders are oathtakers and closet flag-waving patriots. We are endorsing our own oppression.
Spitzer has even intervened in my federal lawsuit to ensure that I never practice law again, with every Black leader acting in concert. The lawsuit was filed last year. He has still refused to answer the federal complaint or disclose the investigatory files of Tawana Brawley.
Any pressure from the Black community would make him fold his tent. In the past, I have single-handedly done it countless times for other persons. It’s all about courage, integrity and racial pride.
by ALTON H. MADDOX JR.
Originally posted 9/1/2005
It is frightening that a majority of the persons who are allowed to freely exercise the franchise are clamoring for Supreme Court justices that will construe the Constitution according to its “original intent.” President-select George W. Bush is leading the pack. The Federalist Society is riding shotgun.
In 1787, white male slaveholders met secretly in Philadelphia to conspire against enslaved Africans, Indians and women. The co-conspirators penned a supreme law over stolen Indian land to empower themselves and to oppress all others. White males would enjoy rights. Others would be saddled down with burdens.
White philosophers who inspired its rationale described the Constitution as a social contract. If the Constitution were subject to contract law, it would be declared unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. Instead, it is employed to oppress the powerless.
The common-law rule defines unconscionable as being so one-sided as evidencing a lack of bargaining power and a lack of consent. The lack of bargaining power is also the trademark of an enslaved people. In this situation, courts abandon the rule that a contract must not be questioned. This is not the applicable rule for the Constitution, however.
Looking at the Constitution as a criminal instrument, a conspiracy arose when the founding fathers agreed to commit an unlawful act or commit a lawful act by unlawful means. An agreement to injure another person is, at least, an actionable tort. If the agreement involves the theft of property or the enslavement of humans, it is also a criminal conspiracy.
With respect to enslaved Africans, the Civil War Amendments –Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth – wittingly failed to overthrow the crimes in the original and fundamental principles of “American law.” More importantly, no Blacks were allowed to sit in Congress when these amendments were written.
Their porous language has allowed the Supreme Court to sanction apartheid in the United States more than 137 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. In short, these Civil War Amendments actually give constitutional recognition and protection to Chief Justice Roger Taney’s decision in Scott v. Sanford.
We are at the bottom of the world’s totem pole because we are still in slavery. No other people have suffered this long-standing plight. The Japanese are thriving under a constitution written by Gen. Douglas McArthur after suffering a military defeat in World War Two.
The United States rebuilt the Japanese economy while only limiting Japan’s use of force in its constitution. Japan fared better from Uncle Sam than our ancestors even though it bombed Pearl Harbor. This shows Uncle Sam’s continuing contempt for and repressive mens legis towards descendants of enslaved Africans.
Even if you believe the lies of Bush 43 that Iraq possessed WMDs and was fomenting terrorism, the Iraqis have also fared better than descendants of enslaved Africans. The Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds were at least invited to the lop-sided bargaining table.
Black puppets were not even allowed to participate in the authorship of the Civil War Amendments. This is not the case in Iraq. We are protesting everything except our legal status in the world while we constitute the only group in the world without any semblance of sovereign rights.
On its face, original intent is not a bad word. Intent permeates the law. The different types of intent include but are not limited to testamentary intent, objective intent, transferred intent, predatory intent, donative intent, legislative intent and original intent. Intent is like a substance on the lens of a microscope. It must be dissected.
None of these types of intent are applicable to the construction of the Constitution since it was authored and ratified to protect a kleptocracy. Humans of African ancestry were redefined as chattel and communal property was redefined as private property.
The Constitution gave legal protection to these illegal conversions and established a timocracy. White men enjoyed affirmative action without the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment. Land and labor are critical pillars of capitalism. Whites are still enjoying the fruits of stolen labor and land.
When kleptocrats agree to steal property or kidnap humans and commit an overt act in furtherance of a criminal agreement, prosecutors will construe the transaction in light of criminal intent. On the other hand, oathtakers must legitimize the founding fathers in construing the Constitution. That being the case, original intent has become a euphemism for criminal intent. It is not a synonym, however.
The founding fathers had criminal intent in framing the Constitution. Mens rea connects the dots. This interpretive theory is the approach that Taney employed to define the lack of rights of enslaved Africans and their descendants in the United States. Today, it is euphemistically called original intent.
Blacks herald Brown v. Board of Education as the greatest decision in Supreme Court history. Yet, it was written with criminal intent like Dred Scott. Aside from its false premise, the ruling’s enforcement called for “all deliberate speed.” This is criminal fraud.
A half-century after Brown, the school system in this nation is still separate and unequal. New York’s state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, has successfully argued in practice, so far, that Cummings v. Richmond County Board of Education is still good law.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that, despite Plessy v. Ferguson, Black children are only entitled to an eighth grade education. In 1954, the Supreme Court refused to overthrow Jim Crow. Today, in New York, Black children are squeezed into the lowest spending districts in the state.
Even Spitzer’s mentor, Robert Abrams, has condemned Spitzer for making this Jim Crow argument. Nonetheless, no Black leader in New York has followed suit. Instead, they are all gearing up to endorse Spitzer’s gubernatorial bid. When you are Black and in the Democratic Party, you must follow the party line.
Spitzer won in 1998 on false pretenses and because of the Black vote. Aided and abetted by every Black leader in New York, he is destabilizing the Black community. Our leaders are oathtakers and closet flag-waving patriots. We are endorsing our own oppression.
Spitzer has even intervened in my federal lawsuit to ensure that I never practice law again, with every Black leader acting in concert. The lawsuit was filed last year. He has still refused to answer the federal complaint or disclose the investigatory files of Tawana Brawley.
Any pressure from the Black community would make him fold his tent. In the past, I have single-handedly done it countless times for other persons. It’s all about courage, integrity and racial pride.
posted by Attorney Alton Maddox at 9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home