By: Nathanael

Reading Ron Paul's discourse from the House floor was informative on numerous levels. He repeatedly declared that we must return to the “Constitution” as the legal mechanism for restoring freedom and liberty. Without any definition or detail, RP also affirms that virtue and morality in the People are fundamental prerequisites for the return of freedom and liberty. As stirring as his words might seem, RP’s departing speech is riddled with contradictions. One must ask … 

Are the virtue and morality of an unrestricted pro-abortionist (785,000 babies murdered in 2009) the same as someone who holds to the sanctity of life (4D scans show fetuses yawn in the womb)?  

Are the virtue and morality of a parasitic welfare socialist the same as a self supporting, small business owner?  

Are the virtue and morality of a neocon-neolib warmonger the same as a peaceful follower of the non-aggression principle?  

Can there be any fellowship between darkness and light?  

Found about midway into his speech is this excerpt:

No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts. 

Found about 2/3’s into his speech is this excerpt.

Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

If the Constitution is not being used in the courts or the Constitution has failed, how in the world can the Constitution be any part of the solution?! 

This writer had been a fan of RP since the 1980's. He is light years better and less malignant than any other elected official in the past 50 years. Nevertheless, as an elected member of Congress he has been a party to this debacle for decades.

If RP believed that the system was corrupt and evil, he should have taken all the statutory steps available to fix the problems. He did none. Given the countless criminal acts of the US FedGov while in Congress, his oath of office compelled him to file federal criminal complaints or be subject to misprision of a felony or misprision of treason. RP has been negligent in his fiduciary responsibilities without cause. If he was unwilling to use the available statutory tools, RP should have left Congress years ago or shut the hell up.  

There is one sentence from his farewell address worthy of additional scrutiny.  

“Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.”

What exactly does RP mean by this sentence?

If the courts are administrative and unconstitutional, how can we have a constitution in place or in operation?

What are 'administrative courts'?

What are they administrating?

Who set up these administrative courts?

By what authority were they set up?

When were these administrative courts set up?

What were the circumstances that brought about the replacement of constitutional courts with administrative courts?

What acts, if any, did Congress take to set up these administrative courts?

What acts, if any, did the Executive Branch take to set up these administrative courts?

How do we get rid of these administrative courts?

How can we get back to constitutional courts?

Are there any constitutional courts still in place but not being used or occupied?

What are the limitations and policy guidelines under which these administrative courts operate?

Where can one find and read the administrative courts operational guidelines?

What has RP done to correct this problem of unconstitutional administrative courts?

Has RP previously written or commented on this vital topic, and if so when, where and what?

If RP has not written or commented on the unconstitutional administrative courts, why hasn’t he?

What must American citizens do to reestablish constitutional courts?

At what level(s) are the courts unconstitutional and administrative?

Are all the courts, county, state and national, unconstitutional administration courts?

Is the Supreme Court an administrative court too?  If not, then why not?

Since the entire court system allegedly originates in the Constitution, which has failed or does not exist, are there any lawful courts in the country?

Under what law do administrative courts operate/function? It surely can't be constitutional law, right?

Are living-soul People or legal-fiction persons subject to the rulings of these administrative courts?

What must be done to remove oneself from the alleged jurisdiction of these unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, administrative courts? 

For those who have seriously wrestled with the malevolent political mess, the name Lysander Spooner (abolitionist, lawyer, libertarian from the 1800’s) is inescapable. Spooner’s seminal work - “No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority” - is required reading.  

Spooner’s closing statement is more apropos today than when he wrote it.  

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.  

RP is fully aware of Lysander Spooner. He even lists Spooner's “Let’s Abolish Government” as an essential read. Why then is RP mouthing 'constitutional' fixes (You’re Not Free If You Can’t Secede From an Oppressive Government) when the constitution does not exist or has failed? 

If we do not have a constitutional law system in place or operation, RP suggesting that there is a constitutional solution is stupid and insulting.

If we do not have a constitutional law system in place or operation, we have no lawful government but only our necks under the boot of mob tyranny.

If RP was really a truth speaker, he would inform the people where, when and how the ‘constitutional’ wheels went off or were never attached.  

If RP was really a truth speaker, he would use different language/terms like 'peaceful separation' and not empty constitutional terms like secession.  

Based on the existing legal reality, there is no lawful government of the People, by the People and for the People from which to secede. The Constitution has never existed or has long since been DEAD!

This single sentence "Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts." proves that RP knows the full measure of this colossal tyranny.

Ron Paul is a poseur, a liar and a fraud for not speaking the unvarnished truth.  

His farewell address succeeds only in confirming him to be a hypocrite.  

Ephesians 4

25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.  

Ephesians 5

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

7 Therefore do not be partakers with them;  

11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;

12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.  

James 4

17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.


"Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Nathanael is a Biblical Christian from North Texas whose interests include mechanical engineering, tennis and cooking his native South Louisiana cuisine. Nathanael was a past regular contributor to Etherzone

Nathanael can be reached at

Published in the November 27, 2012 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright 1997 - 2012 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!