A claim that voting is treason may be looked at as an outrageous headline, either to be ignored for its absurdity, or further researched for a better understanding. Well, before you make a snap judgement, please consider the issues that follow.
If the government passes a law which you believe violates the Constitution, will you obey that law?
No? That's a good thing. And if tomorrow the federal government created a new state government for your state that disenfranchised a large percentage of those in your state, and then they created a new class of citizen, both actions being violations of our dear Constitution -- Would you become one of those citizens and vote in that government? Or would you still disobey everything which came after and refuse to take part in the treason?
If you refused to participate, again, that's a good thing. You wouldn't want to be a party to treason. You would want to be loyal to the Constitution and only to a lawful and consensual government.
And what if I told you all of the above already happened; that this is indeed a case presented against America's 39th Congress and precisely what they did with the Reconstruction Acts of 1867/68, and the unlawful coercing of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Did you know that there is no statute of limitations on violations against our Constitution? Does this shed new light on our current condition? Does it shed new light on Election Day?
For several years now we have promoted the idea that "voting is not the answer". The usual response is, "well then, what IS the answer?" The key is in the statement itself. Voting is not the answer *to violations of the Constitution* because violations which allegedly create legislation or entire systems of government are in fact not laws at all, and may be freely ignored. Take a look at what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
"An unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Therefore an unconstitutional act purporting to create an office gives no validity to the acts of a person acting under color of its authority."
~Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121
Many of us today claim that if some horrendous event were to happen tomorrow which destroys our Constitution (the actions of a new president, for example...hint hint), then we will not comply. But what if that event already occurred?
The following is a short list of violations against our Constitution perpetrated by the Reconstruction Acts:
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort...” The 39th Congress’ defiance of the original object of the War was in fact a new war upon the States, our founding principles and the Constitution. Reconstruction and its maintenance, therefore is nothing less than statutized treason.
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 states that “...no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state...” As a result of Reconstruction, a new state called North Carolina was erected within the same jurisdiction as the old state, while the original body politic was still lawfully operating.
Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states that, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". The constitution of every State also expressly forbids bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial. In total violation of this concept, section 5 of the first Reconstruction Act stated that all who participated in the rebellion were to be disfranchised.
Article 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;...” When Congress changed the body politic, putting the new state in place, this was NOT guaranteeing a republican form of government to the community of free citizens of the original state.
Article 5 of the Constitution states, “The Congress,...shall propose amendments to this Constitution,...provided that ...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” In contradiction to Article 5, original states which participated in the war were not allowed to vote in the U.S. Senate during the proposal of the 14th Amendment, thought they were in fact states which had participated in the amending of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery.
The 5th Amendment makes these statements, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” The Reconstruction Acts declared an entire body of people to be guilty; not allowing them to have their own form of government unless they first adopted the 14th Amendment. This is a total violation of the due process law that is represented in this 5th Amendment.
These violations annulled existing states during times of peace, disenfranchising, through illegal Bills of Attainder, a large percent of those in the states, and creating new states (both body politics and government) for a new national class of citizen who would be loyal to and receive benefits from a national form of government. Federalist 39 was of course very clear on the stance that our form of government was not intended to be national, but instead that we were intended to be a federal Union, having a very LIMITED federal government.
“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution." - Federalist 39
Federalist 39 continues to explain what a national government looks like, in order to clarify that the new Constitution did not fall under this definition.
“The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things [...] Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. [...] In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only.” - Federalist 39
Today, we find ourselves directly in the midst of the "indefinite supremacy over all persons and things" spoken of by Federalist 39. The very national U.S. Citizens rage against one another over a decision for an office originally given charge of but a few enumerated powers, but which now exercises dominion such that the elected's opinions can divide an entire country down the middle.
So, is our goal to get everyone to stop voting? No. Keep up the pressure on the occupiers. However, we must develop a second track. A NEW track. We should begin to recognize that that great horrendous event against our Constitution has, in fact, already happened, and that our duty to stand on what was before has been our duty for quite some time now. A duty which, to this point, WE the people have been neglecting. In short, we support abstaining the vote only when such abstinence means that you will now be actively promoting, participating in, and supporting lawful government.
Friends, I leave you with this thought on today, Election Day. It's time to re-establish the states.