The purpose of this article is to encourage the discussion of an alternative perspective regarding the true intent and underlying framework of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting correct and proper interpretative process thereof. In order to protect all relevant parties the correct perspective that should be utilized when attempting to properly interpret the U.S. Constitution is to consider Constitutional Law as merely a body of knowledge that is a special and unique subset of Contract Law.
Our position is that the U.S. Constitution is actually a tri-lateral contract between the various branches, departments, agencies and officials of the Federal government, the group of 50 states and various territories, and the totality of all U.S. citizens and legal residents. All three of these groups of aggregated parties have mutually negotiated, either directly or indirectly through their representatives, the original provisions, together with multiple added or amended provisions, while citizens and resident aliens have simultaneously, temporarily and partially surrendered or subordinated a portion of their individual inalienable and common law rights based solely upon their mutual and collective reliance upon the negotiated protections contractually agreed upon, promised, and therefore guaranteed, by their respective State governments, and subsequently the Federal government.
Because many of the rights of the citizens and legal residents are inalienable rights, and the rights of the Federal government and the various States are not inalienable, but merely delegated, there must be a hierarchical interpretive process that maintains the superiority of the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents above the delegated rights of the various States and the Federal government. In addition, because the rights of the citizens were first partially delegated and partially subordinated to the rights of the States, and then subsequently to the Federal government, the rights of the States are, by rule of law, contract, common law, natural law, and common decency, superior to the rights of the Federal government.
When any parties agree to the existence, or establish the existence, of any right or set of rights in any contractual relationship they must always recognize that an appropriate set of naturally corresponding responsibilities also mandatorily coexists. If during the life of the contract there ever appears to be an actual or alleged imbalance between these negotiated, common law, and/or inalienable rights, then there exists the possibility that this imbalance presumptively demonstrates that one party to this special and unique contract is presumably in material breach of the contract through a potentially illegal and/or abusive set of actions, and in order for the contract to remain valid there must exist a set of remedies that will allow the aggrieved party, or parties, to be made whole and restored to an appropriate position and experiential level of inalienable rights.
A set of imbalances can be created by one party in an attempt to impose their will upon the other parties to an agreement. It appears that, during the last 100 years, that the Federal government has gradually, and is currently at an exponential rate, successfully and unilaterally amending the terms of this special and unique contract and has reduced, modified, and/or stolen significant inalienable rights from citizens and legal residents in their attempt to increasingly gain an imbalanced level of superior rights and powers while reducing the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents and promoting mere privileges to the level of alienable rights to persons who are unconcerned with the rule of law and therefore will, unwittingly, assist the Federal government in their pursuit of additional power.
All three branches of the Federal government are guilty of this attempted, and significantly successful, power grab of rights without a corresponding set of increased responsibilities, including the failure to insure the protection of the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents.
The Supreme Court has done so by misinterpreting the true intent and underlying framework of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting correct and proper interpretative process. As a result their opinions have misaligned the natural political order and the original constitutionally created balance of legitimate rights and responsibilities and have therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, assisted and enabled the Legislative and Executive Branches in their own attempts to further unilaterally modify the tri-lateral contract by further shifting man created rights to the Federal Executive Branch while unilaterally, illegally and deceitfully modifying and reducing inalienable rights.
Many citizens of the various states inherently understand that something is not right with the Federal government and the manner that it is operating while others are now beginning to understand exactly what constitutional principles are being violated by the various branches. In order for the contractually agreed upon U.S. Constitution to continue to be a valid agreement between the parties it must be interpreted in a manner that allows all parties to have the necessary level and types of remedies that correspond to their specific level of rights inherent in this special and unique contract. Below is listed a summary of certain contract law principles that should be the basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution and protecting the rights of the citizens and legal residents.
Fiduciary Duty - Because States have partially delegated various rights of their citizens and legal residents to the Federal government they therefore have the fiduciary duty to protect these persons and proactively insure that the Federal government is not allowed to operate in a manner that unilaterally breaches the tri-lateral contract through the usurpation or eliminate of the various inherent rights of their citizens.
Adhesion Contract - Whenever a Federal law or regulation can not be interpreted in a manner that protects the inalienable, natural, or common law rights of a citizen or legal resident of the various states or territories in a manner that maintains their rights at a level that is superior to the inferior rights of a Federal or State government then that law or regulation is invalid and void. Otherwise the U.S. Constitution is invalidated and voidable.
Material mistake of fact - Whenever the basis of a law or regulation is based upon an alleged fact that is incorrect, or later is proven or becomes untrue, then that adopted law or regulation is void, not merely voidable, and the Supreme Court, and all inferior courts, are without the authority to refrain from holding that said law or regulation is void.
Fraud in the inducement - Whenever a Federal legislative act or agency promulgated regulation is publically presented, whether verbally or in writing, by an elected or appointed official, in a manner that is untrue or misleading and is subsequently proven to be untrue, then that adopted law or regulation is void, not merely voidable, and the Supreme Court, and all inferior courts, are without the authority to refrain from holding that said law or regulation is void.