Such a tyrannical future where property rights would be ignored, where a massive standing army would lurk unchallengeable, where Congressmen would hold office for life, where ruinous treaties would be commonplace, where Presidential powers would make Nero jealous, where gold and silver would vanish from circulation to be replaced by the worthless "notes" of a private banking conglomeration, where the States would be reduced to mere administrative departments of the feds, and where the grasp of taxation would actually reach into the common laborer's paycheck - all this was too fantastic to be even theoretically contemplated during the ratification debates - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

When the duplicitous Hamilton was questioned as to why he helped draft the Constitution, he guardedly replied:

My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast.

He was but one member of the Philadelphia Convention who secretly resented the independence of America. One perceptive dissenter realized this, and wrote:

The Continental convention...was composed of some men of excellent characters; of others who were more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism; and of some who have been opponents to the independence of the United States - (Dissenting Address of the Pennsylvanian Convention, 18 December 1787)

James Madison is considered the "father" of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu, who believed in rule by monarchs. Madison was also influenced by the writings of the British empiricist philosopher John Locke, who was himself "a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company." Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence and pushed the Constitution to keep power well and truly out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-republican ideology, and explained how the illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:

Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it - (Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5)

Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. Before their release to the public, the notes had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact, the "People" referred to, are not the citizens of America, the rank and file. No! They are the elites who rule from within the quite separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control, and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. "We the People"  denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America," the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity mentioned in the last line. Let's read it and uncover the cunning artifice of its authors:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

WE THE RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word "for" is to be found in the last line, and not the word "of." Legally, there is a big difference between:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies that the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo, the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America," and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying; "This document and its articles are for you." The point being, that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word "for" indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed by another. And of course, when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the Federalists who conceived the Constitution.

Suggestively, the word "of" does appear in a meaningful legal declaration. It appears in the text of the Presidential Oath:

I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In this instance, the word "of"  designates the President as a member of the aristocratic elite. He is, therefore, a ruler separate from the citizens in the states, and of the nation. The "for" does not apply to the President because, unlike the masses, he is not an outsider. He is part of the inner sovereign circle referenced by the word "of." The Constitution is "of" the ruling elite, but is "for" the masses. In effect, the Constitution is a schizophrenic document. There are two constitutions; one for the mass servant class, and one for the oligarchs ruling from within the District of Columbia. This is why the Preamble contains two different terms: the "United States" (denoting the oligarchy and their authority), and "United States of America" (denoting the non-sovereign masses on the receiving end).

If the Presidential Oath read as follows, there would be less cause for concern:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of America, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

But then again, pigs might fly. Alarmingly, before it was dropped, the President's original title was "His Excellency."

Many critics and authors have pointed out these disturbing facts and rightly insist that the so-called "United States" is not the same thing as the so-called "United States of America." Nevertheless, due to deliberate misinformation and conditioning, most people do believe that the terms refer to one and the same entity. They are certainly not inclined to think of the "United States" (the U.S.) as a foreign corporation. Furthermore, the drafters of the Constitution intentionally saw to it that the term "United States" had more than one meaning. Specifically, they knew the term did not refer to citizens of a state. Once-upon-a-time, in America, you could have been a citizen of a state without being a citizen of the nation. This political idiosyncrasy did not suit the Federalists who have ingeniously manipulated the words and terms we have become familiar with. It is a old trick that serves the cause of totalitarians no end.

...not only were the poly meanings of "United States" intentionally and expressly used within the Constitution, but often in ways as to actually invite confusion. For such brilliant men to explain three jurisdictional concepts would, on its face, pose a great mystery - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)