"I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid."

No.

You now make 2 unsupportable claims (pulled out of your posterior, or read from a dogmatic script from the criminals):

1. There is something that is ours as in "our democratic republic."

Who claims to own this thing? You? If the number of people claimed to be voting is any measure of what you claim to be "ours," then it is clearly not "ours," it is theirs: those who claim to own it.

2. It (that is not ours) is a democratic republic.

How could you possibly contort language to such a degree as to attempt to support that claim above?

From the original meaning of the word democracy, the government is not an electoral process where government offices are filled by popular vote: a.k.a. so-called Majority Rules. So that claim by you fails in that respect.

If instead, you claim that it is Majority Rules (the modern meaning of democracy), then it can't be a republic by the established meaning of the word republic, which means The Public Thing in a literal sense, not a figurative (fictional) sense. If it is, as you may be claiming, that is it is both the will of the Majority doing whatever it pleases to the minority, and it is a republic, then you also have to change the meaning of the word republic. You would have to twist the meaning of the word republic to mean something other than The Public Thing, such as, perhaps, you can claim that a republic is the Majority thing, or the minority thing, or the corporate thing, or the special interest thing, or the oligarch thing, or the aristocrat thing, or the people with the most power thing, or the people with the most money thing, or the brain dead psychopath sociopath and sycophant thing.

How do you define the meaning of the terms you use in this context where you claim to understand what I am saying?

Digging deeper into the dogma:

"I understand that you are saying that our democratic republic has no valid right to run this country at all, since the constitution is not valid."

Things do not have rights, processes do not have rights, a majority rules organization or criminal organization under the false flag of a democratic republic has no right, no brain, no will, not legs to stand on, no power of will, no decision making power, no moral conscience. So if you understand that fact that matters, that things don't have rights, then you can work at identifying what does have rights, like people, having rights afforded to each other based upon moral conscience, reason, logic, and such things as The Golden Rule, which is a very competitive example of the words used to describe the law.

Then you use the word country. Is it a democracy? Is it a republic? Is it a country? Is it a Nation? Make up your mind, please. If it is a country, then it is the people in a place, as in Trial by The Country according to the common law. A country is where people hold criminals to account for their crimes, where is that in America? Jeffery Epstein? His murderers? Those who murdered Martin Luther King Jr.? Those who murdered Lavoy Finicum? Those who murdered those church members in Waco? Those who murdered the innocent people on Ruby Ridge?

Then you move onto a legal boilerplate in the phrase you use: "...the constitution is not valid."

If you mean to claim that the Constitution of 1789 is not valid (according to the evidence) then I can agree with that factual statement, but only if we could possibly agree on the meaning of the word "valid." What do you mean when you use words like:

Democracy
Republic
Right
Country
Constitution
Valid

So far you misuse Democracy, Republic, Right, Country, and Constitution.

By what reason could I trust that you won't misuse the word valid?

Evidence:

1787?
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

In Convention, Richmond, Monday, June 9, 1788
Patrick Henry
“A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.”

“On this awful occasion, did you want a federal government? Did federal ideas possess your minds? Did federal ideas lead you to the most splendid victories? I must again repeat the favorite idea, that the genius of Virginia did, and will again, lead us to happiness. To obtain the most splendid prize, you did not consolidate. You accomplished the most glorious ends by the assistance of the genius of your country. Men were then taught by that genius, that they were fighting for what was most dear to them. View the most affectionate father, the most tender mother, operated on by liberty, nobly stimulating their sons their dearest sons sometimes their only son to advance to the defence of their country. We have seen sons of Cincinnatus, without splendid magnificence or parade, going, with the genius of their great progenitor, Cincinnatus, to the plough; men who served their country without ruining it's men who had served it to the destruction of their private patrimonies their country owing them amazing amounts, for the payment of which no adequate provision was then made. We have seen such men throw prostrate their arms at your feet. They did not call for those emoluments which ambition presents to some imaginations. The soldiers, who were able to command every thing, instead of trampling on those laws which they were instituted to defend, most strictly obeyed them. The hands of justice have not been laid on a single American soldier.”

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen."

Note the dates. The Nationalist Party (falsely called themselves the Federalist Party) knew that it was invalid "to annihilate the confederation."

Patrick Henry was pulled into the word game, at first using the false meaning of Federation, and then upon closer (digging deeper) inspection the facts that matter were enlightened, even to Patrick Henry.

More inculpatory evidence:

FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.

Page 4 Luther Martin

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."

[loc.gov]

Moving on to the following claim:

"...believed the same things."

The evidence is self-evident, having only a consequence by which someone then becomes aware of what is. When you attempt to turn the flow of information from the evidence, that is self-evident, to my personal thoughts, such as above quoted, then I mark that down as an obvious political maneuver. You choose to turn away from the evidence, and you choose to turn instead to me personally.

Ad Hominem
"[Latin, To the person.] A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument."

"He feels the world owes him something even though he contributed nothing to the world."

Now is the tactics of a Man of Straw combined with Guilt by Association, used by you, chosen by you, in an otherwise reasonable exchange of data for possible mutual benefit.

You don’t know me. I don’t know this person you equate with me. If he is that, so be it, he is not me, I am not that, so why did you choose this false path?

“The fact that the rest of us have to pay for his irresponsibility and the fact that he got off with paying less than 10% of his bill should not encourage anybody to follow his self-centered anarchist lifestyle.”

OK, that makes sense. Collective punishment dogma example number infinity minus one. Put in the proper round file.

"I'm not sure which element of his statement is wrong."

"Every cent of Congress comes from its right to levy taxes that YOU approve by who you vote in..."

I can make a list.

Wrongs

1. Congress has no right to levy taxes

1a. Congress (a number of people) has no right to levy taxes, no more right than a number of people called a Mob, or a single member of a Mob, or a single thief.

2a. Congress (a legal fiction, part of an ideology) has no right to levy taxes, it has no being, no life, no brain, no will, no decision making power, it is a fictional being, it cannot have a right.

2. YOU did not approve by who you vote in

2a. YOU (everyone in the set of people called American taxpayers) does not have one voice, each individual speaks for each individual. If some individuals think that they have given permission to a legal fiction to rob everyone, then that group of people has done so. Membership in that group is exclusive to those who think that they gave permission to a legal fiction to rob everyone.

2b. A group or set of people inclusive in the word YOU gave permission, or so they think, for another group - a congress - to rob everyone.

3. Votes are not counted, not since who knows when? Certainly not since no one is allowed to legally challenge any vote count, and since the ability to forensically trace the individual votes from the individual voter to the official vote count.

4. No one has a right to rob anyone, it is not a right, it is a criminal decision made by a criminal in time and place, and that is a fact that matters.

If that does not clear things up, then the following may help:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

If that does not clear things up then my guess is that YOU don't want to know what I actuall mean when I post things on this forum. I can't speak for you, all I can do is elaborate on the evidence that you offer to me having to do with your confusion concerning what I mean when I write something.

You wrote:
(this same constitution was ultimately ratified)

The criminals who altered the Federation had no legal power to do so, therefore the process you elude to above is as wrong as the previous claimed "rights."