KansasBright
- 181 comments
- 113 likes given
- 54 likes received
Bio not provided
@Roberto Benitez @KansasBright I am not a conservative. I am a Constitutionist: US Constitution and all the states constitutions. I do my best to NOT "interpret" the US Constitution but to take its words as the meaning of them are easily found (language does change over time). I also read news events and discussions of the time to gain a better understanding of their (framers) meaning when they say or write something. The way it was taken to mean by the people of the nation.
(PS; Could that be the reason why Mr. (intentional) Obama is using DHS to build a quasi-private executive branch para-military force?)
I believe based on my years of study that he is, and that it is treason. Though that is NOT the ony time Obama has committed treason against the USA - that discussion is for another time)
Sect 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts AND PROVIDE FOR THER COMMON DEFENCE and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
TO RAISE and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Notice that the word "RAISE" is used in reference to military (army) which implies that there is NO standing army (military). I believe you ignored that word which does distort the meaning.
Then there is this: 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;...'
Please notice that the Militia is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and REPEL INVASIONS" here in the USA - not a "standing army".
Followed by: 'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;'
What makes you think that the miltia cannot be naval in each state that could have a need for it? What makes you think that private citizens did not fire cannons from their boats in our past as part of the militia? What makes you think that we will not have a militia today that will defend our shores from planes? Remember that ALL weapons of war that might be used to invade the USA is supposed to be made available to, and training with, the militia of the several states and that congress is charged with arming them, training them is left to the states.
The Air Force was a branch of the Army, the Army Air Corp. The Air Corps became the branch for Army aviation in 1926. Then in 1935, General Headquarters (GHQ) Air Force was created for operational aviation units. The Army Air Forces (AAF) came into being on June 20, 1941.
It is now recognized by us as a separate military entity that had beginnings as a branch of the army.
I must say I am enjoying your thoughtful and well researched replies and challenges. Thank you. I believe the worst thing anyone can do anymore is not verify a statement represented as fact. Mistakes can be made by anyone.
@MarkAreReynolds The US Constitution (nor the Bill Rights) are "gone" or need to be re established. They need to be enforced - and supported and defended, an entirely different matter. Or, if a US President (legally not through election fraud or any other non lawful manner); Preserved, Protected and Defended.
Thank you for your earlier comment. And yes, it was a lot to go through.
First, take snopes with a grain of salt; sometimes it is correct, sometimes it is not.
The US Constitution forbids a standing military because it can be easily taken over (the "just following orders" syndrome) and used against the very people and country it is supposed to support and defend (US Constituton).
Remember, many laws, bills, treaties, agencies, bureaucracies are unlawful. Just because it /they was/were created by someone does NOT make it/them lawful. It/they must be IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution to be lawful here in the USA.
The US Constitution said that the Militia is what protects this nation, not a government controlled military that is not lawfully supposed to be funded beyond two years - unless we are engaged in a congress declared war.
Plus the Miltia Act separates the militia into three classes. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the:
organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,
the unorganized militia and
the regular army.
It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 (now every able-bodied person). All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. It cannot lawfully be repealed, unless in some way to make the rights of the people (miitia) stronger.
Charles Hughes, American Bar Association (ABA) speech (Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840):
"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.
This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose."
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee, 1st Senator
Justice Story: 'The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
The Purpose of the Militia Clause: "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598, 1999
Thomas Cooley the most renowned American legal authority of his age pointed out that "if the right to arms were limited to militia-related arms possession, then the guarantee would be meaningless. The very government that it was meant to check-and that could control the definition of the militia - would be in a position to define its boundaries and negate any checks upon itself, defeating the Framers' intent... The militia... consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But... if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.
The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
@Begneli @KansasBright Basically the people in the three branches of the federal government are put into position to carry out the constitutionally assigned duties of each branch. Look at them as high-priced, arrogant temp workers.
The US Constitution and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are supreme. That means that the US Constitution assigned duties of the federal government are supreme WHEN they are carrying out the CONSTITUTIONALLY ASSIGNED DUTIES (duties dealing with foreign nations, and seeing that the states trade fairly with each other). Any other duties they "created" or "took" for themselves are usurpation - not lawful and must NOT be followed. That is for ANY of the three branches of the federal government
The states are each a constitutional republic carrying out the duties of the state and with each other inside the nation. They swore to support and defend the US Constitution.
Neither the feds or the states can lawfully go against the US Constitution or Americans natural rights that are protected by it. Again that is usurpation, or if done with any type of force or violence, an attack on the American people, the USA, by domestic enemies.
The three branches of our government, ALL the military, ALL law enforcement, ALL the heads of the States, ALL federal employees are lawfully REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge. Presidents are held to higher standards. swearing to "Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution".
It (Oath) binds the contract we make with those we put into office. It is a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO TAKE AND KEEP the oath to meet the requirements of the position they are occupying.
Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Fed 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law
5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S.: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial District of San Mateo (1960): "The Legislature, either by amending or otherwise, may not nullify a constitutional provision"
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189: "Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank: "Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another’s ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct.”
It is well established law that Fraud vitiates (makes void) any contract that arises from it.
Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: "An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government."
But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.
If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to GUARD the Constitution AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.
Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the JUDGES TO DO THEIR DUTY AS FAITHUL GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE LEGISLATIVE INVASIONS OF IT HAD BEEN INSTIGATED BY THE MAJOR VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY.
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws.
See why I feel that way?
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.
If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH; AND THAT WHERE THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE, DECLARED IN ITS STATUTES, STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO THAT OF THE PEOPLE, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE JUDGES OUGHT TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LATTER RATHER THAN THE FORMER. THEY OUGHT TO REGULATE THEIR DECISIONS BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, RATHER THAN BY THOSE WHICH ARE NOT FUNDAMENTAL.
{Definition of fundamental law: Basic principle on which a body of knowledge or national constitution is built. Also called organic law. a law or laws, as a constitution, regarded as basic and, often, irrevocable by ordinary judicial or legislative action...)
This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference. <-- I see this as an explanation of where this comes from, though I could be wrong.}
See how two people can read one item and draw different conclusions? That is NOT the conclusion I have come to after reading it. To me it says that jdges must follow the US Constitution whe making their decisions. Here are the reasons why:
'According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that (US Constitution) of this State... the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
How many here are aware of those who are fighting and letting be known criminal actions by those in our government and its agencies? Support them!
Here is one:
DHS whistleblower Censored from 60 Minutes. (Spread this around all, maybe we can keep her alive.)
From Oathkeepers who was asked to protect her and spread the word.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/05/03/dhs-whistleblower-censored-from-60-minutes/
whistleblower speaks out on how DHS declared her a “Domestic Terrorist” then dispatched a Blackhawk Helicopter SWAT raid on her home because — She was doing her job protecting the border… you just need to see this and spread it to the four corners of the earth WATCH HERE:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=feHbP4k_tdk
Please VIRALIZE this video
@West Texan @RightDetour You are incorrect. The federal government is NOT the supreme law fo the land. The Constitution of the United States and all laws, bills, treaties, amendments are the supreme law of this land. The federal government is ONLY supreme when carrying out its constitutionally assigned duties and when its (*congress) bills, laws etc are IN PURSUANCE THEROF THE US CONSTITUTION.
ONLY congress can make legislation which is why ALL executive orders are NOT lawful. It is why the judicial branch cannot make law, only enforce constitutional laws, make sure that all laws/bills/etc are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution. The judicial branch was NEVER given the power to "interpret" the US Constitution - it usurped that power for itself.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The Constitution of the United States of America and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does not declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.
In PURSUANCE thereof, not in VIOLATION thereof.
Thomas Jefferson plainly points to the constitutional source of all federal power. He wrote, “That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33: “If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.” If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the people, must overrule them”.
Since the Bill of Rights are *unalienable, there is NO branch within the federal or the state governments that can alter or demolish them.
*Unalienable rights - "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, NO HUMAN LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO ABRIDGE OR DESTROY THEM, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (commits a crime - though once the sentence is carried out the person's natural rights are restored.)
*Inalienable rights: "a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred".
The Bill of Rights put further limts on the federal government as is made clear in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
@SaraServalis I agree. But what are you using as a basis for the treason charge? If you are not sure what exactly qualifies as treason may I recommend Vieira's book "Dare Call It Treason"? You can read part of it here for free:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/03/31/dare-call-it-treason-by-dr-edwin-vieira-jr/
@ObliterateTyranny The part that is important for you to remember is that the progressives brought the German style of education and started implementing it here in "our" public schools. They made it sound good to the people who then sent their children to be taught that the fed gov is "THE" government and that states and the people are subjects.
They have been in "charge" of WHAT our children learn for generations now, and most have a really messed up and incorrect way of what our government is, what it can do, etc.
Teaching them, plus the (illegal - now legal) immigrants what our government is, what their natural rights are (considering they were not even given the right to life) is a HUGE step.
Those in our military today, and those that are LEO's have barely a concept of what is lawful or not under our government.
What would help is if everyone who has a family member of friend in either would educate them. Then they could not be used against us as they always are when governments become tyrants. Though admittedly Obama increased mercenary military that costs us (We the People) more per person then a standard standing (unlawful) military. He created his own private military through the DHS and TSA (Bush 1 started it), and have militirized the LEO's and also put their own people within them.
This was NOT done yesterday - though it has been accelerated, it has been done over decades. WE do not have decades to stop this.
Thsoe of us who have even a basic concept of the US Constitution, the military and LEO place within it need to work hard to teach those who are easily conscripted into "just following orders" or "just doing their job".
One way to do that is to start arrests and prosecution of those who have gone against the law while being in a position of "trust" - and it has been difficult to do so. But if we can get one arrested and on the way to prosecution it will accelerate with more falling as people who were afraid to speak up and act start requiring it. At this time they are seeing that those in places of pubic trust and "power' seem to get away with anything, even treason and murder, so feel helpless.
@RonTravis He is also a traitor and indicted as a war cirminal.
@RalphShark Don't forget this either:
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
@ThomRaasio First, we have the right to do two things: defend our legitimate government - including arresting and prosecuting all of those who have been traitors to each state and those within the fed gov that have been/are traitors to the USA (and change it constitutional ways as needed). Or change our type of government (Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama escalated) as the - supposedly - people decide.
Number two is the reason I believe that Obama has been doing what he can to get immigrants from tyrant governments here in the USA, think "amnesty".
They have little or no concept of individual liberty or that a document drawn up by the people (US Constitution) can be/IS the government with people elected and assigned to carry out the duties IT assigns. Not do they understand that there can be more then one type of government at the same time; referred to by many as duality - the states, the people, the fed gov. Nor do they understand that the fed gov can be assigned specific duties of which most is to deal with FOREIGN nations, while the states and the people deal with MOST internal government issues. Plus putting them on welfare IMMEDIATELY makes them "grateful" to him.
Not that it is lawful, but it is dangerous to us because with foreigners support he can chgne our government. That is why Bush 1 had opened up and encouraged more immigration from tyrant countries as opposed to those who would come from countries with more of a concept of individual rights, constitutional republic governing. Yes, people came from all types before, but those who would find it easier to assimilate our type of governing was encouraged before. Now those who will take a generation or so to understand it are not only being encouraged, but money is being spent to "ship" them here. They understand corruptness and being controlled - accept it easier if their life is "better then it was before". Immediately placing them on welfare makes it seem that way. "Seem that way" because that will not last because the idea is to get them here and destroy our type of government. Then the "true" NWO type of dictatorship will come into being.
Remember that the UN's Agenda 21 has "depopulation" high on its list of things to implement here in the USA. When governments depopulate its citizens it is never a "pretty sight". Go see for yourself in "Innocents Betrayed" if it is still up on you tube.
@AnnetteAkerman @Roberto Benitez Plus: There is the election Fraud (though both the Republican and Democratic parties are guilty of this - dump them). Quoting Fox news (surprised? I was also):
"Officials found guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.
The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.
“I think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,” Levco told Fox News.
...Even a former Democratic Governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged."
Plus this:
The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include language stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form?
@GrumpyOldGoat @BillRoe Exactly. But that can only happen as long as we let it - as we have found out. Now it is time to stop these usurpations. Time to arrest and prosecute traitors within the federal gov and within the state governments, within the military, within the law enforcement - both federal and state.
Bush, Clinton, and Obama were INDICTED for war crimes - push for prosecution for those crimes.
@GrumpyOldGoat @KansasBright Exactly. Where do you get a conflict?
Supremacy clause applies to the all that is (constitutionally) assigned duties to the federal government in anything it does as long as what it does IS THE specifically the assigned duties by the US Constitution to that branch, plus is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution.
There is no conflict in what I said.
The federal government has constitutionally specifically assigned duties that are broken up between three distinct branches. Neither can lawfully use the powers assigned to another branch nor give those powers to another branch or to a different group (bureaucracy) though it/they can hire assistants to assist representatives to do their duties. (This means that the bureaucracies and what they have been doing are also not lawful)
What you are describing: the "war on drugs".has nothing lawful or constitutional about it. It is words being used to keep a standing military just like the "war on terrorism" (a tactic).
Why are they not lawful? Because they are/were not a constitutionally assigned power to any of the three branches of the federal government, nor are/were they (and others) IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the Constitution of the united States.
There is no conflict. Just usurpations.
@GrumpyOldGoat Actually you are incorrect. The "Supremacy Clause" is always valid.
The problem that most are not aware of is that EVERYTHING that is assigned to the federal government jurisdiction has to be IN PURSUANCE OF THE US CONSTITUTION to be supreme, or directly fgrom the US Constitution itself.
So if "when the US Constitution says: Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
That does not mean that congress can give away the powers directly assigned to it, nor does it mean that the executive or judicial branch can create legislation.
So all executive orders are not lawful - now or in the past.
US Constitution: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
That does not mean that the executive branch or the judicial branch or those bureaucracies created can do the House of Representatives constitutionally assigned duties. Nor can those bureaucracies lawfully do the constitutionaly assigned duties of the executive branch or judicial branch.
The three branches of the American government according to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independance are: "We the People", the States, and the federal government - in that order.
Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes - delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
"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." Madison, Federalist 39
Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, brought the term “nullification” into political thought and action. In the Resolutions he says “that a federal “law” that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is “void and of no effect.”
“But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner. On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” James Madison
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, defines 'de facto': "In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate."
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, defines 'usurper': "One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country."
“Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.” James Madison
Not a framer, jsut the words of a TRAITOR - 1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said: “Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil….individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.”
“Politicians brought the Nazis to power and started the war. They are the ones who brought about these disgusting crimes.” Karl Doenitz, German admiral and would-be fuehrer after Hitler
That letter shows that Holder does not understand the laws under which he is REQUIRED to work.
The major one that he needs to understand or be removed from the position he is occupying is:
The Constitution of the United States of America and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does not declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.
Not only did he break the lawfully required oath of all people whom hold the position he is occupying are to take and to KEEP, but he has been working against the USA. He has committed treason under our laws, plus committed:
18 USC § 2382 - Misprision of treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Because he was aware that Obama (in a letter to Boehner, and many other times such as in front of a senate hearing on video - all senators present are also guilty of 18 USC § 2382, as is Boehner ) said that he was a representative of the UN and got his "authority" from the UN.
Dempesey and Panetta both said that the UN has authority over the USA and over the US Military - treason.
Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey have all said that they gave authority over the USA to the UN - treason.
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Holder, etc all are trying to let the UN make laws that US citizens would have to follow, plus let the UN tax US citizens - all TREASON.
Yet no one does a thing about it that has any type of law degree, legal standing (LEO, Military, etc. Not Ron paul when he was in office, nor Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, anyone in Oathkeepers, here at the tenthamendment center, Heads of the states, constitutional sheriffs, other judges - no one.
Guess it is fine to commit treason here in the USA.
Then there is this: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Panetta, Dempsey - if I remember the list correctly, and MANY others were INDICTED for war crimes. Yet no one will prosecute them.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Want to know why we have a problem here in the USA? Because those with legal standing will not prosecute unless it is a unlawful "law" and a citizen. Those in office get by with not even a slap on the hand. This country that is founded on laws will not use them. I started working on a law degree so I can at least try. Hopefully there will be enough time.
Oath of Office – if necessary and proper the Militia’s can come together to enforce Title 18 US code section 2381 - Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2381
I think what TaskForce16 is referring to is that in each states constitution is that they will support and defend the US Constitution. Admittedly I have not read all US state constitutions at this time, but I am almost halfway through. Surprisingly enough, a lot of those state constitutions put restrictions on those in the 3 state branches that are also not being followed. Surprise there, right? JK. Example: NY's Constituton: [Preamble] We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION. [Rights, privileges and franchise secured; power of legislature to dispense with primary elections in certain cases] Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers... Freedom of speech and press; criminal prosecutions for libel] §8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions] §12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.) ARTICLE XII (9), Defense [Defense; militia] Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia. This one rates a sad laugh. Why? Because the people are the militia. Notice the word "obligation". [Oath of office; no other test for public office] Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.) For a good read - and occasionally a sad laugh, read the oath each state requires. Example - Preamble and California's Oath of Office: California State Constitution Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 1: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 26: The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. Art 20 Misc Subjects, Sec 3: Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: ________________________________________________________________ (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means." And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. Funny, right?