I agree with everything you say except for this, "But this one crucial aspect of privacy is absolutely critical to any semblance of democracy."
There is a very good reason that the Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic, and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do not even mentioned the word "democracy". America is not a democracy, she has never been a democracy, nor will she ever be one. She is a Constitutional Republic. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner -- We the People.
A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The difference lies in the fact that we have a Constitution that limits the powers of the government, spells out how the government is structured, creates checks on its power, plus balances that power between the 3 different branches; reserving that authority which was not authorized to the federal government to the people and the states. Politicians, like all public servants, take an oath to serve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. They don't pledge allegiance to a political party, and ideology or and a specific group or individual yet we constantly see them putting our legitimate government in the background while they support the factions (parties). That is a felony, and is perjury.
America is NOT a democracy, she has NEVER been a democracy, nor will she ever be one. America is a Constitutional Republic.
The US Constitution defines our government, split up the duties between the 3 branches within the federal government. It guaranteed a republican form of government for each of the states, who retained their and the peoples power EXCEPT for that expressly assigned to the federal government.
As Charles Pinckney (when rebuking concerns of unlimited powers for the general government) insisted, “we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the Constitution.” Understand that this clarification was not an isolated phenomenon; the Constitution was described this way in all states by its vigilant supporters.
James Wilson’s “State House Yard Speech” confirms this. To the accusation that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson responded to such an assertion by noting that “everything which is not given is reserved.” Wilson said that power in the Constitution is not granted by “tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.”
The reason you here the term "democracy" all the time in reference to our legitimate government is to make it easier to change our government from within when the people themselves do not understand what it is, that it delegates specific listed authority and no more then what is listed within it, nor does it allow those who serve within it to take more powers (authority) then that assigned to it - and it matters no how many people agree to it because the document itself is the contract they are under.
Get rid of the Monopoly. When there is competition, which we do not have today, service gets better, as does the prices. What we have today is a cartel media - all of it controlled by basically 5 corporations and they are doing their best to shut down the smaller competitive companies.
Guess what, the FCC is in collusion with them as it is THE duty of the FCC to see that we have MANY sources of information, not from a select few. Don't believe me?
Supreme Court stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
Limit what can be seen, heard, read, watched and you control the minds of the country. What does this have to do with the net? Quite a bit. One of the things those who serve within our governments like least about the net is that we communicate all over, we can discover lies soon after they are told, false flag events are brought out into the open, etc.
Likewise, when there is someone, a group, etc that is actually working towards our nation under its legitimate government they can be made known all over in a very short time (Re: Ron Paul's messages, background, voting record, etc was spread throughout the net which garnered him so much publicity and votes, even from the US military away on foreign shores.
This caused the US military "High Command" to refuse to let them vote because they were for RP. It is also why the Republican convention "changed the rules" at the convention. Why Election Fraud was brought out into the public, but hard to get into court even with MULTIPLE people providing proof, etc. It is proven he won the Republican presidential nomination to run against Obama, but that could not be allowed).
Harder still is to get information to the people on Election Fraud that isn't immediately wiped (cleaned off the net) such as these:
The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include the normal 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?
AND South Bend, Indiana jury found that Election Fraud put BOTH Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.
The people's voice in the elections was quieted, shut up even; but on the net we are fighting to keep our "voice" here in the USA.
"cops are specifically authorized to do things to others that are, on their context-less face, crimes."
Actually, they are not lawfully allowed to commit crimes in the name of "just doing their job" or "just doing whatever it takes to get the job done".
That is a huge part of the conscription of law enforcement to the destruction of our nation. That does include prosecutors, judges, etc.
This is actually *terrorism being used against the American people, the USA in the name of "law", while it is actually being committed under "color of law", pretend law created by someone who looks as if they can do so, but were never given that authority.
*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
This may seem like it is off topic, but it is not.
Anyone here been watching what Oathkeepers (.org), and citizens of Ferguson have been doing? They are enforcing the US Constitution. They are USING their NATURAL Rights PROTECTED by the US Constitution.
So who is supposed to enforce the US Constitution and the Constitution of each state? WE ARE. We are the Militia of the several states, and we can be used by the Governor of our state or by the congress to defend our state, or/and our nation. We are responsible for our own defense, not the police.
Preamble to the US Constitution makes that very clear and is backed up within the Constitution.
Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
The Preamble to the US Constitution says who is responsible for doing certain things within our nation, and it is NOT the congress, the executive branch the judicial branch it is us. Those things are to be done to “form a more perfect Union”.
“We the People of the United States” are to: - “establish Justice” - “insure domestic Tranquility” - “provide for the common defence” - “promote the general Welfare” - “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”
WE were supposed to be ready to supply the weapons of war to ourselves if necessary because we maybe got a congress who was full of domestic enemies or/and traitors.
George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
Starting to understand the Second Amendment now?
"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."
Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.
But remember, we can call ourselves out if needed. We ARE our countries defense.
Clause 16: “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”.
Each state's Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
- Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution, - Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY), - Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and - “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state's Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.
You are seeing this in action by volunteers - Oathkeepers are not the Militia, but they do have trained people - military, law enforcement, first responders.
They are tr4aining for free, Community Response Teams. An example of what you would learn:
"The latest class on combat medicine covered blood stoppage. As a prop, I fired a .308 round through a Christmas sized ham (yes, a perfectly good ham) at about 50 yards (the most common range in which contact is made). One of our resident medical experts placed a plunger and tube into the “wound” and pumped fake blood through it to add realism. We practiced applying Hemostats to the fake artery, Celox application for blood clotting, gauze insertion and packing, as well as how to use the famous “Israeli Bandage”. This presentation ended up being an excellent class, and I would love to do it again for new members in the future. Hands on training is the only way to go.
After blood stoppage, we reviewed some new technologies becoming available in the combat medicine field, then started a preliminary review on Tension Pneumothorax, the second most common cause of death amongst combat casualties. This will be covered in more detail in our next class on response to wounds interfering with the human airway."
All of what you will learn would be handy in a crises situation - hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.
Take the government our of the equation and learn to be responsible for yourself and those you love, your community, etc.
Then create a Militia within your state and train. There are a lot of arrests that need to be performed, and it is OUR duty to do them.
But if you, and others knew and understood the US Constitution, that all judges are only ALLOWED to occupy their office for life if they use "Good Behaviour" while in the courtrooms.
"Good Behaviour" is doing their duty as it is constitutionally assigned - which they have not been doing, or rarely doing since Roosevelt - and KEEPING their Oaths.
Why would the people need to understand it, and what difference would that make?
It is the people who decide if "Good Behaviour" is being used in the courtroom, and if they decide it is not, they remove that judge. If it applies, they charge and prosecute that judge.
That is one other reason it is important to understand the US Constitution.
We Care. We have always cared. We are the ones who was warning you and when the governmental stooges made fun of us, you were afraid that you might be laughed at so followed the crowd.
If we had not been fighting for all these decades, you would own nothing, and the fight would already have been over.
Your ignorance of the US Constitution is showing. Must be that progressive schooling.
NOTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION CONTRADICTS ITSELF, nothing.
The Bill of Rights was added to give MORE PROTECTION to our natural rights. To make clear that they are above and beyond governmental authority. That is why they are "teaching" what you were taught. Basically if the people are too ignorant of what those who serve within our governments are allowed to do, what is protected for them FROM those who serve in government, they can tell you anything and you will believe it.
In the 1943 Supreme Court Case of West Virginia Board of Education Vs. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, Justice Robert H Jackson said the following: “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcomes of no elections.”
Proving you incorrect:
"This is most evident in the bill of rights. Rigidly enforcing one term means that you have to violate a different term"
Preamble to the Bill of Rights: "... 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. ..."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The six protections against government encroachment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance.
Remember the ONLY branch allowed to write laws (legislation) is the legislative branch. It is a power forbidden to the executive and judicial branches.
Where is the contradictions?
4th Amendment: “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.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. The people have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them PROTECTED from those who serve within our governments.
This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause.
This is only as valid as the judge is not corrupt. There have been cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
These amendments are not a grant of right, but solely limitations put on those who serve within our governments to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their listed (enumerated) powers.
No conflict here either. So I would guess that you are referring to the 2nd Amendment. If so, you are incorrect there also.
2nd Amendment: "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."
So let me expand your education a bit more. The Militia IS "We the People". Our governments were forbidden to have standing armies and law enforcement, they were to use the Militias when needed.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it's the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”
James Madison: “... large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
Joel Barlow American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: "… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.
Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”
Nunn vs. State:'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.
Let me know if you would like to learn more. May I recommend some books and reading material?
"Constitution Denied", Michael LeMieux
Any be Dr. Edwin Vieira - free partial here (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/wp-content/uploads/Dare-Call-It-Treason-21.pdf)
Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist papers.
Hillsdale College, the oldest in our nation, offers some free online Constitutional courses here: https://online.hillsdale.edu/
Freedom of speech is absolute. That does not mean that you can not be taken to court and sued afterwards for crimes committed such as defamation, etc.
If you are talking about shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, etc; that has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, and everything to do with endangerment of others.
"Laws are interpreted by the courts."
That is incorrect under the US Constitution. The courts gave themselves that "power" which is usurpation and "null and void" under our laws.
The courts are to decide if that particular law FOLLOWS (is in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution and entirely different thing.
US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..."
The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It applies to only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) 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 Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.
It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;...”
By the way, breaking that Oath is at least one felony, is Perjury and it matters not who broke it, and requires their removal from the position they are occupying; all of which still applies but is not enforced while much "color of law", pretend laws are enforced. All laws are REQUIRED by this countries Supreme law to be in "Pursuance thereof" it.
Remember, even though it is mostly ignored, the US Constitution is not only the highest LAW of our land, it defines our government and assigns what powers go to each branch. Those who serve within the different branches are not allowed to decide on their own powers - that is a dictator or monarchy that does that.
Internet freedom is important, but there will be no internet to keep free if we cannot keep the people themselves safe and free. There are sites that assist and educate you in changing and getting control of your state back such as tenthamendmentcenter.com , stopping unlawful actions on the part of the government. Sites that assist you in learning how to assist yourself in disasters.
Plus sites that train you for free to create neighborhood groups for survival when disasters strike. They teach comprehensive first aid, feeding people, best ways to stay safe, defending yourself and your family, neighbors, etc such as oathkeepers.org's Community Preparedness Teams (Yes, the same oathkeepers that are defending small businesses and apartments, etc for free in Ferguson, Missouri):
It combines all of the necessary knowledge, skills, and organization required for a community of people, no matter where they happen to live, to be able to survive and thrive a large scale disaster scenario, and to provide the ability to rebuild and help others once the smoke has cleared... The goal of CPT is to make every neighborhood, county, and state in the country as independent, secure, and self sufficient as possible, erasing the fear of the common citizen, which ultimately thwarts the rise of tyranny within our society. A people without fear cannot be ruled.
An example of the training offered: The latest class on combat medicine covered blood stoppage. As a prop, I fired a .308 round through a Christmas sized ham (yes, a perfectly good ham) at about 50 yards (the most common range in which contact is made). One of our resident medical experts placed a plunger and tube into the “wound” and pumped fake blood through it to add realism. We practiced applying Hemostats to the fake artery, Celox application for blood clotting, gauze insertion and packing, as well as how to use the famous “Israeli Bandage”. This presentation ended up being an excellent class, and I would love to do it again for new members in the future. Hands on training is the only way to go.
Another source for people is cspoa.org (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association): CSPOA assembles Sheriffs, Peace Officers and Citizens who understand the grave implications of our eroding Constitutional protections.
These groups work to assist YOU in helping yourself, your family, your neighborhood, city, county, state, and country. I think that is pretty important also.
US Constitution, Fourth Amendment: 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.
US Constitution, which they ALL are REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend, plus to KEEP that Oath. It says that is NOT lawful right here. Remember the Bill of Rights states that natural rights are PROTECTED FROM those who served within our governments - federal and state.
Amendment IV: "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."
James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: "Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves"
It is the nature of a right that it is – and must be – absolute. If there are codicils, appendices, restrictions, however, and buts, then it is a privilege, granted and controlled by others. Unknown
James Madison said: "“This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, though from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most complete despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments." (End Madison quote)
1. James Madison, "Property," March 27, 1792, in William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, Vol. 14 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962–present), 266–68. Reproduced with permission of University of Chicago Press–Books in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.
This was terrorism pure and simple under our laws, used against the students and teachers, anyone else who was there.
28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
To not charge those who participated in ANY way in this is disgusting.
Starting with the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, understanding that Preambles basically summarize what is in the document (Preamble to the US Constitution), and here, specifically the Bill of Rights (caps are mine to put emphasis on specific points).
"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..."
The Bill of Rights was written and added to the US Constitution because no one believed that those who went into governmental positions could be trusted, to PREVENT governmental overreach and abuses; and it does so in plain language.
Fourth Amendment: "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."
What part of "SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED" does FISA Judge Reggie Walton, Judge Morris S. Arnold, etc not understand? This forbids any governmental employee - elected, hired, contracted, etc - from violating the security of the people.
Then if there is probable cause, and the US Constitution which ALL laws, etc MUST be in Pursuance thereof says that NO THIRD party saying "he said, she did", but MUST done with a WARRANT that must be issued in ONE (1) way ONLY to be lawful here in the USA.
"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."
Once again;
“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.”
Which has two governmental limitations stated in within this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure.
In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause.
This, however, is only as valid as the judge is honest as everyone reading this can see. There have been cases in which corrupt judges have signed blank warrants, and the details were/are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
This amendment is not a grant of right, but solely a limitation on the government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights are PROTECTIONS for the citizens of the USA FROM those who serve within our governments.
Judges only are allowed to remain in the positions they occupy as long as they use "Good Behaviour" within the courtroom.
US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
James Madison, Federalist 39, 250 - 53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention: “... The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour."
Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;...”
The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….” Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) 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 (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort"
Alexander Hamilton: "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."
John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison: "The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people's unalienable natural rights in any way.
When judges are doing their duty as assigned to them by the US Constitution, and are KEEPING their Oaths (or the one combined Oath) they are using "Good Behaviour".
Behavior refers to actions being done, and good behavior is actions being done as supposed to be, as assigned; range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities.
"We the people" as jurors decide guilt or innocence, and decide if the law being applied is a good one, or we toss it. We the people decide if a judge is using "Good Behaviour" in the courtrooms as is required of them.
The FCC was supposed to stop monopolies, but instead rewarded them and assisted them into becoming cartels which is treason and multiple felonies on the part of every person involved in the FCC over the last 34 or so years.
Supreme Court stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
None of this is lawful here in America, but it is done because WE allow it to go on.
That is referring to laws that are not lawful, but are "color of law". They are "pretend laws" that are created by someone in a position to look as if they have the authority to create them, but were NEVER given that power/authority.
They are what the framers called "null and void" laws, because they are not constitutional. Here in the USA ALL laws MUST be constitutional to be lawful to be lawfully enforced.
That does not meant that those that are ignorant of the US Constitution or willing to destroy our nation from within will not enforce them, because they will.
That is a felony on their part because they are REQUIRED to take and KEEP an Oath. The required Oath says they will support and defend the US Constitution and their state Constitution - if it applies - above and before anything else.
"Some of what's been obtained provides a few more details on the NSA's reliance on Executive Order 12333 to perform its data and communications harvesting. This Executive Order is, and always has been, the go-to authority for the NSA. This allows it to bypass nearly every form of oversight. "
Actually, the Constitution of the united States of America IS the last, and first, word considering lawfulness here in the USA.
It says that ALL (meaning every single bit) of legislation:
US Constitution. 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.
Notice that no where is mentioned any other branch of the federal government. It is also important to realize that it does NOT matter over how many years, or who all did it, it is STILL unlawful.
That EVERY person who served within the federal government and let executive orders "slide" are guilty of a felony.
The US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it is the Supreme LAW of THIS land. Executive orders are forbidden by it to both the legislative and the judicial branches by the word "All".
The Bill of Rights Preamble lets everyone know that it further adds things to the forbidden and "only-done-in-a-specific-in-writing- way" list. (caps are mine)
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.
Amendment IV says EXACTLY how these things ARE allowed to be done within our nation: "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."
Since there was no warrants issued, and it matters NOT what those domestic enemies occupying our courts at this time say, what they are doing amounts to treason and to *terrorism against Americans and the USA from domestic enemies.
*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
On the post: Judge Posner Says NSA Should Be Able To Get Everything & That Privacy Is Overrated
Re: Privacy IS overrated...
There is a very good reason that the Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic, and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do not even mentioned the word "democracy". America is not a democracy, she has never been a democracy, nor will she ever be one. She is a Constitutional Republic. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner -- We the People.
A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The difference lies in the fact that we have a Constitution that limits the powers of the government, spells out how the government is structured, creates checks on its power, plus balances that power between the 3 different branches; reserving that authority which was not authorized to the federal government to the people and the states. Politicians, like all public servants, take an oath to serve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. They don't pledge allegiance to a political party, and ideology or and a specific group or individual yet we constantly see them putting our legitimate government in the background while they support the factions (parties). That is a felony, and is perjury.
On the post: Sen. Rockefeller Sitting On FOIA Improvement Act, Despite Two Unanimous Votes In Favor Of Passage
Re: Democracy in action
America is NOT a democracy, she has NEVER been a democracy, nor will she ever be one. America is a Constitutional Republic.
The US Constitution defines our government, split up the duties between the 3 branches within the federal government. It guaranteed a republican form of government for each of the states, who retained their and the peoples power EXCEPT for that expressly assigned to the federal government.
As Charles Pinckney (when rebuking concerns of unlimited powers for the general government) insisted, “we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the Constitution.” Understand that this clarification was not an isolated phenomenon; the Constitution was described this way in all states by its vigilant supporters.
James Wilson’s “State House Yard Speech” confirms this. To the accusation that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson responded to such an assertion by noting that “everything which is not given is reserved.” Wilson said that power in the Constitution is not granted by “tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.”
The reason you here the term "democracy" all the time in reference to our legitimate government is to make it easier to change our government from within when the people themselves do not understand what it is, that it delegates specific listed authority and no more then what is listed within it, nor does it allow those who serve within it to take more powers (authority) then that assigned to it - and it matters no how many people agree to it because the document itself is the contract they are under.
On the post: Internet Provider Sonic's CEO: Title II Is Only A Regulatory Burden If You're Doing Something Bad
Re: Re: Famous last words ...
Guess what, the FCC is in collusion with them as it is THE duty of the FCC to see that we have MANY sources of information, not from a select few. Don't believe me?
Supreme Court stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
Limit what can be seen, heard, read, watched and you control the minds of the country. What does this have to do with the net? Quite a bit. One of the things those who serve within our governments like least about the net is that we communicate all over, we can discover lies soon after they are told, false flag events are brought out into the open, etc.
Likewise, when there is someone, a group, etc that is actually working towards our nation under its legitimate government they can be made known all over in a very short time (Re: Ron Paul's messages, background, voting record, etc was spread throughout the net which garnered him so much publicity and votes, even from the US military away on foreign shores.
This caused the US military "High Command" to refuse to let them vote because they were for RP. It is also why the Republican convention "changed the rules" at the convention. Why Election Fraud was brought out into the public, but hard to get into court even with MULTIPLE people providing proof, etc. It is proven he won the Republican presidential nomination to run against Obama, but that could not be allowed).
Harder still is to get information to the people on Election Fraud that isn't immediately wiped (cleaned off the net) such as these:
The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include the normal 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?
AND South Bend, Indiana jury found that Election Fraud put BOTH Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.
The people's voice in the elections was quieted, shut up even; but on the net we are fighting to keep our "voice" here in the USA.
On the post: The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
On the post: The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
Re: Re: Two things:
Actually, they are not lawfully allowed to commit crimes in the name of "just doing their job" or "just doing whatever it takes to get the job done".
That is a huge part of the conscription of law enforcement to the destruction of our nation. That does include prosecutors, judges, etc.
This is actually *terrorism being used against the American people, the USA in the name of "law", while it is actually being committed under "color of law", pretend law created by someone who looks as if they can do so, but were never given that authority.
*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
On the post: Congress Quietly Decides To Delete Key NSA Reform In CRomnibus Agreement
Anyone here been watching what Oathkeepers (.org), and citizens of Ferguson have been doing? They are enforcing the US Constitution. They are USING their NATURAL Rights PROTECTED by the US Constitution.
So who is supposed to enforce the US Constitution and the Constitution of each state? WE ARE. We are the Militia of the several states, and we can be used by the Governor of our state or by the congress to defend our state, or/and our nation. We are responsible for our own defense, not the police.
Preamble to the US Constitution makes that very clear and is backed up within the Constitution.
Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
The Preamble to the US Constitution says who is responsible for doing certain things within our nation, and it is NOT the congress, the executive branch the judicial branch it is us. Those things are to be done to “form a more perfect Union”.
“We the People of the United States” are to:
- “establish Justice”
- “insure domestic Tranquility”
- “provide for the common defence”
- “promote the general Welfare”
- “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”
WE were supposed to be ready to supply the weapons of war to ourselves if necessary because we maybe got a congress who was full of domestic enemies or/and traitors.
George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
Starting to understand the Second Amendment now?
"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."
Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.
But remember, we can call ourselves out if needed. We ARE our countries defense.
Clause 16: “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”.
Each state's Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
- Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution,
- Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
- Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
- “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state's Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.
You are seeing this in action by volunteers - Oathkeepers are not the Militia, but they do have trained people - military, law enforcement, first responders.
They are tr4aining for free, Community Response Teams. An example of what you would learn:
"The latest class on combat medicine covered blood stoppage. As a prop, I fired a .308 round through a Christmas sized ham (yes, a perfectly good ham) at about 50 yards (the most common range in which contact is made). One of our resident medical experts placed a plunger and tube into the “wound” and pumped fake blood through it to add realism. We practiced applying Hemostats to the fake artery, Celox application for blood clotting, gauze insertion and packing, as well as how to use the famous “Israeli Bandage”. This presentation ended up being an excellent class, and I would love to do it again for new members in the future. Hands on training is the only way to go.
After blood stoppage, we reviewed some new technologies becoming available in the combat medicine field, then started a preliminary review on Tension Pneumothorax, the second most common cause of death amongst combat casualties. This will be covered in more detail in our next class on response to wounds interfering with the human airway."
All of what you will learn would be handy in a crises situation - hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.
Take the government our of the equation and learn to be responsible for yourself and those you love, your community, etc.
Then create a Militia within your state and train. There are a lot of arrests that need to be performed, and it is OUR duty to do them.
On the post: Connecticut Court Ignores First Amendment, Blocks Paper From Publishing Article Based On Public Court Document
Re:
But if you, and others knew and understood the US Constitution, that all judges are only ALLOWED to occupy their office for life if they use "Good Behaviour" while in the courtrooms.
"Good Behaviour" is doing their duty as it is constitutionally assigned - which they have not been doing, or rarely doing since Roosevelt - and KEEPING their Oaths.
Why would the people need to understand it, and what difference would that make?
It is the people who decide if "Good Behaviour" is being used in the courtroom, and if they decide it is not, they remove that judge. If it applies, they charge and prosecute that judge.
That is one other reason it is important to understand the US Constitution.
On the post: Connecticut Court Ignores First Amendment, Blocks Paper From Publishing Article Based On Public Court Document
Re:
If we had not been fighting for all these decades, you would own nothing, and the fight would already have been over.
On the post: Connecticut Court Ignores First Amendment, Blocks Paper From Publishing Article Based On Public Court Document
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Unless your comment has less to do with being correct, but just spreading disinformation.
On the post: Connecticut Court Ignores First Amendment, Blocks Paper From Publishing Article Based On Public Court Document
Re: Re: I am missing something...
NOTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION CONTRADICTS ITSELF, nothing.
The Bill of Rights was added to give MORE PROTECTION to our natural rights. To make clear that they are above and beyond governmental authority. That is why they are "teaching" what you were taught. Basically if the people are too ignorant of what those who serve within our governments are allowed to do, what is protected for them FROM those who serve in government, they can tell you anything and you will believe it.
In the 1943 Supreme Court Case of West Virginia Board of Education Vs. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, Justice Robert H Jackson said the following: “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcomes of no elections.”
Proving you incorrect:
"This is most evident in the bill of rights. Rigidly enforcing one term means that you have to violate a different term"
Preamble to the Bill of Rights: "... 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. ..."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The six protections against government encroachment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance.
Remember the ONLY branch allowed to write laws (legislation) is the legislative branch. It is a power forbidden to the executive and judicial branches.
Where is the contradictions?
4th Amendment: “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.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. The people have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them PROTECTED from those who serve within our governments.
This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause.
This is only as valid as the judge is not corrupt. There have been cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
These amendments are not a grant of right, but solely limitations put on those who serve within our governments to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their listed (enumerated) powers.
No conflict here either. So I would guess that you are referring to the 2nd Amendment. If so, you are incorrect there also.
2nd Amendment: "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."
So let me expand your education a bit more. The Militia IS "We the People". Our governments were forbidden to have standing armies and law enforcement, they were to use the Militias when needed.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it's the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”
James Madison: “... large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
Joel Barlow American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: "… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.
Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”
Nunn vs. State:'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.
Let me know if you would like to learn more. May I recommend some books and reading material?
"Constitution Denied", Michael LeMieux
Any be Dr. Edwin Vieira - free partial here (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/wp-content/uploads/Dare-Call-It-Treason-21.pdf)
Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist papers.
Hillsdale College, the oldest in our nation, offers some free online Constitutional courses here: https://online.hillsdale.edu/
On the post: Connecticut Court Ignores First Amendment, Blocks Paper From Publishing Article Based On Public Court Document
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Freedom of speech is absolute. That does not mean that you can not be taken to court and sued afterwards for crimes committed such as defamation, etc.
If you are talking about shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, etc; that has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, and everything to do with endangerment of others.
"Laws are interpreted by the courts."
That is incorrect under the US Constitution. The courts gave themselves that "power" which is usurpation and "null and void" under our laws.
The courts are to decide if that particular law FOLLOWS (is in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution and entirely different thing.
US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..."
The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It applies to only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) 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 Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.
It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;...”
By the way, breaking that Oath is at least one felony, is Perjury and it matters not who broke it, and requires their removal from the position they are occupying; all of which still applies but is not enforced while much "color of law", pretend laws are enforced. All laws are REQUIRED by this countries Supreme law to be in "Pursuance thereof" it.
Remember, even though it is mostly ignored, the US Constitution is not only the highest LAW of our land, it defines our government and assigns what powers go to each branch. Those who serve within the different branches are not allowed to decide on their own powers - that is a dictator or monarchy that does that.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Black Friday Internet Freedom Edition
Plus sites that train you for free to create neighborhood groups for survival when disasters strike. They teach comprehensive first aid, feeding people, best ways to stay safe, defending yourself and your family, neighbors, etc such as oathkeepers.org's Community Preparedness Teams (Yes, the same oathkeepers that are defending small businesses and apartments, etc for free in Ferguson, Missouri):
It combines all of the necessary knowledge, skills, and organization required for a community of people, no matter where they happen to live, to be able to survive and thrive a large scale disaster scenario, and to provide the ability to rebuild and help others once the smoke has cleared... The goal of CPT is to make every neighborhood, county, and state in the country as independent, secure, and self sufficient as possible, erasing the fear of the common citizen, which ultimately thwarts the rise of tyranny within our society. A people without fear cannot be ruled.
An example of the training offered:
The latest class on combat medicine covered blood stoppage. As a prop, I fired a .308 round through a Christmas sized ham (yes, a perfectly good ham) at about 50 yards (the most common range in which contact is made). One of our resident medical experts placed a plunger and tube into the “wound” and pumped fake blood through it to add realism. We practiced applying Hemostats to the fake artery, Celox application for blood clotting, gauze insertion and packing, as well as how to use the famous “Israeli Bandage”. This presentation ended up being an excellent class, and I would love to do it again for new members in the future. Hands on training is the only way to go.
Another source for people is cspoa.org (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association): CSPOA assembles Sheriffs, Peace Officers and Citizens who understand the grave implications of our eroding Constitutional protections.
These groups work to assist YOU in helping yourself, your family, your neighborhood, city, county, state, and country. I think that is pretty important also.
On the post: DC Police Department Budgets Its Asset Forfeiture Proceeds Years In Advance
Re: Re: Crime vs 'Crime'
US Constitution, Fourth Amendment: 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.
On the post: DC Police Department Budgets Its Asset Forfeiture Proceeds Years In Advance
Re: Crime vs 'Crime'
Amendment IV: "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."
James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: "Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves"
It is the nature of a right that it is – and must be – absolute. If there are codicils, appendices, restrictions, however, and buts, then it is a privilege, granted and controlled by others. Unknown
James Madison said: "“This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, though from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most complete despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments." (End Madison quote)
1. James Madison, "Property," March 27, 1792, in William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, Vol. 14 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962–present), 266–68. Reproduced with permission of University of Chicago Press–Books in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.
On the post: Cops Decide Running Surprise School Shooter Drill During Class At A Middle School Is A Great Idea
28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
To not charge those who participated in ANY way in this is disgusting.
On the post: FISA Judge To Yahoo: If US Citizens Don't Know They're Being Surveilled, There's No Harm
"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..."
The Bill of Rights was written and added to the US Constitution because no one believed that those who went into governmental positions could be trusted, to PREVENT governmental overreach and abuses; and it does so in plain language.
Fourth Amendment: "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."
What part of "SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED" does FISA Judge Reggie Walton, Judge Morris S. Arnold, etc not understand? This forbids any governmental employee - elected, hired, contracted, etc - from violating the security of the people.
Then if there is probable cause, and the US Constitution which ALL laws, etc MUST be in Pursuance thereof says that NO THIRD party saying "he said, she did", but MUST done with a WARRANT that must be issued in ONE (1) way ONLY to be lawful here in the USA.
"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."
Once again;
“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.”
Which has two governmental limitations stated in within this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure.
In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause.
This, however, is only as valid as the judge is honest as everyone reading this can see. There have been cases in which corrupt judges have signed blank warrants, and the details were/are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
This amendment is not a grant of right, but solely a limitation on the government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights are PROTECTIONS for the citizens of the USA FROM those who serve within our governments.
Judges only are allowed to remain in the positions they occupy as long as they use "Good Behaviour" within the courtroom.
US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
James Madison, Federalist 39, 250 - 53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention: “... The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour."
Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;...”
The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”
Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) 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 (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort"
Alexander Hamilton: "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."
John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison: "The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people's unalienable natural rights in any way.
When judges are doing their duty as assigned to them by the US Constitution, and are KEEPING their Oaths (or the one combined Oath) they are using "Good Behaviour".
Behavior refers to actions being done, and good behavior is actions being done as supposed to be, as assigned; range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities.
"We the people" as jurors decide guilt or innocence, and decide if the law being applied is a good one, or we toss it. We the people decide if a judge is using "Good Behaviour" in the courtrooms as is required of them.
On the post: Anti Net Neutrality Crowd Reaches Deep For The Craziest Possible Response To President Obama's Call For Real Net Neutrality Rules
Re:
On the post: Colorado Residents Wake Up, Vote To Bypass Protectionist State Broadband Laws
Re: FCC boss Tom Wheeler
Supreme Court stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”
None of this is lawful here in America, but it is done because WE allow it to go on.
On the post: Federal Judge Says Public Has Right To Know About FBI's Biometric Database, Awards $20,000 In Legal Fees To FOIA Requester
@ Mason Wheeler, Re: colorable legal reason
They are what the framers called "null and void" laws, because they are not constitutional. Here in the USA ALL laws MUST be constitutional to be lawful to be lawfully enforced.
That does not meant that those that are ignorant of the US Constitution or willing to destroy our nation from within will not enforce them, because they will.
That is a felony on their part because they are REQUIRED to take and KEEP an Oath. The required Oath says they will support and defend the US Constitution and their state Constitution - if it applies - above and before anything else.
On the post: Documents Obtained By The ACLU Show NSA's Inability To Prevent Collection Of US Persons' Data And Communications
Actually, the Constitution of the united States of America IS the last, and first, word considering lawfulness here in the USA.
It says that ALL (meaning every single bit) of legislation:
US Constitution. 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.
Notice that no where is mentioned any other branch of the federal government. It is also important to realize that it does NOT matter over how many years, or who all did it, it is STILL unlawful.
That EVERY person who served within the federal government and let executive orders "slide" are guilty of a felony.
The US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it is the Supreme LAW of THIS land. Executive orders are forbidden by it to both the legislative and the judicial branches by the word "All".
The Bill of Rights Preamble lets everyone know that it further adds things to the forbidden and "only-done-in-a-specific-in-writing- way" list. (caps are mine)
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.
Amendment IV says EXACTLY how these things ARE allowed to be done within our nation: "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."
Since there was no warrants issued, and it matters NOT what those domestic enemies occupying our courts at this time say, what they are doing amounts to treason and to *terrorism against Americans and the USA from domestic enemies.
*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
Next >>