People would do well to read and really absorb the following commentary. Our nation is NOT a Constitutional one in any way any longer; our rulers have completely ignored our founding documents and instead have enacted laws which completely run contrary to the letter and spirit of our Constitution. Our current government has strayed far outside of the bounds set for it by the Constitution, and is NO LONGER a legitimate government; it is now a regime anchored in the tyranny of the majority. It is the duty of those who still believe in the greatness of America to rise to the occasion of replacing the present tyrannical regime and re-instituting the government which was placed on this continent by our Founding Fathers. There is no other recourse, and there is no higher calling now. There is no left or right, there is only those who would pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor -- as opposed by those who are too asleep, too fearful, or too enmeshed in the present tyranny. Which one are you? THIS MUST BE NOTED WHEN ASKING YOURSELF ‘WHAT IS THE LEGAL DUTY OF MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY WITH REGARD TO U.S. CITIZEN’S ENGAGED IN (LET’S SAY) REMOVING OUR GOVERNMENT’?: “The Uniform Code of Military Justice Section 982, Article 92 makes it clear that military personnel have an obligation and a duty to obey only lawful orders and , indeed, have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the code. The moral and legal obligation of the military is to the U. S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the code. Civilian employees also have an equal obligation to disobey unlawful orders.” (excerpted from Richard Rahn, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.) AND HERE’S A TINY PART FROM THAT ‘PESKY’ DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THAT ADDRESSES SUCH ACTIVITY: “…..That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” As I have been posting for a number of years now: ”Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” MIRAND v. ARIZONA U.S. 436 (1966) AND: (from 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: Volume 16 of American Jurisprudence second edition) “The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” ALSO: All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. -Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) [YEAH THOUGHT I’D THROW THAT ONE IN TOO!]……..AND HERE ARE SOME MORE TID-BITS OF INFORMATION: The State cannot diminish rights of the People. -Hurtado v California, 110 U.S. 516 The state is a people and not the created form of government. -Texas v White, 7 Wallace, 700-743 (and many others) Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be. -13 Cal Jur 3d 412 Section 229. The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime. -Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489. An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contem- plation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. -Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442 The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. -Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905) The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. -United States Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States (1928) ….SO NOW, ASK YOURSELF: ‘WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? [USE THESE CITINGS WELL MY FRIENDS AND FELLOW PATRIOTS….OUR FUTURE DEPENDS UPON IT!]
Posted on: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 23:26:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015