FYI AMERICANS "All ‘laws’ which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison "No one is bound to obey an un-Constitutional ‘law’ and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d. Sec 256 constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm "An un-Constitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County "Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966). "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489 "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it." Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943). "If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the Right with impunity." Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).] "Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921), "The maintenance of the Right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." Tiche v Osborne, 131 A. 60. "The provision in the Constitution granting the Right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a Right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." People v Zedillo,{219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922). "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and NO ONE is bound to obey it." State v Sutton,[Source: 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630] "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional Rights." Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946. "We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simmons v U.S.,[390 US 389 (1968)]. And to Our military - The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by a president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation 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 UCMJ. The President’s Oath of Office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” ---- PENALTY FOR TREASON DEATH , if convicted of Treason. 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec.2381 And UCMJ Sec. 906, Art. 106
Posted on: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:37:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015