The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person. [Emphasis added.] Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 Notice the verdicts confrontational language: fighting, combat, and most surprising, belligerent. What do you think about reading of a Federal Court condemning citizens for being passive or ignorant? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be belligerent IN COURT...? Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system. Ignorance makes the public more manageable in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizens Rights, government has a vested interest in the publics ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be. If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this: The Department of Education gets what it pays for. Do you REALLY think they paid for you to be smart? HAHAHAHAHA The fact is, not more than a handful at most of my 100 or so friends will have bothered to read this down to this sentence! WHY? Because its too long, concerns legal issues, and like it or not - were too lazy. The founding fathers lived under and separated themselves from government corruption. And history had shown that governments eventually become corrupt. So they gave us an instrument by which we could ALWAYS PROTECT ourselves from governmental corruption. That instrument is the Constitution. The ONLY way for that instrument to fail would be for us to become apathetic and ignorant. Silence gives consent is the rule of business life, and silence gives rise to agreement. Perhaps that is why the founding fathers did NOT make any provisions for a public school system. In fact, a public school system is a mandate from Karl Marxs Communist Manifesto for creation of a Communist Country. (Interestingly, so is a steady progressive income tax - and the founding fathers made no provision for that either. Indeed we managed to get by in this nation for 175 years WITHOUT one!) So now its become glaringly apparent WHY a state-funded school system would be so important to the creation of a nation whose goal is to make everyone equal - kids going to a state-funded school would learn what the state wanted taught! The most important aspect of this isnt what IS taught, but rather what ISNT!!! On to present time real world concerns. WHAT exactly is the point behind this long-winded status? In a nutshell - Obamacare. It has certainly got plenty of people up in arms now, crying and whining about how much its going to cost among other things. What I dont get is WHY everyone is so upset! For the lucky couple of you that HAVE bothered to read this far Im about to cast out some pearls. And the reason I made this post so long is to minimize the likelihood that Im casting these pearls in front of swine (Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine). Did not Obama REPEAL PARTS of Obamacare? Guess what kids - thats unconstitutional.... Article VI, Clause 2, of the US constitution reads, in part: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.... This provision requires that all laws made by our government must be in pursuance of the constitution. This means that they must be consistent with the letter of and intent behind the constitution, and when they are not, then they are repugnant to the constitution. And if they are repugnant to the constitution, they are void from the beginning. The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. --South Carolina vs. United States All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void. --Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176 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 contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. --Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442 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. --16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177; late 2d, Sec 256 So there you have it. The ammo you need to quit whining, complete with case law to back you up... Now if I were just lucky enough to have another chance at raising kids one more time... Id LOVE to homeschool once ;)
Posted on: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:00:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015