About time...
Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
I don't normally chime in on this forum, but this one time, I have to agree with this. It is about time that this happens. It will prove to the American people that the legislation that is being introduced has meaning and purpose as set forth by our forefathers. If they don't like it... change it.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Not bad at all.
Also, there should be a move towards making states more independent. Maybe become more like a confederation of states. I think this way there will be a bit more diversity and each state will decide what sort of state it will be with minimal inter-state conflict.
Also, there should be a move towards making states more independent. Maybe become more like a confederation of states. I think this way there will be a bit more diversity and each state will decide what sort of state it will be with minimal inter-state conflict.
Should have happened long ago.
Question: Can the government put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
Answer: Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"But wait! There's more!"
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"Ladies and gentlemen! That's STILL not all! There's more!"
(as I'm listening to 5th Diminsion's "Age of Aquarius")
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldwin 60
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
"The Constitution for these united States is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law and effect from its inception."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach
a fee to it."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by
Federal constitution."
at 113, (1943).
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in
the right with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the
citizen.
Byars v. US, 273 US 28
"...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Boyd v. US, 116 US 616
Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense
against willfulness.
US v. Bishop, 412 US 346
Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
Owens v. City of Independence, 445 US 621, 100 S. Ct. 1398
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502
Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed ... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635.
"The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence."
Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942).
"It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something
more than mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power,
enforcing its edicts to the injury of the person and property of its
subjects is not law."
Hurtado v. Calif., 110 US 515 (1984)
"Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or
taken away."
Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883).
"Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people."
U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325.
"Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent."
Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722.
"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself."
Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, and welfare.
Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035;
Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032;
Mich. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.)
"No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
========================================================================
Question: Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
Answer: No. If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. It is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people, being by lawfully amending the constitution, or
by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
"America can only be considered a sovereign nation if those elected to preserve the Constitution actually do so with respect to both the Constitution and the people it serves. When those same elected officials attack and dismember and destroy the Constitution, not only are they destroying that which legalizes their employment, but it is clearly an act of treason against ALL Americans. And likewise they must be dealt with accordingly- as an act of treason." -- myself
Question: Can the government put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?
Answer: Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"But wait! There's more!"
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"Ladies and gentlemen! That's STILL not all! There's more!"
(as I'm listening to 5th Diminsion's "Age of Aquarius")
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldwin 60
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
"The Constitution for these united States is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law and effect from its inception."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach
a fee to it."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by
Federal constitution."
at 113, (1943).
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in
the right with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the
citizen.
Byars v. US, 273 US 28
"...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Boyd v. US, 116 US 616
Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense
against willfulness.
US v. Bishop, 412 US 346
Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
Owens v. City of Independence, 445 US 621, 100 S. Ct. 1398
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502
Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed ... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635.
"The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence."
Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942).
"It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something
more than mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power,
enforcing its edicts to the injury of the person and property of its
subjects is not law."
Hurtado v. Calif., 110 US 515 (1984)
"Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or
taken away."
Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883).
"Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people."
U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325.
"Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent."
Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722.
"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself."
Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, and welfare.
Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035;
Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032;
Mich. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.)
"No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
========================================================================
Question: Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
Answer: No. If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. It is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people, being by lawfully amending the constitution, or
by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
"America can only be considered a sovereign nation if those elected to preserve the Constitution actually do so with respect to both the Constitution and the people it serves. When those same elected officials attack and dismember and destroy the Constitution, not only are they destroying that which legalizes their employment, but it is clearly an act of treason against ALL Americans. And likewise they must be dealt with accordingly- as an act of treason." -- myself
Last edited: