I HAVE SAID IT, Thomas Jefferson said it, Abraham Lincoln said it, Teddy Roosevelt said it BEFORE AND I WILL KEEP SAYING IT UNTIL YOU HEAR ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTION CLEARLY STATES:
"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." [1]
We the People have no way of binding our judiciary or our leaders, because our Black Robed Royalist UNCONSTITUTIONAL Judiciary self-servingly asserts the MARTIAL LAW OF "absolute immunity" for any and all JUDICIAL actions regarding "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." That defeats the Constitution's raison d'être to "establish Justice" under "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." The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly en banc disregarded our founders VII Amendment remedy for "a tribunal without juries, which will be a Star-Chamber as to Civil cases[2]"…. OUR BLACK ROBED ROYALIST UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIARY CANNOT BE BOUND.
Thomas Jefferson originally stated the issue in 1821:
"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible (i.e., unrepresentative[3]) body - working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson [4]
Abraham Lincoln, at his first inaugural, stated the problem AGAIN as it had fomented the secession of the South and the coming Civil War as regards their predecessor, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 (1856):
"At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." [5]
If there is only one thing you read this YEAR, as an AMERICAN CITIZEN and a person establishing justice, I would ask you to please, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 1883, AFTER MORE THAN 600,000 DEATHS IN THE CIVIL WAR TO ESTABLISH THE XIII, XIV AND XV AMENDMENTS… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE "We the People" would be had "WE THE PEOPLE" prevailed in 1883 with the constitutionally authorized congressionally approved and passed "necessary and proper"[6] ex industria statute law the 1875 Civil Rights Act,[7] 1866 Civil Rights Act, [8] and 1871 Civil Rights Act[9]!!!!!!! (http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/12/if-there-is-only-one-thing-you-read.html ).
Teddy Roosevelt, again restated the problem in response to the Supreme Court's REPEATED seemingly undefeatable unjust insistence on the self-serving fascist "Liberty of Contract" asserted in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905):
"The constitution is the property of the people, not of any one class of the people. Its proper administration and interpretation concern immediately and vitally the people as a whole… Our prime concern is to get justice. When the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality, interferes with justice, then it is our highest duty to war against this spirit, whether it shows itself in the courts or anywhere else. The judge has no more right than any other official to be set up over the people as an irremovable and irresponsible despot.
But where… the courts have delivered absurd and iniquitous decisions against the interests of the people in various constitutional cases… what is needed is not to recall the judge to private life, but to make his decision—or the constitution as he interprets it—square with justice and common-sense…
It is the people, and not the judges, who are entitled to say what their constitution means, for the constitution is theirs, it belongs to them and not to their servants in office- any other theory is incompatible with the foundation principles of our government. If we, the people, choose to protect (constitutional inalienable rights) tenement-house dwellers in their homes, or women in sweat-shops and factories, or wage earners in dangerous and unhealthy trades, or if we, the people, choose to define and regulate the conditions of corporate activity, it is for us, and not for our servants, to decide on the course we deem wise to follow. We cannot take any other position without admitting that we are less fit for self-government than the people of England, of Canada, of France, who possess and exercise this very power."
We the People can pass any law or constitutional amendment we want, the Supreme Court can overrule it!!!!!!!
GITMO Activists, Prison Reformers, Religious Leaders, Net Neutrality Advocates, Campaign Finance Reform Advocates, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, NSA Haters, Senator Bernie Sanders, LGBT community, Father's Rights, ACLU, President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, Senator Ted Cruz, Democrats, Liberals, Independents, Libertarians, Rand Paul, Tea Party, Snowden, and GOP have ALL MISSED THE ISSUE. The constitution never INTENDED to allow 5 of 9 people on the Supreme Court to have "absolutely immune" power to decide issues of THE utmost importance for all time, attaching unimpeachable stare decisis!!!!!!!!!
Take our COUNTRY back from 5 Black Robed Royalist persons on the Supreme Court and their Article III Brother persons legislating from the bench with self-servingly asserted "absolutely immune" as the would be Kings that THINK they can do no wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY A DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN ISSUE.
"We the People" can pass into law any CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT or constitutionally authorized "necessary and proper" ex industria statute law. The Supreme Court can OVER RULE IT!!!! I quote the AGAIN, in 2014, prophetic MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883):
"Constitutional provisions, adopted in the interest of liberty and for the purpose of securing, through national legislation, if need be, rights inhering in a state of freedom and belonging to American citizenship have been so construed as to DEFEAT THE ENDS THE PEOPLE DESIRED TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH THEY ATTEMPTED TO ACCOMPLISH, AND WHICH THEY SUPPOSED THEY HAD ACCOMPLISHED BY CHANGES IN THEIR FUNDAMENTAL LAW" (capitalization added for EMPHASIS).
Just read the full prophetic text of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883), I quote just the introduction here:
"The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.
"It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul."
Imagine where "We the People" would be if the war weary victorious "We the People" had been able to prevail in 1883 and eliminate segregation at its inception rather than appease the defeated degenerate Confederacy.
WE HAVE NO RIGHT OF REDRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Judicial sophistry of "absolute immunity" creates "absolute power" to the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION of "We the People's" unalienable rights under color of law... a "fantastic or delusional" scenario. "As long as rulers are above the law, citizens have the same type of freedom that slaves had on days when their masters chose not to beat them."
[1] Constitution for the United States of America, Article. VI. § 2
[2] Origins of the Bill of Rights, By Leonard W. Levy, page 228
[3] "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV , Section 4, § 1
[4] As quoted into the Congressional Record Senate Vol. 152, Pt. 1 page 80-81, Mr. Santorum and Bergh, 15:331. 1821.
[5] Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861
[6] Not only was it necessary and proper under any reasonable reading of rights granted to all persons, but it was additionally sanctioned under the final section of the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." it was also additionally authorized ORIGINALLY by Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, § 3 "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." And Article. VI. §2 "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"
[7] Now Codified into Statute law as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
[8] § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27. (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) over the Veto of President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866. An excerpt from his remarks attached to his veto "This provision of the bill seems to be unnecessary.. without invading the immunities of… the judiciary, always essential to the preservation of individual rights; and without impairing the efficiency of ministerial officers, always necessary for the maintenance of public peace and order." "It is, therefore, assumed that… the State courts who should render judgments in antagonism with its terms, and that marshals and sheriffs who should as ministerial officers execute processes sanctioned by State laws and issued by State judges in execution of their judgments, could be brought before other tribunals and there subjected to fine and imprisonment, for the performance of the duties which such State laws might impose." See also BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 359 (1983)
[9] Originally enacted as The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (now codified in Federal Statute laws as Civil 42 USC §1983 - §1985). The author of § 1 clearly stated the relationship between the two Acts in introducing the 1871 measure:
"My first inquiry is as to the warrant which we have for enacting such a section as this [§ 1 of the 1871 Act]. The model for it will be found in the second section of the act of April 9, 1866, known as the 'civil rights act.' That section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for, except that the deprivation under color of State law must, under the civil rights act, have been on account of race, color, or former slavery. This section of the bill, on the same state of facts, not only provides a civil remedy for persons whose former condition may have been that of slaves, but also to all people where, under color of State law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." BRISCOE V. LAHUE, 460 U. S. 357 (1983)
No comments:
Post a Comment