The issue with Trump
Do you have any issue at all with Trump?
1. Don't blame M.A.G.A.
2. Don't blame M.A.G.A. Republicans.
3. Don't blame non-M.A.G.A. Republicans.
4. Don't blame ANY Republicans.
5. Don't blame ANY of the voters
6. Don't blame the theory of democracy
7. Don't blame Socrates.
8. Don't blame the theory of republicanism.
9. Don't blame the theory of a representative government.
10. Don't blame Putin.
11. Don't blame the Corrupt Unrepresentative Senate for the United States.
12. Don't blame the Electoral College for the United States.
13. Don't blame Americas or the United States,
14. Don't blame the love of the America or United State's citizens.
15. Don't blame any of the hatred in the Americas.
16. Don't blame the internet.
17. Don't blame "fake news."
18. Don't blame The Robert Mueller special counsel investigation.
19. Don't blame the Network News.
20. Don't blame the internet News.
21. Don't blame Plato.
22. Don't blame Mexico.
23. Don't blame Canada.
24. Don't blame print journalism.
25. Don't blame The Federalist Society.
26. Don't blame Leonard A. Leo. Co-Chairman of The Federalist Society
27. Don't blame the billions of dollars that Leonard A. Leo. Co-Chairman of The Federalist Society's DARK MONEY spent on elections.
28. Don't blame the Libertarians.
29. Don't blame the Green Party.
30. Don't blame the Democrats.
31. Don't blame the Communist.
32. Don't blame the Anti-Communist.
33. Don't blame Aristotle
34. Don't blame the European Union.
35. Don't blame Brexit.
36. Don't blame Europe.
37. Don't blame Russia.
38. Don't blame the Russians.
39. Don't blame Twitter.
40. Don't blame Face Book.
41. Don't blame "dark money".
42. Don't blame Hillary Clinton.
43. Don't blame Joe Biden.
44. Don't blame Fred Trump.
45. Don't blame Barack Obama.
46. Don't blame Goerge W. Bush.
47. Don't blame George H.W. Bush.
48. Don't blame Richard Nixon.
49. Don't blame Jim Comey.
50. Don't blame Robert Mueller.
51. Don't blame the Federalist Papers.
52. Don't blame the 4th Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall. In office February 4, 1801 – July 6, 1835
53. Don't blame John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, KCVO, DL (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), better known as Lord Acton.
54. Don't blame The Founding Fathers.
55. Don't blame President George Washington.
56. Don't blame Alexander Hamilton.
57. Don't blame Walter Leland Cronkite Jr.
58. Don't blame Mike Pence.
None of that had anything to do with THE Trump ISSUE.
Granted, Trump is DEPLORABLE by any standard of decent persons. Trump is a “fucking moron”, a liar (30,000+ times), a rapist, a fraud, a conman, a fascist, a debaucher, a convicted felon, a diagnosed sociopath. None of that had anything to do with THE Trump ISSUE and history.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain
There is one thing and ONE THING ALONE that caused Trump and will cause despotisms much, much worse, than even Trump can conceive.
Trump and much, much worse despotism will in the future be determined by the pure and utter DESPOTIC fiction of a Nobility’s[1] judge-made-law.
EVERYONE of the above refenced factions wanted the seemingly unimpeachable, FICTITIOUS and Noble[2] unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law in 2016 at his first election. He then got to appoint 3 “supreme Court” judges. For as we have since recently learned and Thomas Jefferson KNEW long ago, "impeachment… is not even a scarecrow."
The issue with Trump, everyone wants is the FICTITIOUS and Noble unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law
Any civilized organization needs a means to process law. And yes, there needs to be a way to appeal any instant (particular) adjudication for errors, corruption or despotism - possibly a multi-step process e.g., district, circuit, supreme. And there needs to be a supreme Court to ultimately answer any instant (particular) case.
Yet, there is no constitutional authority and/or need to create a Noble[3] unelected oligarchy's judge-made-law with stare decisis attached.
Judges do not need immunity to think straight. Judges need good judgement alone. And that good judgement was flawed when our Noble[4] unelected oligarchy's judge-made-law allowed a $25 million dollar payoff to some of the victims of Trump University’s FRAUD. But did not consider the larger scope of Trump’s crime against society, and allowed him to criminally unencumbered assume the presidency in 2017. I know if I had committed a similar crime and attempted to pay my way out of it, I would have done some TIME in jail. I spent 411 days in jail, and I was never even prosecuted for a crime.[5] All I did was question the sanity of the Second Amendment in a world with Noble[6] unimpeachable judge-made-law.
Plato was probably the first one to say, because of the telos of a leader, they ought to be learned and open-minded i.e., "philosopher kings." But clearly there was nothing binding in that thought, we have had soooooooooooo many corrupt and despotic leaders and kings since.
The issue with Trump, everyone wants is the FICTITIOUS and Noble unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law
The United States Constitution was written in 1787. It was signed by the Founding Fathers on September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Constitution was ratified by the interpretation of "We the People" into our "common law," there was no oligarchy of authority that was consulted. "We the People" got the required number of states in June 1788 and it went into effect in 1789. The Constitution as WRITTEN, as approved by "We the People" and as enacted by "We the People", had no provision for judge-made-law.
Now if judge-made-law is assumed because of an obscure original unwritten meaning, judicial precedent, pragmatism, moral reasoning, national identity (or ethos), structuralism; historical practices or the living document theory; we need to take another look.
Because 160+ years of racial inequality after a civil war to eliminate slavery, to oppose state's rights, maintain the union and REITERATE the clear expression of the Declaration of Independence[7] the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment, with their constitutionally authorize Congressional "Enforcement Acts" any and all Judge-made-law has failed BIG TIME and it was always a FICTION!!!!!!!!
The issue with Trump, everyone wants is the FICTITIOUS and Noble unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law
Article III of the Constitution for the United States posits "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish (bolding added)." The Constitution for the United States posits one supreme Court among the many Courts, NOT a Supreme Court outside the many Courts. The grammar of the capitalization is important for and an acurate interpretation. The "judicial Power" in the Constitution for the United States is ABSOLUTELY constrained by the use of the jury as originally REQUIRED 1215 - Magna Carta's Clause 39 - "No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Article III justice, IN ALL THINGS, is explicitly limited by the use a jury. Nothing in Article III of the Constitution authorizes judges to create judge-made-law with stare decisis outside a jury.
The issue with Trump, everyone wants is the FICTITIOUS and Noble unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law
The Founding Fathers had emphatically been living under the JURY rules of the Magna (1215) Carta: Clause 39 for some 570+ years (1787). Furthermore, I am sure the enthusiastic devotees of government among the founding father were fully aware of the Act of Parliament for the Abolition of the Star Chamber (July 5, 1641) not to mention the "Bloody Assize" that admitted the potential for judicial corruption.
The Founding Fathers had all lived under English Common Law and in some of cases studied under Sir Edward Blackstone (1723 – 1780) and his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (published originally 1765 and 1769, and then republished in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and in a posthumous edition in 1783 as the Common Law of England
The Constitution for the United States based on “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in 1787 did not countenance precedent, Nobility,[8] or judge-made-law:
“It is not possible to lay down, with mathematical precision, any rule in regard to the authority of precedents. Every judge and every court must consider that their function is jus aïcere and not jus dare”[9] (declare or say what the law is and NOT to give or make the law).
Alexander Hamilton expressed a need in Federalist Papers 78-83 (1788), he anonymously talked about a desire and a need for a learned Judiciary. But it could never have made it into the binding 4,000 words of the actual constitution written and signed a year prior to the Federalist Papers.
The issue with Trump, everyone wants is the FICTITIOUS and Noble unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law
Additionally, and more IMPORTANTLY FEDERALIST No. 39 “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles” Wednesday, January 16, 1788, by James Madison
“Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of Nobility, [10] both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.“ [11]
We have NO king, NO Nobility[12] and therefore, no one is immune or above the Constitution or its laws.
In 1803 the 4th Supreme Court Chief Justice. in the first 12 years of the constitution, John Marshal wrote a very complex opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). John Marshal SELF-SERVINGLY talked about what was then and is still NOW non-binding Judicial interpretation. John Marshal went on to serve 34 years and 152 days, still the longest serving Chief Justice. To general knowledge he never used the stare decisis his presumed opinion had created. Yes, he decided many "instant (particular) cases" but he never presumed to have created judge-made-law for all time, i.e. stare decisis attached.
This was all confirmed as understood and foretold by Thomas Jefferson in 1820 and many times before and thereafter:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." (Thomas Jefferson 28th September 1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello UNDERLINING added)
John Marshal’s supreme Court was ignored by President Andrew Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), i.e., The Trail of Tears[13], and the issue should have been addressed by the legislature. The hate that Jackson had incurred may have gone some to empowering Taney, but that does not EXCUSE Taney!
The issue with Trump, everyone wants is the FICTITIOUS and Noble unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law
The first most flagrant use of the despotism of judge-made-law was the first political shot of the Civil War.
On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion of the Court of the then new Nobility’s[14] judge-made-law. Taney effectively started the Civil War by asserting "that they (Blacks) had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" and that the new Territories had no binding right to self-determination as regards slavery as property rights.
Slavery as property rights had never been and would never be accepted as law in non-slave states.
The Civil War started.
The absolute-immunity of a Nobility[15] and its judge-made-law are a FICTION!
Judge-made-law is the biggest most corrupt FICTION ever perpetrated on free people. Judge-made-law NEVER EXISTED in the United States or in any of America's purported to be EXCEPTIONAL.
Judge-made-law was never a part of the constitution. I love to ask every strict constructionist, textualist, originalist where in the 4,000 words of the constitution does it authorize an unelected appoint for life political oligarchy to make binding (stare decisis) law for all time?
Thomas Jefferson acknowledged it in 1820, as noted above, but Lord Acton to my knowledge expressed it best in 1887, he famously wrote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The concept of judge-made-law with Supreme Court stare decisis attached creates absolute power. And as we will all should agree "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Now if you can show me anywhere in the Amended version of the Constitution for the United States there is a provision for judge-made-law i.e., binding precedent with stare decisis, IT AIN’T THERE! But as Thomas Jefferson said in 1820 “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." and Sir William Blackstone (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) both confirmed SEVERAL TIMES, several places!
The issue with Trump, everyone wants is the FICTITIOUS and Noble unconstitutional despotic power of judge-made-law
As just a small taste of you and your Brethen’s despotic behavior I offer….
There is no Constitutional premise for immunity from the Constitution, or the laws derived from it. In fact, immunity from the constitution is antithetical to the premise of a constitution’s raison d'etre. For the first nearly 100 years that preceded Randall and Bradley (1776-1868) there was neither need nor questions regarding judicial immunity and then TWO despotic Nobility[16] precedents within 5 years.. Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15, 1869)[17] in response to the criminal liability in The Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872)[18] in response to civil liability in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 passed into law April 20, 1871 are the origins of unconstitutional Nobility[19] and “absolute immunity” in the American Justice system. Not to mention racially motivated mass murder in Blyew[20], and racially motivated pogrom in Cruikshank[21] just post-Civil War..
Judicial Immunity has since Randall and Bradley spawned a class of Nobility[22] that is above the law, with reconfirmation of immunity from liability for damages for his judicial acts, see Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), "state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused's constitutional rights" see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) gives immunity to police officers and their informants "for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial," and Briscoe then goes further with “absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process”[5] for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” see Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) @ Page 460 U. S. 335.
Everybody knows the name Rosa Parks (December 1, 1955), fewer people know Ida B. Wells (May 4, 1884). Rosa Parks lost her case at origination and through her appeals 1956. Ida B. Wells' won her case 71 years prior, when the local circuit court granted her a $500 (~$17,498 in 2024) award December 24, 1884. If that had held, the world would NOW be a much different place. Unfortunately, Ida B. Wells, on the appeal by the railroad, lost to the absolutely immune[23] judge made figment of law asserting "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[24]
And We the People imprison ourselves at 4 times the rate of the of the MORE CIVILIZED World. The would be Nobility[25] foremost but everybody but the victim of the deprivation of rights as absolute immunity for the deprivation of rights under color of law.
You want proof of the supreme court's corrupt Noble[26] "star chamber" status. look at the specifics in Scott[27] Bradely[28], Blyew[29], Cruikshank[30], Plessy[31], Lochner[32], Mapp[33], Pierson[34], Bivens[35], Imbler[36], Briscoe[37], Dobbs[38] Loper.[39] Remember the Kings can do no wrong.
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), abortion rights the Supreme Court said they had to standardize abortion laws because of the many differences in the individual state laws. In Dobbs [40][13] the Supreme Court said they wanted to overrule because they wanted to now interpret the law as before the war that settled the states rights issue once and for all and let the many states decide individually in defiance of the United States, lol. Sad, soooooo SAD!!!
In Loper[41] the corrupt, would be Noble[42], absolutely immune judge-made-law cares not what the Congress, the law giver says; they care not what the President, the enforcer says; WE WANT the would be Noble[43] absolutely immune Supreme Court’s judge-made-law to settle ALL the issue law for now and for all time!!!
Please especially look at the recent Trump v. United States - Decided July 1, 2024. The new Nobility, [44] the Supreme Court FIRST delayed the case while he was a private citizen and then said don't worry we will limit his "absolute immunity" when and if we feel like it. They gave him absolutely immunity via judge-made-law for now and for the infinite future if they even want to ever consider it!!!
I have been fighting the new Nobility’s[45] judge-made-law for 21 years impoverished, 12 years homeless, 411 days in jail. Now my issue is nothing new or unique, nothing worthy of the supreme court say because judge-made-law is unimpeachable.
I am fighting possibly the second despotic judge-made-law ever made. You see after the civil war, and immediately after the Congress passed the constitutionally authorized Enforcement Acts[15] because of the potential for "bribed judges"[16] The supreme court made the self-serving judge-made-law "judicial absolute immunity"[46] so any attempted to expose judicial incompetence, apathy or corruption could never be considered by due process of law. That was in 1871.
Now the self-serving DESPOTIC supreme court has many times reconfirmed and expanded this judge-made-law see Blyew[47], Cruikshank[48], Plessy[49], Lochner[50], Mapp[51], Pierson[52], Bivens[53], Imbler[54], Briscoe[55], Dobbs[56] Loper.[57] Most recently in Trump[29] where they delayed his out of office prosecution and told us not worry they will limit his presumed absolute immunity later if they feel like it.
Corrupt, would be Noble[58], judge-made-law has been destroying We the People’s representative government for at least 160 years!!!
In my opinion we do not need a constitutional amendment to address it. Judge-made-law was never authorized by the Constitution of the United States! In a perfect world we would have learned open minded philosopher kings for judges like Plato, the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshal had ALL HOPED FOR and they would abdicate any and all past or future judge-made-law. And effectuate the jury law that most of the developed world works with.
Is that going to happen, I have been asking for it for 21 LONG years. I am under the impression that our Article III Supreme Court is just as corrupt and despotic as any of the Nobility[59] from the past, Scott[60] Bradely[61], Blyew[62], Cruikshank[63], Plessy[64], Lochner[65], Mapp[66], Pierson[67], Bivens[68], Imbler[69], Briscoe[70], Dobbs[71] Loper.[72]
But again, we do not need a constitutional amendment. The forefather probably assumed that the corrupt unrepresentative Senate and corrupt unrepresentative Electoral College Presidency would assure We the People would never be subject to an unelected appointed for life Noble[73] "despotism of an oligarchy".
But it was not a complete assumption, because the Founding Fathers did leave us Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" And congress with a simple act of congress singed by a president can EXCLUDE any and all use of a corrupt would be Nobility’s[74] oligarchy's stare decisis judge-made-law.
The issue with Trump, this is going to damage his ego BIGTIME, has nothing to do with TRUMP
The issue with Trump is the constitutional FICTION of an oligarchy’s apppionted for life judge-made-law!!!!!!
As Jefferson said in 1820 “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
[1] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[2] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[3] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[4] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[6] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[7] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”
[8] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[9] Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone 1387-01 (Kindle Locations 23832-23834). Kindle Edition.”
[10] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[11] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[12] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[14] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[15] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[16] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[17] RANDALL v. BRIGHAM is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 15, 1869. The case was argued before the court on April 6, 1869. President john Veto Overridden by the House and became law on April 9, 1866
[18] BRADLEY v. FISHER is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 8, 1872. The case was argued before the court on February 26, 1872. In a 6-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. Signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on April 20, 1871
[19] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[20] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)
[21] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
[22] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[25] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[26] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[27] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
[28] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)
[29] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)
[30] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
[31] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
[32] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
[33] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
[34] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
[35] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
[36] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
[37] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[38] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
[39] LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. - Decided June 28, 2024
[40] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
[41] LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. - Decided June 28, 2024
[42] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[43] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[44] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[45] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[46] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)
[47] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)
[48] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
[49] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
[50] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
[51] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
[52] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
[53] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
[54] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
[55] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[56] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
[57] LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. - Decided June 28, 2024
[58] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[59] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[60] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
[61] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871)
[62] Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1871)
[63] United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
[64] Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
[65] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
[66] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
[67] Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
[68] Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
[69] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
[70] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
[71] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
[72] LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL. - Decided June 28, 2024
[73] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[74] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
[75] Article I, Section 9.8 “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” The prohibition of titles was not about prohibiting an honor; it was ALL about prohibition of the immunity that a “title” included.
Originally Created 2-Mar-25, Print/Publish 2-Mar-25 05:46:00, Saved 6-Mar-25 07:50:00
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/04/shave.html
Xi Jinping will CRUSH DJTrump by simply ignoring him!
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/04/dainti.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/02/cu.html
