“Just Hitting Another
Brick Wall”
Unconstitutional and Illegal Federal Laws
Starting with today I have decided, after much thought, consideration and the urging of my sons, to use every Tuesday’s post to try to educate people on how our Government, our very own elected officials are and have been undermining our Constitution, our National Sovereignty, our RIGHTS and FREEDOMS and selling us out to a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
“Fundamental, Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world order global society and their children will not fit in.” -
“We shall have World government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” – In a boast made by James Paul Warburg on
Sad to say, due to the dumbing down by our public school system, far too many American citizens are woefully ignorant when it comes to the United States Constitution, which means that they are also ignorant of the fact that far too many of the Federal Laws concerning our daily lives are totally unconstitutional and therefore ILLEGAL.
There is a general misconception among the American people, both in the general population and among our elected leaders, who should know better, that any statute passed by legislatures bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The truth is, the U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land, and for any statute to be VALID, must be in agreement with the Constitution. Folks what I am saying is, “It is impossible for any law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This was very plainly stated by the following:
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs.
“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 vs.
And finally:
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.
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
The citizens of the
When members of Congress are woefully ignorant of the Constitution, or they are willfully ignoring it and changing the original meanings of the Bill of Rights, and when judges who should know better, rule unconstitutional laws to be valid, this should send up warning flags to every single American citizen that something is drastically WRONG. The following is a case in point:
During the Senate confirmation hearings, concerning the nomination of John Ashcroft to be the U.S. Attorney General, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., laid into President Bush's attorney general nominee about his strong support for the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. Kennedy demanded that Ashcroft apologize to the American people.
For what did Kennedy think Ashcroft should apologize? In a speech, Ashcroft said that the reason the framers demanded a constitutional protection for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was to provide a measure of protection against tyranny in government.
Kennedy demonstrated gross ignorance about the founding of our nation. To throw such an intemperate, public hissy-fit, he must have counted on -- and correctly so -- the ignorance of his senatorial colleagues, the news media and most Americans.
Let's take a look at the framers' words to see whether they gave us the Second Amendment so we could go deer and duck hunting or, as Ashcroft said, to protect against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson said, "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson made himself even more explicit when he said, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Writing in the Federalist Paper No.46, James Madison said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." In Federalist Paper No. 28, Alexander Hamilton said, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."
Richard Henry Lee said, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Tench Coxe said, "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in
When the history of the 20th century is finally written, one of its key features will be the wanton slaughter of more than 170 million people, not in war, but by their own government. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former
One of the most evil and disastrous influences in the minds of Americans today, is the notion that the federal constitution of 1787 (the "U.S. Constitution") is a "living" document.
What exactly does this mean?
By claiming that the Constitution is a “living” document, what is being told to the citizens of the United States is that the Constitution does NOT mean, what the words written in it, say. Instead, we are being told that the Founding Fathers are out of step with the times and that the Constitution can mean whatever our elected officials and the judges feel that it ought to mean at any given time.
Here is an example: the Fifth Amendment states that "No man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," so using this amendment, some Federal judges used it to declare it "unconstitutional" for states to have capital punishment. Even though it is well beyond rational thought that a document which states that a man may be "deprived of life" following the "due process of law" does not itself outlaw executions of convicted murders. Yet the Supreme Court thought so. The reason for this is that a "living" constitution is no constitution at all – it is in fact nothing.
Next week, I will get into some of the Federal laws which blatantly violate the Constitution and I will explain why they are illegal, but for now, it will suffice for each of you to know that the Constitution specifies only three federal crimes-treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. These were and are to be the only areas that the Federal government was to have control, yet the Congress has passed federal laws against kidnapping, gun ownership, drug use, "hate crimes," discrimination, fraud, carjacking, vandalism, pornography, and dozens of other activities that have no national significance, even laws to control what Churches and other religious groups may or may not say and do.
Federal laws interfere with local police work and violate the Constitution. They also allow government to circumvent the Bill of Rights and subject citizens to double jeopardy. If a jury acquits someone of violating a state gun-control law, for example, he can be re-tried for violating a federal gun-control law-even though the second trial is for the same act. The federal government’s involvement in local law-enforcement has helped the guilty and hurt the innocent.
“Abouna” Gregori
|