It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Violation for Knowingly voting for un Constitutional Legislation

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:35 AM

Here we go folks, time to use their laws against them.

If the states win the case on the un Constitutionality of the Mandated Health Care bill, we have the whole kit and kabootle.

The country has been saying this is un Constitutional. The country has asked the representatives if this is un Constitutional.

Let me show you THE LAW.

From this site-Violation of Oath of Office and Walker v Members of Congress

In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.

In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”

The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.

The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution.

Besides this law, I would like them charged with this law.

From this site-CONSPIRACY 18 U.S.C. 371

makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What happens to the criminals when the US Supreme Court declares it un Constitutional?

Maybe Barrack should not have tried to give the Supreme Court crap just a few weeks ago, hmmmmm?

[edit on 3/30/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:03 AM
They wont find it is allowed to raise taxes and give credits for programs...but, I do find the post interesting.

You dont need the health care reform to find unconstitutional things done..history over the last 100 years is littered with institutions that fly in the face of the constitution...Hmm...what would happen if indeed you got someone whom pushed a pure look at the law.

Anarchy? a complete rewrite? Perhaps a simple lessening of the constitution's influence in law all together (as it for the most part has been demoted long ago to just a guideline verses a hard stand)

Will actually star and flag this thread...even though my computer may erupt into flames by doing so..but it is solid.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:09 AM
So many people are going to want to get paid under the table now, so they can avoid fines for not being able to afford health insurance. I hope the gubbmint knows what a large under ground employment market they just created, which means they'll get less taxes.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Thanks SaturnFX, I came across that Walker V Members of Congress when I was looking for something else. Parts of it just jumped out at me.

I always wondered why Congress never bothered asking the SC if a law is Constitutional before they try to enact these large changes in the law.

Oh well, if we can catch em, we got a way now.

Thanks for the S&F, sorry bout being such an ass and hardnose.

But, I am what I am, and you are what you are.


posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by harrytuttle

Yes, I have seen evidence of that over the years. The harder times become, the more the black markets expand. At the end of the cold war, the only thing keeping the USSR functioning was the black markets.

That tells you where we are now.


posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:14 AM
sorry bro but ur barking up the wrong tree.
this battle can only be fought in the supreme
court. And State Attorney Generals get funding
for their actions from Federal Grants. Without
them they cannot pursue long court
battles cuz it would bankrupt state budgets.
The feds already told the states if u appeal
the obamacare law, then the feds will cut off
this fed funding. That makes extortion.
I'm taking ur funds so u can't sue me.
So the case will never fly, charges will
never see the light of day and the supreme
court will be oblivious to the fact.

Don't you just love criminals????

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

There are 12 state AG's going forward.

And the big thing is, the President talked down to this Supreme Court already.

If I can get this idea to em. Oooooh, it would be nice.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:42 AM
Whether the states can and will sue the federal government on Constitutional grounds really doesn't matter as any person adversely affected by this law, and by that I mean any person held to answer for or pay a fine or submit to imprisonment for failure to comply with the law, has right to sue the federal government for a redress of grievances as well and the obvious remedy is to strike the law down as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has a long history of upholding a persons right to self determination and particularly when it comes to making private medical decisions. Consider just one of these rulings with Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).

The beautiful irony of this ruling is that SCOTUS can sometimes seem ambivalent, or inconsistent about the right to self determination, but that inconsistency arises when the Court defers to states rights, yet in this ruling they are both upholding the states rights and individuals rights in the same ruling. Here are the facts of that case:

Karen Cruzan, following an automobile accident, sustained injuries that left her what is called a "persistent vegetative state", and therefore legally incompetent to make any decisions for herself. The state had been bearing the cost for her care and when the Karen's parents requested that her life support system be removed, the doctors, nurses and staff of the hospital keeping Karen alive refused to do so. Karen's parents sued to have the life support system withdrawn and a state trial court authorized the termination of life support, finding that a person has a fundamental right, under both federal and state constitutions to direct or refuse the withdrawal of a life support system, and the fact that Cruzan had expressed to a former housemate that this would be their wish in the event such circumstances occurred.

The case was taken to a higher court and the State Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision. While the State Supreme Court also recognized the refuse treatment, as embodied in the common law doctrine of informed consent, the State Supreme Court held that such law was not applicable in this sense.

This State Court did, however, decline to read into the State constitution the expressed right to privacy and its broad nature, which would imply an unrestricted right to refuse treatment, and also questioned whether the federal Constitution embodied such as right. They instead reasoned that the Living Will statutes of that state, strongly favored the preservation of life, as well as holding that Cruzon's statements to her housemate were unreliable for the purpose of determining her intent. The State Court also rejected the argument that the parents were entitled to order the termination, declaring that no person can presume the right of authority over an incompetent persons right to choice, absent any formality required by statute or compelling evidence that it is the choice of the incompetent being carried out by the parents.

This ruling eventually went to The Supreme Court, while affirming the State Supreme Court's holding, here is what The SCOTUS held:

1. The United States Constitution does not forbid Missouri to require that evidence of an incompetent's wishes as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Cruzan v. Director MDH; Pp. 269-285. [497 U.S. 261, 262]

Here The SCOTUS is upholding states rights, by asserting that the state is not forbidden by The United States Constitution to require compelling evidence to end an incompetent persons life. The right to life and the preservation of that life is what is first and foremost the concern. Both state and federal Supreme Courts agree on this.

(a) Most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent, see, e.g., In re Storar, 52 N.Y.2d 363, 438 N.Y.S.2d 266, 420 N.E.2d 64, or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right, see, e.g., Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E.2d 417. In addition to relying on state constitutions and the common law, state courts have also turned to state statutes for guidance, see, e.g., Conservatorship of Drabick, 200 Cal.App. 3d 185, 245 Cal.Rptr. 840. However, these sources are not available to this Court, where the question is simply whether the Federal Constitution prohibits Missouri from choosing the rule of law which it did.

Pp. 269-278.

Here The SCOTUS makes clear that however The Missouri State Supreme Court came by their determinations is their concern, and is distinguished from the SCOTUS ruling which makes its own determinations. The importance in this is in what follows:

(b) A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment. Cf., e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24 -30. However, the question whether that constitutional right has been violated must be determined by balancing the liberty interest against relevant state interests. For purposes of this case, it is assumed that a competent person would have a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition. This does not mean that an incompetent person should possess the same right, since such a person is unable to make an informed and voluntary choice to exercise that hypothetical right or any other right. While Missouri has in effect recognized that, under certain circumstances, a surrogate may act for the patient in electing to withdraw hydration and nutrition and thus cause death, it has established a procedural safeguard to assure that the surrogate's action conforms as best it may to the wishes expressed by the patient while competent.

Pp. 280-285.

So, while The SCOTUS is upholding states rights and affirming The Missouri State Supreme Courts ruling, they are making the clear distinction that on the matter of a competent persons right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, this is a basic right protected by The Due Process Clause, holding that such a right did not necessarily exist for an incompetent person, since they are unable to make any informed consent or refusal, but that Missouri's requirement of complying with procedural safeguards before terminating the life of an incompetent was what was affirmed.

The ruling is well worth reading and it seems to me that if a persons right refuse medical treatment is upheld as a right protected by Constitution, then certainly the right to refuse health insurance is just as protected.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Yes, I wonder what was done about the latest Constitutional Convention?

I do not know if you have seen this site. Give it a look see.

We the People

[edit on 3/30/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:51 AM
How did I miss this post? Ha, I knew I was on the right track. Got to admit that it did not occur to me to add the act of Conspiracy to it.

Good work as always.

new topics

top topics


log in