What? The Supreme Court could render the Constitution VOID?

They think they can declare the document that created the Supreme Court null and void?

Would that mean that they would then disappear in a puff of smoke? Wouldn't it also make any of their previous judgements on the basis of Constitutional law null and void?

reply to post by Vitchilo


WOW!!

if this info is correct, this could really be powerful. i dont have any info other than what you printed, but you can bet i am going to research this.

it does appear to have merit, because as we know, justice is blind, and the courts, all of them have had some really horrible decisions as of late.

if this is true though, i dont see how the supreme court could possibly rule in our favor, they would be throwing thousands of court cases out the window.

the good news, if they rule against the constitution, it could be the start ot the revolution that is surely coming to america.

reply to post by babybunnies


very astute, yea, this could be quite the quagmire for the Supreme Court.

The reason they can simply say the constitution is void has everything to do with the difference between a "U.S. Citizen" and a sovereign American. If anyone has studied anything about sovereignty you will know what im talking about. Now to start the definition of Domicile according to Blacks Law Dictionary 8th edition "1. The place at which a person has been physically present and that the person regards as home; a person's true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain though currently residing else where. A person has a settled connection with his or her domicile for legal purposes, either because that place is home or because the law has so designated that place. 2. The residence of a person or corporation for legal purposes."
It's also important to know that wherever the domicile is claimed it is that locations law's that apply to the person. For example when a American citizen is in a foreign countries there are embassy's to protect one and hold up the laws of the American's domicile. Now you must also know that all federal territory such as the District of Columbia, Guam, Samoa Islands, etc. is considered a foreign country in regards to the states of the union and Federal territory is not protected by the constitution. So now every person in the states who has a social security number has signed a contract that claims their domicile is located in federal territory thus that is where the laws derive for that person. So given the fact that one whose domicile is in federal territory has no Constitutional rights. This is how the government has gotten out of control and is able to infringe upon every single persons rights every single day and when one goes to court and tries to argue their rights for a defense gets immediately shut down because the judge knows your domiciled in federal territory. If you want to know more there is a free e-book called The Global Sovereigns Handbook by Johnny Liberty which explains everything very good and honestly I think every person in the USA should read this. It can be downloaded here.

Two pages on this? Really?
...nope, I'm not going to waste anymore time on this, it is so absurd.
delete.....delete.....delete.....

............................. read some books on your federal government, and how it works, especially the Judicial Branch.
....oh and a bit of advice, You are as likely to understand the Constitution by reading it all on your own as you are the Bible. You need context, you need to research old case law that answered Constitutional questions, you need to see how those questions and answers got either clarified, tweeked, or just plain took a 180 over time.
Read the Dred Scott case for a good example of some bad jurisprudence.

But lets say you don't have time or the inclination to do all that digging just to understand how the Supreme Court works or how they even have the power to decide the constitutionality of a law.

Then the one case....or any book that is about this one case....is Marbury vs. Madison. The back story is as good as it gets and CJ Marshal was one brilliant problem solver.

Don't be one of those people that ever says, "Hey, I know my rights." You don't until a court decides what they are. You read things in the Constitution that prohibits, "Shall not be infringed." you know that isn't literal, in practice. Or, "You have the right to bear arms"....sure you do....but only this kind, that kind, this many, and so on. They decided they could "regulate" and that isn't "infringing" or if it is "infringing" then it "isn't unreasonable" or is "necessary to further a compelling state interest"

Don't be one of those people that claims they know what the Constitution "means". None of us attorneys can ever be sure, and neither are the big shot federal district judges. They get over-ruled from time to time.

Sound intelligent when arguing about the constitutionality of something. You certainly can state the amendment(s) you think are at issue. You should pick out a specific question regarding the debated issue and then pull a case out of your hat which the Supreme Court has answered that question before.

Or certainly feel free to give your own opinion from your gut...but you shouldn't claim that you "know" something is unconstitutional simply because you read the amendment and have decide that you are clearer on its meaning then at least 4 of the SC justices. (meaning, it is very common to have 5/4 decisions from SCOTUS) If the questions or the Constitution was so clear, why don't we have more 9/0's? (Rhetorical question obviously)

If you keep that stuff in mind.....you will never be tempted to believe a story like this again...and read the Marbury
case. You need to understand how the Court "created" judicial review.

((((when I say you....I mean almost all of the posters on this thread and others over the years that I have seen post over and over again, how they "know" what the Constitution means and how it is being shredded by recent politicians....It has been manipulated since day one, it is a "living breathing document" if you subscribe to Justice Thurgood's view...But hell to the yes there are tipping points and I am very concerned with how it is being treated by those that have sworn to protect it.....but that is just my opinion.))))