The Republic of America is now Officially Destroyed. Without a protest or shot fired.

Originally posted by DjOsiris
And of course subjects like this are obviously more important:

"Will Cigarettes Be Made Illegal in the Near Future?"

Don't forget, "Excessive-Force Case Filed Over Lab Mix Who Dared Sniff Police Dog's Behind"

Apparently that one's pretty important too.

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Regardless of this decision, how is it actually possible for a judge to make the Constitution void?

That doesn't make much sense to me.... does it actually make it void or is it in essence allowing judges to legislate from the bench legally?

I'm definitely going to have to find out more, but if true, this is the proverbial John Hancock on the Death Certificate for the USA, with time of death being the minute this was ruled on.

Canada is looking might nice right about now.

S&F OP.

~Namaste

It's very easy.. A person exercises their 1st amendment right to free speech and says something like "the government is violating my rights by deciding it can void the constitution at will".. A few moments later he is arrested and charged with something stupid.. When they appear before the court they plea not guilty using the defense that they were exercising their constitutional right to free speech. At this point the judge uses this decision to void the 1st amendment and find the defendant guilty of whatever they choose and maybe decide that this person is a national security risk because they are challenging the legitimacy of the establishment and therefore are a domestic terrorist. Next thing you know, they are spending the rest of their life rotting in prison.

That doesn't make much sense to me.... does it actually make it void or is it in essence allowing judges to legislate from the bench legally?

Both.

Originally posted by stupid girl

Originally posted by DjOsiris
And of course subjects like this are obviously more important:

"Will Cigarettes Be Made Illegal in the Near Future?"

Don't forget, "Excessive-Force Case Filed Over Lab Mix Who Dared Sniff Police Dog's Behind"

Apparently that one's pretty important too.

LMAO yeah that too!

The United States Constitution ceased being a legal valid document and doctrine in 1861 when the last lawfully sat congress disbanded.

They have been pretending for years its a valid document while congress has done almost all it's business and law making by using the Interstate Commerce Clause, regulating everything into the Commerce system where they have basically no restrictions at all.

It's amazed me they have kept up the charade this long, but I think it's a good thing that they are finally starting to come clean about it, which will hopefully prompt some of the people who love talking about how masterful a document the Constitution is, as they build some fairy tale world around it, that hasn't in fact existed for well over 150 years.

Maybe now Americans will finally start waking up to the reality of our representative republic and that what ever checks and balances existed in the text books have long ago been done away with or gotten around.

My rant was pointless

WOW. Is this for real? I'm really really hoping it isn't....I'm not okay with having all my rights taken away. I will be relocating to another country if it is. Anywhere in the world where freedom exists anymore?

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
Guys I remember this from a few months back in another thread. This is bunk, it was declared bunk in the other thread and it is bunk now. I assure you the Constitution has not been voided.

Yep, that's why I nearly posted it but remembered the old thread and it was really BS.

But yeah, there's corruption at that high level.

I find this a little difficult to believe.

Hoax title, Hoax article, that greatly stretches the truth. Someone put this in the hoax bin already!

Breitbart is the same idiot that used an edited video to paint that black woman from the USDA as a racist. This guy is turning into a crackpot.

Lot's to find wrong with the government, but it only serves to distract when you have to judge articles like this based on someones deluded histrionics.

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

We the People (state citizens) existed for 90+ years before the UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2nd class US (federal) citizenship was created by the 14th amendment for the emancipated slaves.

Constitutional power flow:

Creator -->

man -->

We the People -->

county (sheriff and one supreme court) -->

state constitution -->

state -->

fed constitution -->

fed (legislative / executive / judicial) -->

US citizens and corporations (under Congress (legislative branch))


US citizens have no direct access to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.. as Congress (your master(s)) stand in a superior position, between You and the Constitution, and will interpret the Constitution for you. (look at the chart)

The slaves were NEVER freed... they were STOLEN from BENEATH the southern plantation owner, and were placed UNDER Congress... Congress became the NEW slave owners / masters. (look at the chart)


Upon full disclosure... NO SANE MAN would CHOOSE to be a US citizen.


There are TWO classes of citizen in the USA...

Before the 14th Amendment

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. - Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. - Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)


... [F]or it is certain, that in the sense in which the word "Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each State," and "Citizen of the United States," are convertible terms; they mean the same thing; for "the Citizens of each State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," and "Citizens of the United States are, of course, Citizens of all the United States. - 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting



After the 14th Amendment

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state". Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other".
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship". Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such". Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual". Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)



US citizens have ONE Right:
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,"
US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957(D.P.R.1968)


US citizens have no access to the Constitution:
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226 (1993)

"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99


"The persons declared to be citizens are, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject..." Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)

What constitution?



Seriously, how long do you think that "old outdated and obsolete documents" will be allowed to remain in the way of absolute tyranny?

How can the United States "progress" as long as it clings to the past?

In the absence of God, Judges are!

From the actual case (not that anyone here is bothering to read it)

a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).

So the SCOTUS decided not to review a lower courts decision in some he-said she-said case, in other words, the "constitution is void".

More like someone has sour grapes.

This actually makes Breitbart look like a bigger moron than the USDA video. We get it, the guy hates the government. No need to make stuff up or edit videos.