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

Hi ProtoplasmicTraveler.

Can you give me a brief description of what this actually means? Without the drama?

Thank you.

This is the supreme court ruling against someone for filing a valid suit and being told they had no right under our constitution to rebut an accuser that cost him his dignity and right to life, liberty and his pursuit of happiness... The Supreme Court is saying this man has to pay back his accuser because he made the accusation, not because it wasnt a valid accusation. Now, someone tell me if I am wrong but when the Supreme Court makes rulings, it becomes precedence for future proceedings to say, WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY OR THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.... If I am wrong, correct me, but this is not a minor incident.

Oh and btw - just because someone who is writing a book about this, does that make it bs? Go read the docket for yourself. I'm not here to do research for you.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So they made a petition "Stop being criminals plz!" and they reply "Denied!"?

Yeah well, I'm not surprised.

American People:But The US constitution doesn't allow...



Fascist Globalist: We are the constitution slave. We make the truth. We write your laws. We own you now cattle! Suck it up!

Same old fascism Different story.

Can I use that? PLEASE?! HAHAHAHAHA

This is just ridiculous. Proper rendering ^ to say the least. When are people going to pull their heads out of their butts?!


Edit* Mitt Romney is a joke! The only hope we will have is if we can convince Ron Paul to run again. There will be plenty of lobbying, which I believe may be unprecedented. All the voting is rigged anyway; so of course I can't expect him to win if he does run, but maybe people will start realizing that this is all just a ploy that feeds the building of the NWO.

And AGAIN, please link to ONE credible news source!

Not the comments sections of various web sites where this subject line was SPAMMED ad infinitum! Same article repeated, not one real news source has reported on this.

This is the SOLE source of this piece of disinfo:

William M. Windsor

Can you find one report that didn't come from this individual? Nope. He submitted that to "prnewswire", which accepts any content from anyone. Nothing is verified.

Instead of accepting his word, you should actually read what is being said with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Edit to add:

Included in this piece of trash "news" is this:

..."In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.

"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed."

Ahhh - so there it is. He want's you to go buy his book.

LOL, what a joke.

I love the people that are trying to make money off what is happening to this country. Vultures... every last one of them and they are, imo, worse than those causing the problems.

Yes, the story is frightful.

However according to the story, the decision came on 1/18/11. There were zero decisions handed down on the 18th, there were some on the 19th but nothing to do with this.

So, were exactly is all the hysteria coming from? What is the name of the case? As far as I can tell the court refused to hear his case(s), unless I am missing something.

In order to answer to this post I remain respectful of our nation and our laws, whatever the law may be at any one time or another.

The answer to this pique is merely contained within the law itself.

JURY NULLIFICATION

As it states, any Jury can at will and within the confines of a closed Jury Deliberation Room rule on the guilt or innocence of the defendant INCLUDING nullifying the law that jailed the criminal defendant in the first place.

The Jury has the right to find anyone innocent of any crime particularly if the Jury does not believe the law itself has any merit at all.

For example, if one is jailed and trialed for a drug law or a law with no victim, if the Jury thinks the law itself if stupid, the Jury can rule innocent, even if the defendant was caught with a smoking gun.

I always wish to serve on Juries and stand up for the rights of all accused...and always end up making the speech that in essence says: "to heck with the Judges instructions...we can and are allowed to vote anyway we want to regardless of the Jury Instructions..."

PS: All Judges HATE this but it is in fact TRUE!

Is this a great country or what?

HOAX TRASH

Thousands of thousands of appeals to the scotus are denied alll the time.

Because the nutbag Windsor argued the Constitution in his case (which most cases do) hes saying the scotus is denying the Constitution.

Like saying oh you dont agree with me when Im arguing the C? Then you dont believe in the C.

Its complete crap.

Breitbart is an idiot for posting Windsors nuttery. Yes nuttery.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.

During the first two administrations, President George Washington and President John Adams appointed only Federalist Party members to administration and judiciary positions. When Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election, President Adams, a Federalist, proceeded to rapidly fill the judiciary bench with members of his own party, who would serve for life during "good behavior." In response, Jeffersonian Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created several new judgeships and circuit courts with Federalist judges, and threatened impeachment if the Supreme Court overturned the repeal statute.

Although President Adams attempted to fill the vacancies prior to the end of his term, he had not delivered a number of commissions. Thus, when Jefferson became President, he refused to honor the last-minute appointments of President John Adams. As a result, William Marbury, one of those appointees, sued James Madison, the new Secretary of State, and asked the Supreme Court to order the delivery of his commission as a justice of the peace.

The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus (i.e., an order to force Madison to deliver the commission), the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law. Instead, Marshall found a common ground where the Court could chastise the Jeffersonians for their actions while enhancing the Supreme Court's power. His decision in this case has often been hailed as a judicial tour de force.

Basically, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury; however, he ruled that the Court lacked the power to issue writs of mandamus. While a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, the Court ruled that this exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution and was therefore null and void. So, while the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. As a result of this court ruling, the Supreme Court became an equal partner in the government.

While the declaration found on lawlessamerica.com is broadcasting a general truth, according to the above history the Supreme Court has no authority to issue writs of mandamus... something the appelant sought from the SC against fed. cts. in Georgia.

The declaration however does expose several valid legal arguements that validates the claims, thus it would behoove the SC to clear its agenda next session to administer the apropriate protocols.