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.


U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by boondock-saint

Yor kidding right.. Last time I checked we were all red blooded humans who all come from the same blood line.

I don't know about you but my blood is red how about you?

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

Wow.... read up on the guy some where other than madow or chris mathews ...Geees

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:13 PM
Another giant step towards stupidity. Let's get rid of NASA as a space agency then we'll take a dump and use the Constitution as toilet paper, way to go politicians. Who elects these and other useless imbeciles.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:14 PM
Did anyone else notice that the guy that wrote this article on Breitbart and determined the meaning of the court's ruling is also the guy whose case was denied by the Supreme Court? Hardly an objective article.

I will reserve judgement on this case and the meaning of the court's ruling until I have read independent sources. Not a article written by the guy whose petition was denied and at the end of the article tries to sell his book and plugs his website....

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by adjensen
I don't get it. This guy was sued by some company, his defence was a "he said, she said" sort of thing, he lost and was told to pay the legal bills of the company. He appealed that a bunch of times, with the last one being to the Supreme Court, saying that the Federal court in Atlanta was corrupt. (See here)

The Supreme Court refuses to hear his case, and this makes the "Constitution Void"?

Someone care to fill us in on the logic of that statement? Does the Supreme Court have to hear every appeal ever made, or it voids the Constitution?

There is no explanation need if you just move this thread to RANTS.... I see the Freerepublic simply deleted it.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:37 PM
That is the last nail in the coffin.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Slightly less balmy here than there, mate! However, most of us here that are 'awake' are expecting a sudden influx of Americans sooner or later.

As in the past, we await our bretheren with arms open


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:50 PM
The Sates signed the Constitution not the American People so you have no legal standing in Court to use it,because you were not party to the contract

You have to understand that Great Britain,(Article six Section one)
the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you.
Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile
has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell
the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me
and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The
court then says case dismissed. Why ? Because you are not a party to the
contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract
(Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that
you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a
CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why ? Because you are attempting to
infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make
matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights.
You are a mere user of your Masters property! Here are just a couple of

"The primary control and custody of infant is with the government"
Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

" Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband,
the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual
so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting
to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to
the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st
Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) You own no Property because you are a
slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.
edit on 20-1-2011 by boroboy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by DjOsiris
First sentences from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

...except of course for women and blacks and native americans and the poor

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by boroboy

There’s no polite way to say this but you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The Constitution is not a contract. The Constitution creates the federal government. The government derives its legitimacy from the people. A contract is between, at least, two already existing parties. How could an entity be party to a contract that creates it?

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:11 PM
I think most of us saw this coming. It is only a matter of time until the US has a dictator. Everything seems to have fallen into place, all of the puzzle pieces are locked into place.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by DjOsiris

Can't say I haven't seen this coming for awhile, tptb have been continually wiping their asses with the Constitution for awhile. Maybe now the sheep will wake up to the reality of what this country has become. We have been living in a corporate fascist state controlled by the military industrial complex for a long time.
(visit the link for the full news article)

what do you want sheep to do. unless the sheep turn into lions and kill the wolves that are attacking them, nothing will change.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:28 PM
How is the court system going to be run? The judge has the power not the constitution?

I really don't get it.
This ruins everything


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:37 PM
Amazing to see how many will believe this stuff.

You think the Constitution is void because some guy's case was "DENIED" by the SCOTUS?

I could understand someone saying that was a bad decision, or justice was denied if there is merit.

To say this voids the Constitution is a bit of a stretch.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:54 PM
This is an act of treason, incompetence, irrationality, and immorality. This is an outright crime against the constitution and the appropriate criminal punishments need to be dealt.

If the constitution is now rendered void, what doctine will take its place?

How is the court system going to be run? The judge has the power not the constitution?"

Good point. Did they not just render their positions and all branches of government void as well? They just relinquished their positions along with the position of the president and congress. So, who's in charge right now? Gotta wonder....

edit on 20/1/2011 by Mr Knowledge because: To edit

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:04 PM
I read this article and I think we are missing some facts in this case. First of all the source material is from the loser in the case(s) at hand. While I do think we have massive corruption in our legal and justice system, I think the headline is misconstrued and misleading.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by ziggystrange

I absolutely agree. I don't think many people read the article.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by DjOsiris

Interesting something about this. William Windsor is the author of the original story, William Windsor is also the attorney who filed the writ. Let us be honest, the writ was full of such vitriol is it any wonder the SCOTUS denied to hear the case? Is it possible that Mr. Windsor intentionally filed this knowing the SCOTUS would throw it back and then he gets to show how the SCOTUS has given the Federal courts the go ahead to trample the Constitution as they see fit?

just sayin...

Not that I really put action like this above SCOTUS but lets make sure we don't fall for some false provocation here.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:20 PM
Even with a blatant "to hell with the constitution" from these people, most folks won't do anything about it. Or even acknowledge this is happening. If its not repeated over and over on the media then it did'nt happen to most Americans. Besides, the NFC and AFC championship games are on this weekend. Who can possibly give a damn about a judge wiping his arse with the constitution when something like thats on TV!

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:53 PM
From the second I saw the title, I knew it was fake. If the constitution were ever to be voided - you would see revolution immediately.

The reactions I saw from members that believed it were disturbingly.... calm.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in