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

page: 7
139
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Looks like it's almost time to take a side for many. It's not that complicate after all, just decide at what side of the FEMA camp fences you want to be.
edit on 21-1-2011 by Trueman because: fix text




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Hurray progressive-ism!!
Thanks alot courts and thank you socialist.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Constitution...What a joke!
edit on 21-1-2011 by TechVampyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Star for trueman



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DjOsiris
 



Just goes to show that judges judge based on their feeling and emotions instead of the actual law. I have witnessed this first hand watching a sentence hearing. It was unbelievable how they can push whatever they want on you. They deem themselves "above the law"



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DjOsiris
 


Sorry OP

No Stars

No flags

Why the Mods allow this kind of ignorance to stay on the boards I don't know. Given some of the responces many are reading the OP and then not reading any of the responces.

The constitution is not void, end of story.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


One of the 1st times we stood up was in the hippie days at Kent State. They shot us.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


I agree! It is scary how ignorant people are and that they will believe anything. They can't think for themselves and that is why they think the government can solve all of their problems, when in fact the government makes it worse. Little by little more and more of our rights are being stripped away and people don't even see this. How do they not? Ignorance is my best guess, that on top of stupidity. I am glad I am not in that crowd. I believe I should be able to think and do for myself and I don't believe the government has all the answers.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DjOsiris
 


Really? So all the cases they didn't hear or refused to hear actually had decisions. It doesn't work that way, sorry.

Now, stop for a second. If theSCOTUS had actually said this (even though I do not believe so) would they not have put themselves out of a job. The sole job of the SCOTUS is to determine if a case violated the constitution, that is there one and only job.

So........since they apparently got rid of themselves, they won't have the opportunity to vote on healthcare, oh but I bet that when that case is heard they will be back on the happy list and following the constitution to the letter.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DjOsiris
 


What's going on here? What are the charges? What's the situation? ...I followed the links, checked out the guy's 'lawless' site, but can't find any hard information. What did I miss? Can someone synopsize for me?




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
There never was supposed to be a lasting UNITED States. It was an advanced idea ahead of the NWO. It was an idea that always was intended to bring people here of all kinds and creeds and ideas. And of course, should that happen (and it has and continues), we would have to suspend and negate all the laws this country was started with...for new ones...governing all of us, the immigrants, their customs, ours...and certainly this opens up all the Constitutional laws and Bill of Rights to new interpretations.

Im sure it was always meant to do this. Our mistake I think is to keep thinking the ways and intents of 1776 would still apply some 300 yrs later. I dont think they ever were intended to. At some point...out of pure necessity... we'd have to have the government, NWO or Big Brother whatever handle to whole idea of a "UNITED"....anything.
It was bound to happen...and apparently...it is.

We make a big mistake about standing up against such things. By doing that very thing...off we go to jail or prison...for going against the new "STATUS QUO". Pat downs, scannings, check-point lanes...all the same. And in their favor.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Here I just read this protectourparks.wordpress.com... ct-for-boat-rides-under-niagara-falls-3/

He is suing for a billion dollar contract to have boat rides under Niagra Falls, and to get out of a contract with Maid Mist in New York.

This is what everyone believes SCOTUS ripped up the Constitution for, they believe some guy to says he will make a billion dollars with the attraction, he's pissed of that he is not being let out his contracts and claims all Fed Judges in GA are corrupt. I don't know about the judges but a contract is a contract and he signed it.
edit on 21-1-2011 by searching4truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
On March 28, 1861 the United States Congress adjourned sine die (without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing, for an indefinite period to adjourn an assembly sine die). In other words Congress went home at the start of the Civil War with no intention on returning. To call the Congress back into session De jure (concerning law and principal) would have required the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate to set the date at a later time.

This never ever happened. Let me repeat there has been no legally sat Congress or Senate per the United States Constitution since March 28, 1861.

The Congress was called back into session de facto (concerning fact and in practice) by President Abraham Lincoln who had not the Constitutional Authority or Power to do so.

Legally, technically and factually the Constitutional Government of the United States ceased to exist forever March 28, 1861. It became a de facto War Time Emergency Government a CORPORATE Government operating under Contract Law because at that point the United States Constitution became desuetude (an outdated doctrine that causes statutes and similar legislation to become unenforceable by a habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.)

Legal doctrine says that when something falls into desuetude and continued non-use that it is rendered invalid.

Not only did Lincoln not have the legal authority to call Congress into session under the Constitution, the Congress being illegally sat, lacked a quorum (In law a minimum number of members of a deliberative body necessary to conduct business of that group). A legislative body not meeting a quorum can not vote. The seceding States were only seceding over an unlawful attempt to infringe upon the Constitution and over an attempt to amend it illegally without a quorum and that is what caused the legal Congress to convene sine die. Lincoln’s illegal and dictatorial actions in decreeing Congress in session de facto while in sine die prevented the real Congress from ever reaching a Constitutionally legal agreement to call it back into session de jure by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Thus the Constitution was violated at its core and fell into desuetude.

What the skeptics and critics might want to better consider is just because the government and the history books and the article itself the original piece is based on do not more fully and accurately represent the truth regarding the constitution does not mean the Constitution holds any real legal sway in a system that now has over 600,000 laws with almost 300,000 of them attached with criminal penalty.

How most Americans are taught and come to look at the Constitution in fact is riddled with so many fairy tales, even the word constitution itself legally means: Agreement to pay back another's debt.

The fact someone can't or won't wrap their brains around the deeper issues at play or do there own quality research besides trying to hastily (and sometimes angrily) dismiss articles like the Original Post is based on, will not in fact provide you the Constitutional protections you imagine you have but in reality stopped becoming a legally enforcable document in 1861.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

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



We have lot's of space...and open arms. Oh, and it's not illlegal to video tape police here either.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by soficrow
 


Here I just read this protectourparks.wordpress.com... ct-for-boat-rides-under-niagara-falls-3/

He is suing for a billion dollar contract to have boat rides under Niagra Falls, and to get out of a contract with Maid Mist in New York.

This is what everyone believes SCOTUS ripped up the Constitution for, they believe some guy to says he will make a billion dollars with the attraction, he's pissed of that he is not being let out his contracts and claims all Fed Judges in GA are corrupt. I don't know about the judges but a contract is a contract and he signed it.


Thanks for the information and link searching4truth.


I don't see what you see though. Windsor is not trying to get out of a contract; he did NOT sign any contracts. He is fighting for the right to bid on a government-controlled service that has been privately held for 163 years without ever being offered for tender.

"Alcatraz Media and William M. Windsor Take Legal Action in Attempt to Obtain Billion Dollar Contract for Boat Rides under Niagara Falls":



Atlanta-based Alcatraz Media and businessman William M. Windsor are jointly attempting to obtain the billion dollar contract for boat rides under Niagara Falls. The boat rides began in 1846, and there has never been an opportunity for anyone to bid to offer the service until Windsor took legal action against the Province of Ontario and the State of New York. This case is currently being handled by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under case number DC 09-105JR.

The governments of Ontario and New York lease the park land on each side of the Niagara River to a third party so that boat rides can be offered. These rights in Ontario, Canada are granted by The Niagara Parks Commission, and these rights in New York are granted by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

The boat rides at Niagara Falls are one of the biggest tourist attractions in North America. Hundreds of millions of people have taken rides on the “Maid of the Mist” since 1846 and 2,500,000 people currently ride the boat each year. When Alcatraz Media discovered in October that the rights to operate these services on government-owned land had been given to profit-making companies for 163 years without ever giving anyone the opportunity to bid, Alcatraz and Windsor cried foul.

Windsor and Alcatraz Media originally asked for the opportunity to bid in 2005, but attempts were quickly rejected. Ripley’s Entertainment asked for the opportunity to bid in 2008, and their efforts were similarly dismissed. One of the Niagara Parks Commissioners, Bob Gale, filed a complaint about the secret process with the Ontario government. When Alcatraz and Windsor learned of this, they began working full-time to build public support against secret practices such as this since governments are expected to be fair, open, and to allow competition for such lucrative opportunities.


The nation of Canada was established as a kind of "corporate charter" and 'government-corporate agreements' like the one Maid of the Mist has for Niagara Falls were the norm. Not much has really changed in Canada.

...Seems to me this case will set a precedent for terms of the North American Union that's about to be signed between Canada and the USA.


S&F for the importance of this issue.
for the lack of pertinent information and analysis. Personally, I like to get the meat in the OP. But that's just me.




edit on 21/1/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 21/1/11 by soficrow because: typos, format



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
They want American's to break out their rifles and revolt. If there is an insurrection/rebellion they would be able to wipe away the Federal Debt:

14th Amendment:

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


If they can get the population to insurrect or rebel, they can wipe away the Federal Debt and continue their stealing and robbing of America. They are out of other peoples money to spend and the printing press can't be supplied with enough trees and ink to print enough paper to pay the debts the Federal Government already has.

THATS why they are doing what they are doing. It's going to get worse.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DjOsiris
 

This looks really important. I'm flying blind, can't read a word (ats blackground). I never saw this once on the current post category, not once. Will look at it when it gets dark out as per ats screen rules. Is the kagan zionist woman at hand in this? This is the exact sort of thing I see when I look at her face. thx
edit on 21-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



This isn't the first time I've heard of the North American Union. I think much more has to be done with each of our individual deficits and border rights/regulations before anyone will be intensively discussing a union. Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7, so I don't believe it would be a to difficult. But I'm not sure that Mexico could absorb the amalgamation of deficit's to make an equal monetary value amongst the three countries.

"The North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical economic union, in some instances also a political union, of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The concept is loosely based on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the Amero or the North American Dollar.

While the idea for some form of union has been discussed or proposed in academic, business and political circles for many decades, government officials from all three nations say there are no plans to create such a union and no agreement to do so has been signed. The formation of a North American Union has been the subject of various conspiracy theories."

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-1-2011 by PsychNurse because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DjOsiris
 

I fully agree, but than again we can say the Constitution was void when the Federal Reserve was created under the guise of "private bankers". That is a settling thought, the FEDERAL Reserve being run by private individuals...Article 1 Section States the power of CONGRESS: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Let me know if I missed something here, where does it say ..."Private Banks/Bankers will regulate monetary value and the minting of currency..."? 1913 was the year the constitution was defiled and void. It just took the Republik a 98 Years to come clean. How much longer will the sheeps stand by awed by the bright lights and fast cars their precious capitalism has given them before they are fed to the grinding machines!?!?!? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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

Yeah well, I'm not surprised.


It is not like a petition that thousands might sign indicating their feelings about some issue. It is a petition for certiorari, a technical document that is used when you don't have the right to appeal to the SC. It is a "please would you hear this case" request. It is called "cert" for short. A denial of cert has no precedential effect. A denial could result from a lack of federal jurisdictional basis in the lower court, a lack of in personam jurisdiction, a failure to comply with all of the procedural rules for the petition, or any of a myriad of other reasons. The huge majority of petitions are denied. In the term that ended in 2009, 8241 petitions were filed. 90 were granted. See, ^ Caperton v. Massey Coal, 556 U.S. __, __ (2009) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (slip op. at 11). See also www.supremecourt.gov... (10,000 cases in the mid-2000s); Melanie Wachtell & David Thompson, An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures 16 Geo. Mason U. L. Rev. 237, 241 (2009) (7500 cases per term); Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Remarks at University of Guanajuato, Mexico, 9/27/01 (same).

Breitbart seems to have gotton all breathless and believed every word the disappointed petitioner said, without doing any research into the underlying litigation. Windsor, by all appearances, is a "serial filer". Some sense of the underlying litigation can be seen in www.niagarablog.com...





new topics
top topics
 
139
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join