The Nation: A State of Non-existence

Tuesday, January 7, 2014, Christian Mercenary

It is my opinion that there is no way to vote one's way out of the current political situation. I make this statement recognizing that there are those who will continue to seek a political (peaceful) solution to the current political situation until the very moment they are dispatched at the edge of a large pit filled with their neighbors and loved ones. 

One must understand the political situation as it exists. There is no reverence for the Constitution, the only thing that decides who does and who does not wield the power and authority the citizens have placed in the government. There is a means by which to elect representatives, but representatives and senators who refuse to obey their oaths of office, who turn a blind eye to abuses of power and outright usurpation of their own powers can not be functioning as representatives or senators and therefore, whether duly elected or not, are traitors and subversives. 

There are no separation of powers, no equality of governmental branches. There is a president acting wholly outside the Constitution, usurping and abusing power without limit or consequence. Once the Supreme Court signed off on Obamacare, it effectively ruled that whatever the government wishes shall be done. The decision, in that case, was so sloppy and contradictory that it demonstrated an absolute disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution, stare decisis and any number of other judicial instruments of justice.

The system is broken. It is no longer a system of government at all, but rather a system of power.

YOU CAN READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE! 

DOJ: Nuns have 'no legal basis' to contest birth control mandate

I am so disgusted by this!   Guess Americans in the future will be able to be forced into anything by this government..  ~ Lynn

The Justice Department on Friday urged Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to stop blocking the Obamacare mandate forcing organizations to provide insurance plans that include contraceptives, arguing that a religious group contesting the law did not have a complaint.

Just before Jan. 1, Sotomayor issued an injunction on behalf of Catholic nuns in Colorado who objected to the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act, claiming it violates their religious beliefs.

Read more on this here!

Alan Caruba: The Power Mad EPA--the threat is the EPA, not the mercury!

Barely a week goes by these days without hearing of some new demand by the Environmental Protection Agency that borders on the insane.

Increasingly, EPA regulations are being challenged and now reach the Supreme Court for a final judgment. This marks the failure of Congress to exercise any real oversight and control of an agency that everyone agrees is now totally out of control.

Recently the EPA ruled that New York City had to replace 1,300 fire hydrants because of their lead content. The ruling was based on the Drinking Water Act passed by Congress in 2011. 

As Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) pointed out while lambasting the agency, “I don’t know a single New Yorker who goes out to their fire hydrants every morning, turns it on, and brushes their teeth using the water from these hydrants. It makes no sense whatsoever.” Reportedly, the Senate is poised to consider legislation exempting fire hydrants if the EPA does not revise its ruling.

The EPA is not about making sense. It is about over-interpreting laws passed by Congress in ways that now continually lead to cases before the Supreme Court. The Court is composed of lawyers, not scientists. In an earlier case, they ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “pollutant” when it is the one gas that all vegetation requires. Without it, nothing grows and all life on Earth dies.

Continue reading.

The Doctrine of Judicial Review

The Constitution did not grant to the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. The Doctrine of Judicial Review was a power that the court granted to itself in 1801. Chief Justice John Marshall was a political ally of Alexander Hamilton and they both believed in the notion that the Constitution had implied powers.

The Constitution was written as a rule book that the government was expected to follow. The framers of the Constitution knew that only if the Constitution was strictly obeyed could it prevent the government from abusing the rights of the people.

The states delegated to the Constitution a short list of delegated powers and anything that was not delegated to the central government was prohibited. Hamilton wanted the Constitution to be interpreted loosely so that the government could assume powers that were not specifically enumerated. Those that favored a strong central government were constrained by the Constitution in order for the Federalists to achieve their objectives they needed to sell the idea that Congress could do whatever they deemed was necessary and proper.

CONTINUED:  http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/the-doctrine-of-judicial-review?xg_source=msg_mes_network

New Obamacare Lawsuit May Reach Supreme Court & Deem Obama/IRS Actions Unconstitutional

Last year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, was upheld to be constitutional as a tax. Though it’s been three years since Obamacare has been the law of the land, problems have arisen (we all knew they would), and costs have skyrocketed from their projections (we knew that too). As a result, some parts of Obamacare will be delayed by one year. However, it looks as if the Supreme Court may just get a second hearing on the unpopular, and in many of our opinions unconstitutional law.

How’s that? Well, when constructing the sweeping legislation, apparently lawmakers, specifically Democrats, made an error by allowing states to decide whether or not they would set up their own insurance exchange, which they would control. If a state chose not to set up an exchange, then the federal government would establish one. States establishing an insurance exchange under Obamacare would tax employers who did not provide insurance under the employer mandate. The money would be returned to employees to purchase insurance through the state’s insurance exchange.

The problem comes because more than two dozen states have chosen not to establish state insurance exchanges.

Barack Obama and the Democrats didn’t place a tax in the bill for states that opted out of the state insurance exchanges. Therefore, they cannot be taxed. So much for setting up federal exchanges in the states.

CONTINUED: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/new-obamacare-lawsuit-may-reach-supreme-court-deem-obamairs-actions-unconstitutional/#somzUfqstIJjABxX.99

20th Annual God and Country Banquet Announcement from the Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition

20th Annual God & Country Banquet announcement! Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby & Lt. Governor Dan Forest part of program!

Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby and Lt. Governor Dan Forest key participants in program! 20th Annual God & Country Banquet; September 16, 2013 in Havelock Lt. Governor and Mrs. Dan Forest will be among the attendees at the 20th Annual God & Country Banquet. The event will be held on Monday, September 16, 2013, at the Havelock Tourist & Event Center in Havelock, NC. This event has been sponsored each fall since 1994 by the Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition. Doors open at 5:30pm with the program beginning promptly at 6:30. "This being our 20th year will be extra special", said Jerry Schill, Chairman of the non profit. "It will be a different format, streamlined for more information and more timely presentations." North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby, will be the Master of Ceremonies and the two guest speakers will be introduced by North Carolina Lt. Governor Dan Forest. For the first time, the Banquet will feature two speakers addressing two different subjects. Todd Nettleton of Voice of the Martyrs will speak about the persecution of the Christian Church worldwide. Marjorie Dannenfelser will address the issue of abortion. She is the President of the Susan B. Anthony List, and is nationally known for her passion on this pro-life issue. Tickets for the event are $18 or a table of 8 for $135. For ticket information call Fran Buljat: 252-638-6367. Sponsorships are available as are ads in the Banquet Program. For information on sponsorships or ads call Jerry Schill: 252-514-0381. -end- NOTE: A color flyer with more details about the event is available electronically by request. Jerry Schill, Chairman Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition PO Box 15393 New Bern, NC 28561-5393 Phone: 252-514-0381 Cell: 252-361-3015 For ticket information, call Fran Buljat: 252-638-6367. For sponsorship or ad info, call Jerry Schill: 252-514-0381. Call if you would like a copy of the Banquet flyer e-mailed or sent by regular mail!

NSA Has Been Blackmailing Supreme Court Judges, Congress

NSA has been blackmailing Supreme Court judges, members of Congress...

http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/nsa-has-been-blackmailing-supreme-c...
p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKyIil9OdF4

(NaturalNews) Ten days ago, I publicly stated my belief that the NSA had used its spy apparatus to gather dirt on Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, then used that leverage to force him to change his vote on Obamacare. See the original article here.

Five days later, I also predicted the NSA was using its spy powers to surveil members of Congress and the U.S. Senate. In an article published on June 16, 2013, I wrote, "There could already be countless cases of the NSA using its god-like powers to blackmail people in key positions in the U.S. Senate (which is full of pedophiles and perverts), the House of Representatives, the State Department or even the US Supreme Court. There are virtually no limits to the abuses of this power."

Suddenly, new revelations prove this to be true. Russ Tice, a Bush-era NSA analyst-turned-whistleblower has sounded the alarm on the true depth of the NSA's surveillance abuses. In an interview on the Boiling Frogs Podcast, Tice stated:

They went after -- and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things -- they went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress, both Senate and the House, especially on the intelligence committees and on the armed services committees and some of the -- and judicial...   CONTINUED:  http://americac2c.com/profiles/blogs/nsa-has-been-blackmailing-supreme-court-judges-congress?xg_source=msg_mes_network

HOLD ON, DOMA WASN’T TOTALLY THROWN OUT:

HERE’S THE PROVISION THAT COULD LEAD TO ANOTHER GAY MARRIAGE BATTLE

  The Supreme Court’s historic rulings on gay marriage have people on both sides of the debate responding strongly. As TheBlaze previously reported, the majority of justices struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning — and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here). As for DOMA, there may be some confusion surrounding what, exactly, was included in the original 1996 law and which parts of the legislation that was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton have been axed.   To begin, the portion of the DOMA law that was ruled against in United States v. Windsor is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Same-sex couples, under federal law, will now, as a result of the ruling, be considered “married.” But before today, under Sec. 7 of the law, marriage was explicitly confined to unions between men and women.   CONTINUED:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PORTION OF DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, THROWS OUT PROP 8 APPEAL

THE BLAZE
June 26, 2013 10:09 am

This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.


The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning (read the ruling here) and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here).

The portion of the DOMA law that has been ruled against is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Gay couples, under federal law, will now be considered “married.” And in California, same-sex marriages will be able to potentially resume. The rulings do not impact gay marriage rights in the 38 states where it is currently not legal on the books.

The DOMA vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for himself and the liberals on the court. He wrote that DOMA is a violation of “basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” On a more intriguing note, the argument that DOMA infringed on states rights to define marriage was also noted.

Read the DOMA ruling, below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-contentious-part-of-doma/

Supreme Court strikes down key voting rights provision

June 25, 2013

The Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, ruling unconstitutional a provision of the landmark civil rights legislation used to promote the political power of minority votersacross large swaths of the southern United States for nearly four decades.

In a 5-4 ruling that split the court along ideological lines, the court freed some or all of 15 states from the requirement that all changes to voting laws, procedures and even polling place locations get advance approval from the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges.

The court’s conservative majority said when Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 it did not have sufficient basis to re-adopt the formula set decades earlier.

Those challenging the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance provision, known as Section 5, argued that it unfairly punishes the covered states and communities by singling them out for special requirements based on evidence of racial discrimination in 1965 rather than the present day. The challengers also claimed that the rule placed costly and cumbersome burdens on the covered jurisdictions by requiring that changes as minor as a shift in polling places be submitted to Washington for approval.

Supporters of keeping the law intact urged the justices to respect Congress’s judgment that the preclearance procedure was still needed to various tactics that have been used to limit the voting power of African Americans and other minorities. In 2006, the Senate backed reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in a unanimous, 98-0, vote. The House signed on by a lopsided margin of 390-to-33.

President George W. Bush, flanked by civil rights leaders, held a Rose Garden ceremony to sign the bill, which extended the preclearance rule through 2031.

In last fall’s election, the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance rule played a central role in derailing so-called Voter ID legislation in several of the states where it was passed. Federal courts blocked such a measure in Texas and effectively postponed such legislation from taking effect in South Carolina. A Mississippi law was blocked by the Justice Department.

However, civil rights groups managed to find ways to block voter ID laws in two states not covered by the preclearance rule: Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In both cases, state judges prohibited enforcement of the measures in 2012. However, the laws are expected to go into effect in future elections.

Tuesday’s decision was widely expected, especially in the wake of a 2009 ruling in which eight justices signed onto an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts saying the operation of the law “now raises serious constitutional concerns.” Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole dissenter from that 2009 opinion, wanted to strike down the preclearance provision at that time.

CONTINUED:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling-93324.html#ixzz2XErk9LKp

SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES KEY PART OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The Blaze
June 25, 2013
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections.

The justices said in 5-4 vote that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.

The court did not technically strike down the advance approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. But the justices did say lawmakers must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington’s approval, in advance, for election changes.

In short, the provision is unenforceable as it stands, but could be updated.

Here’s how the New York Times puts it: “The Supreme Court struck down a central portion of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, effectively ending the practice in which some states with a history of racial discrimination must receive clearance from the federal government before changing voting laws.”



CONTINUED: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-voting-rights-act/

Can the Government Ban Assault Weapons? Constitutional Experts Weigh In

Since the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, one of the major responses has been to increase restrictions on gun rights, presumably to reduce the probability that a mass shooting will take place.


But what if their proposed methods for doing so are unconstitutional? That’s the argument advanced by some experts on constitutional law, who argue that the landmark cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago protect against the most controversial ideas being proposed, such as an assault weapons ban. Moreover, even some renowned liberal experts on the same law law admit that the tools available to the government are limited.

Key questions in the debate are: Can the government ban assault weapons without violating the Constitution? If so, why? To answer these questions, TheBlaze spoke to legal authorities on both sides of the ideological divide, including some truly famous names within the realm of constitutional law. What we found may surprise you.

I. Background: Heller, McDonald and the Limits of the Second Amendment

When it comes to the regulation of gun rights, two Supreme Court cases stand out as definitive: The 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, and the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago. Both cases conclusively established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution, and that this right is in force whether one is talking about state-level gun law or federal gun law.

One might think this is the end of almost every gun law. After all, if there’s a constitutional right involved, the assumption is that the government can’t do anything to infringe on that right, right? Wrong. Every constitutional right has exceptions, or place where a right doesn’t apply. For instance, the Supreme Court has found exceptions to the First Amendment to include things like fighting words, obscenity and words that present a “clear and present danger” (such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when no fire exists). That is, the government can regulate, and even ban, such exercises of “speech” without running afoul of the First Amendment.


Similarly, both Heller and McDonald set limits on the right to keep and bear arms, even as they affirm that that right exists. TheBlaze has covered some of those limits already, but for now, it’s enough to quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller, which sets up the current controversy:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

CONTINUED:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/30/can-the-government-ban-assault-weapons-constitutional-experts-weigh-in/

Letter to the Editor: At best, naïve…by CCTA Member, Lou Call

April 22, 2013



Letter to the Editor

At best, naïve…

Sunday’s letter submitted by Mr. Hergenrader illustrates the lack of political acuity in many people today. On the issue of ‘stringent gun control’ he said the following:

“ Firstly, for this to happen the Supreme Court would have to be replaced since a majority would never support such a move. Legislation, if passed by a Congress which is highly dubious, would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”

The influence of liberal progressives in the Supreme Court has been established by Obama in his first term in office. During the remainder of his second term it is very likely that two Supreme Court justices will be retiring to be replaced by appointments made by the president. Considering Obama’s thirst for gun control it is likely that his appointee’s will fall in line with his manifesto of disarming our Nation.

As incredible as this sounds consider what happened when the Senate voted on the issue of the UN Small Arms Treaty. Forty-five Democrats and one Independent voted in favor of the Treaty. It was defeated by a 53-46 vote. The outcome of this vote is simple: 46 members of the Senate were willing to submit the 2nd Amendment to our beloved Constitution to the control of the UN.

As Americans we have a decision to make. We are either going to stand against the forces of Socialism, Marxism and Communism that runs a muck in our Country today or we will quietly submit to those forces.

We were born Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.

I’ve made my decision, what about you?

Louis Call
New Bern, NC

Abortion battle rages 40 years after Roe decision. Protests planned in Washington

Forty years ago, a poor, anonymous, pregnant woman called “Jane Roe” stepped forward to attack a Texas state law banning abortion.

She and her attorneys succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalized a woman’s right to abortion, overturned countless state laws and unleashed a cultural and political war so enduring that weeks after abortion supporters triumphantly swept pro-choice President Obama into a second term of office, Catholic prelate Donald W. Wuerl felt compelled to publicly lament, “What is the spiritual climate in our country that allows this culture of death to prevail?”

More than 1 million abortions are performed each year in the United States, and an estimated total of 54 million pregnancies have been terminated since 1973 (THAT IS MORE THAN 54 MILLION CHILDREN MURDERED), according to Guttmacher Institute data. But the moral and political questions surrounding the issue remain as unsettled in 2013 as they were 40 years ago Tuesday, when the Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision.


Abortion wars are under way in court and state legislatures over the “Obamacare” health care reform, and record numbers of abortion-regulating measures have been enacted at the state level in the past two years.

CONTINUED:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/21/abortion-battle-rages-40-years-after-roe-decision/

Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit “Treason to the Constitution,” and are Null and Void.

Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit "Treason to the Constitution," and are Null and Void.

In June, 2012, roughly two years after the initial filings, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) passed down rulings on the multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare, and on Arizona’s SB-1070. Was the Constitution upheld or further eviscerated? Political pundits on both sides of the issues spun the rulings to fit either their joy or outrage depending on their political persuasion, but what really happened?

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." -Confucius (551 BCE - 479 BCE)

Regardless of which side of the issues you reside, you were betrayed. The federal district courts that the complaints were filed in had zero constitutional authority to hear the cases. The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, had zero constitutional authority to hear “on appeal” the lawsuits against Arizona’s SB-1070 and Obamacare.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states:“…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The process matters and the ends do not justify the means, especially when the “means” involve shredding the Constitution, and the “ends” involve destroying the sovereignty of the States, and eviscerating the Bill of Rights. An authority usurped is a tyrannical act, and this unjust power was not derived from the “consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson’s advice   “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a general and supreme one alone.

We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then, with the editor of our book, in his address to the public, I will say, “that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his arm…That pen should go on, lay bare these wounds of our Constitution, expose the decisions seriatim, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to these bold speculators on its patience.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820  

Thomas Jefferson further advised: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion with education.”
James Madison, author of the Constitution, is attributed with the following from March 3, 1817:“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

In a June 12, 1823 letter to Judge William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson writes:“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.“  — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Taking Jefferson’s advice, give due diligence to the following questions:
1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] “on appeal?”3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?5. If the Supreme Court granted this authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?  

An honest review of the process will expose that the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, was usurped and ignored at every step of the way. Until the above questions are answered, an honest discussion of the merits of the cases and the rulings handed down, is not possible. Until due diligence is given the above questions, making any decisions regarding what We the People’s next course of action should be is premature and irresponsible.  

What does the Supreme Law of the Land say about how these cases should be handled?

The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states:“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” [Emphasis added]

In 1821, in "Cohens v. Virginia," Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall stated the following:  

• “The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."
• "…It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."
• “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its authors [Madison and Hamilton] performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.”
• “These essays having been published while the Constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”   

–U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall

1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?ANSWER: Plaintiffs cited 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 in their complaints to establish jurisdiction and venue before inferior federal district courts. These statutes are themselves “repugnant” to the Constitution, and should have been rejected. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court was granted the power to authorize the subjugation of cases “in which a State shall be Party” to inferior courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty, as clearly defined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1, to be the “first” to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party.”.

Over the years, both Congress and the Supreme Court have overstepped their authority on this issue, each relying on the other to validate the practice, yet nothing in the Constitution authorizes either to do so. Laws not written in pursuance of the Constitution are not law at all, and no court has authority to rely on unconstitutional laws to take jurisdiction that is not theirs to exercise. Additionally, no ruling passed down by a court that has no constitutional authority is valid. 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 must be amended to conform to the mandates of the Constitution. View proposal here.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78:“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is executed, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:  

• “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
• Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” [emphasis added]  

2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] "on appeal?"

ANSWER: They didn’t. The Constitution grants no such appellate authority to any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts should have taken these cases away from "inferior tribunals" under his authority over the lesser courts, and in pursuance of his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. He was advised of this constitutional crisis, and chose to ignore it, as were the litigants in the Arizona and Virginia cases. (Read: Open letters to Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts at RejoinorDie.com)

3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?
ANSWER: Congress, in direct contradiction to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, granted authority to the federal appellate courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases “on appeal” within the federal judiciary in which States are Party. No such constitutional crisis would ever arise if Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1 was upheld.

4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?ANSWER: No. The Constitution only authorizes Congress to make exceptions and to establish regulations [laws] in respect to cases that do not involve sovereign States [foreign or domestic]. The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, part 2 clearly states that the “appellate” jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is granted in relation to “all the other cases before mentioned.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “original jurisdiction” as follows: “Original Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in the first instance. Jurisdiction to take cognizance of a course at its inception, tries it, and passes judgment upon the law and facts. Distinguished from appellate jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.)

5. If the Supreme Court authorized inferior federal courts to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party,” does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court that power?

ANSWER: No. The Supreme Court of the United States is granted [shall have] “original jurisdiction” over cases in which one of the parties represents a sovereign (foreign or domestic), and is granted “appellate jurisdiction” over “all the other cases.”
The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not hear on appeal “all the other cases” for which it was granted “appellate jurisdiction.” The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority to neglect or subjugate cases to inferior courts it is required to hear ‘in the first instance.”

The states, acting alone or in tandem, have no discretion under the Constitution to engage in a federal lawsuit on behalf of a sovereign state in an inferior federal court. To do so violates the Constitution and undermines the sovereign relationship of all other states that exists between them and the federal government within our constitutional republic.

6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?

ANSWER: The Framers of the Constitution [the sovereign states] established, and the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged, that when a conflict between the sovereign States and the federal government arises, and said conflict is to be resolved within a federal court, that it must be adjudicated “in the first instance” before the U.S. Supreme Court, and no other. The Constitution makes no differentiation regarding whether or not the State is a plaintiff or a defendant. The cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 fall in that category.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 81:

“In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”

George Washington warned us, and advised us in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:

“If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction.“

“If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where

the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance."  

“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.”

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

“If the solicitude of the Convention respecting our peace with foreign powers induced a provision that the Supreme Court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them, yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases if no further restriction on the powers of Congress had been intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as Congress might make, is no restriction unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.”

“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.”

“When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Mr. Bernard Reese, a Trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society, in an August 10, 2010 article titled, “Court had no authority in Arizona case; Supreme Court does,” published in the Rockford Register Star states:


“The United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 specifically provides that: “In all cases …. in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

“Thus, U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case. This means that neither Judge Susan Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, has any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue...” (Emphasis added)

-Bernard Reese, of the law firm Reese & Reese,

Trustee, Supreme Court Historical Society

In early August, 2010, taking the advice of Jefferson to “inform their discretion through education,” letters were delivered to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. These letters have since become known as ‘scarlet letters.’

Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, in a December 12, 2010 Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, stated the following items should be taken into consideration when deciding cases in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the court: 1- the text of the legislation, 2- the history, 3- the traditions, 4- the precedents, 5- the values, and 6- the consequences of the decision.


An application of Justice Breyer’s philosophy on maintaining “public confidence” in the court suggests the following analysis:


• TEXT – Compare 28 USC 1251 to Article III, Section 2, and the bills to the Constitution.


• HISTORY – Founding documents & Federalist Papers 62, 78, and 81


• TRADITIONS – “original jurisdiction” in Blackstone’s Commentaries, and in Black’s Law Dictionary.


• PRECEDENT – “Marbury v. Madison"   • VALUES – does this statute uphold intent of the Framers?


• CONSEQUENCES – shredding of State’s Rights, risks the loss of confidence in the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution.


Was “public confidence” in the Supreme Court advanced or diminished by these rulings? Nothing about the Supreme Court’s handling of these cases instills confidence they are upholding the Constitution. Without getting into the merits of the case, if the Constitution was usurped at every step of the way, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice does nothing to secure the integrity of the process, how can public confidence in the high court be anything but diminished?


“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.”

- Henry David Thoreau

A wise man told me "If you don’t know where you’re headed, any road will get you there." Are we heading in the direction of restoring and upholding the Constitution, or are we being ruled by the whims of men?

Did we “bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution” as Jefferson advised? The parties that filed these lawsuits and the parties that responded made “strategic decisions” to ignore the “Supreme Law of the Land” and relied instead on unconstitutional statutes and case law to justify their actions. The federal district courts which took “original jurisdiction” had no such constitutional authority as the statutes they relied upon to establish “jurisdiction and venue” were themselves unconstitutional.

The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, relied on precedent and unconstitutional statutes to establish their appellate authority to review the cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution has never been amended to authorize the subjugation of cases to “inferior tribunals” [federal district courts] in which the sovereign states “are Party,” nor has it been amended to grant the appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the authority to hear cases “on appeal” in which a state is Party. James Madison talked about usurped powers.

This is not “just government,” and We the People have not consented to it. There are many remedies available to right these wrongs. The sovereign states have a duty to “interpose, nullify, and reject” these rulings, and We the People have a duty to replace every usurper in public office: federal, state, and local.   In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, a state’s right and duty is explained with the following:
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.” -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress

In the Report on the Virginia Resolutions, James Madison author of the Constitution states:
“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”  -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress
  Face it folks, the system has been perverted to undermine, ignore, and destroy our constitutional republic. Our ignorance of the mandates in the Constitution have made us vulnerable to opportunists who prey upon the public resolve for their own political or financial gain with reckless disregard for the Constitution they swore an oath to defend against all enemies. When we cheer on such usurpations because the rulings are favorable to our positions, we become enablers to the destruction of our constitutional republic.


Samuel Adams, often referred to as the ‘Father of the American Revolution,” advised us,
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."


Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 aren’t the core problem. The rulings for and against them aren’t the core solution. Tens of millions of dollars were coerced out of grassroots pockets to fight against Obamacare, and nothing changed. The federal government’s refusal to uphold its constitutional duty to “protect us against invasion” (see Article IV, Section 4), and the states’ refusal to demand their grievances be heard in a court that has constitutional authority (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2) further empowers the federal government and further eviscerates state sovereignty. Without the states upholding their constitutional duties, We the People don’t have a chance of preserving our God-given Rights against a rogue federal government.
Jeff Lewis National Director
, FIRE Coalition National Director
, Patriot Coalition Project Director
, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER Email
: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com Phone
: 252-876-9489 Twitter
: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog