Some of the judges in England have had the boldness to assert, that an act of Parliament, made against natural
equity, is void; but this opinion contravenes the general position, that the validity of an act of Parliament cannot
be drawn into question by the judicial department: It cannot be disputed, and must be obeyed [That sounds like where we are today.
The power of Parliament is absolute and transcendant [This sounds like U.S. Congress; everybody except Ron & Rand Paul & a couple others]; it is omnipotent in the scale of political existence. Besides, in England there is no written constitution, no fundamental law, nothing visible, nothing real, nothing certain, by which a statute can be tested. In America the case is widely different [More like, in America the case USED to be widely different. It's time to put things back where they belong.]:
Every State in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude and precision. What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; [It is the IRS's commission as well!] and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void [Pretty sure there are a lot of void IRS acts out there.]. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is absolutely void.
Yet, the reality is life in the corporate FEDERAL and STATE governments goes on, mostly unimpeded by such things as sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state guarantee of a Republican form of government. FF says the "game is over." I disagree. The "game" is alive and well. The ability of the FEDERAL government to ride roughshod over its 14th Amendment citizenry remains rampant. While it may be destroying its present form from within, via fiat, what will emerge is likely a worse, ever more controlling faction designed by the moneychangers, those who have been directing events since the takeoever-of-one-government-at-a-time by the G-dfather of the NWO mafia, Rothschild.
Note the date of the case above...1795. Courts routinely dismiss "sovereignty" or "rights vs privileges" arguments all of the time. Few know how to fight the system, and while it can seem heartening to know there exists an entirety of case laws that are supportive of the Republic, in this regard I would say that the game is over. It is not that I have given up, by individual example, for I recently argued that the use of copyrighted statutes from the Bar Association are not to be relied upon, but instead, the laws passed by the Illinois legislatures and published by them, and that it is the latter by which the courts must rule. Judges ignore arguments like this, and appellate courts back them up. As private corporations, courts have the stated corporate objective to maximize revenue for the shareholders. You all know the drill from there. With the "sovereigns," just as it is with the de facto courts, it is always about results. In citing cases that state what is supposed to be for a Republican form of government, the truth is, that ain't the situation for what is probably 99% of the "citizens," and results for those who fight the system are not unified nor sufficient in number to sustain a succssful stance against the status quo.
The large numbers of people needed to resist are being anesthstized by government handouts and the safety nets of privileges and "benefits." Cognitive dissonance remains supreme. The rest, [the few], have figured out a way to stay away. I am not one of them, try as I might. [I have succeeded in having the IRS dismissed from my life, through direct confrontation and unanswered challenges.] As an aside, I cannot help thinking that the slaughter of the Russian Imperial family of Tsar Nicholas II was a much earlier version of the then-developing-NWO as an example of letting nothing, and no one stand in the way of gaining financial power of the world. Dissenting comments always welcome...
Here's a problem as I see it, just my opinion... People who complain about their relationship to the minions do not take the constitution(s) seriously. If they did, they'd ACT LIKE IT! They would conduct their own court whenever and wherever necessary. (Hint: IMOC) But local mercenary occupiers impersonating officers in the vacant offices can get the average sheeple to waive rights upon request within minutes and make countless admissions and confessions (some of which are false and if made under penalty of perjury could cause further discomforts to the unwary). Some say this is because of a martial law condition. I have my own answer to General Order 100. But dismissing martial law for a moment, the submissive, ignorant, uncaring individual may suffer for a lack of assertiveness in defending his rights "sua sponte".
There is no other information that could be construed as promoting someone else's web site. This link is a concise explantion of General Orders 100, for those not familiar with everyone being under martial law since the days of Lincoln, and a subsidairy explantion as to why there is fringe [military] around the flag, with the exception of the flags at the State Dept. http://republicassembly.com/book/export/html/24
Yet, the reality is life in the corporate FEDERAL and STATE governments goes on, mostly unimpeded by such things as sovereignty, the organic constitution and the state guarantee of a Republican form of government. I don't like the hopeless feeling of this post. If Edison had taken this approach on the light bulb there would not be one. This post has the same tenor to it that the Declaration of Independence had, "He has made the judges subject to his will alone." The founders were up against this same type of issue: England was acting in a tyrannical way and they wanted out! If there is no hope, let us just give them our rights and go crawl in a hole. If it is true it is a corporation, and the Constitutions do not apply and the law form and government structure has changed, why not force them to admit it as we take back our rights from a different
angle? If rights came from the Creator, a change in the form of government to a corporation could not take them away. I am pretty sure a corporate form of government is old news. I think a constitution is not much different than a corporate charter. Wikipidea says this about corporate charter, "The Articles of Incorporation (sometimes also referred to as the Certificate of Incorporation or the Corporate Charter) are the primary rules governing the management of a corporation in the United States and Canada, and are filed with a state or other regulatory agency." Wikipidea says about constitutions: "A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution. "Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, whether sovereign or federated, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially written constitutions, also act as limiters of state power by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross such as fundamental rights."
The beaches at Normandy were fortified in the cliffs; the allies attacked it nonetheless. If Frog Farmer has successfully intimidated them into leaving him alone, we should all be able to obtain to the same thing. At this link, it is described how <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/Iowans-dismiss-threejustices> Iowa Supreme Court Justices were ousted from office because they voted on a case in favor of gay marriages. I just learned that impeachment papers were filed against the remainder.
The Teaparty just got a bunch of people in Congress. Locally, two judges were ousted because of their role as prosecutors in a wrongful conviction. I'm pretty sure Colorado has rulings amounting to, "As private corporations, courts have the stated corporate objective to maximize revenue for the shareholders." but I know of a Colorado ruling saying that commercial principles did not apply to plea agreements in a criminal case where Constitutional rights were involved. You should see them [government officials] apply the Constitution when they are trying to invalidate legislation that limits their power or jeopardizes their position. In support of my position that there is hope, I bring to your attention the recent 2010 Supreme Court decision I posted here where the Supreme Court held the 2nd Amendment applied to the states. What about the 2008 Rothgery decision holding the states to a stiff application of when the right to counsel under the 6th Amendment attached. Also, what about the recent Lopez decision that reined in federal jurisdiction in the states?
Let us look at fiscal conservatives refusing to raise the debt ceiling in Congress. Obama's approval ratings are going lower and lower. Colorado just amended its Constitution to include an independent ethics commission as a watchdog over officials as, not corporate officers, but, as administrators of the public trust, saying that they are to, "avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated;."I hold these out as proof that headway is being made and as an offer of hope that we can also make headway personally. I have a lot of stories in my own life where knowledge of law has benefitted me personally. Certainly I have enough stories to make my time spent studying law worth my while. My most recent experience in court shows that some of our problem stems from judges just being ignorant as what our rights are.