Now let us go back and refresh our understanding of algebra.
If All legislative powers are vested in Congress how much legislative power does the Supreme Court have?
The Supreme Court is nine political appointees. They were not elected by the people. Our constitution provides that laws will be made by legislators, who are elected by the people, in the legislative branch.
Now let us go back to Article. I. Section. 1. Paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America and pay attention to a different concept:
Read it again BUT Now let us direct our attention to the words "herein granted".
Have we forgotten who it was that GRANTED those legislative Powers to that Congress of the United States?
The sovereign States existed before the federal government existed. The sovereign States created the federal government as a servant, to whom these sovereign states voluntarily delegated 21 duties, which were defined as "enumerated powers".
The federal government was also told, quite clearly, that there were no powers GRANTED in any other areas, other than those 21 "enumerated powers".
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please remember that the first 10 amendments to the constitution are also known as the "Bill of Rights". What you will find in the "Bill of Rights" is a list of PROHIBITIONS that were placed upon the servant federal government, by its creator, the states.
What the 10th amendment does is to basically patch up any possible leaks in the clearly limited powers which the sovereign States had authorized to their newly created servant. The 10th amendment basically says that the federal government IS NOT GRANTED any powers other than those that are enumerated in this constitution.
The States created the federal government, and authorized the federal government to perform a few well defined, and very limited functions. The federal government is prohibited from doing ANYTHING ELSE.
Governor Mark Sanford told the federal government that South Carolina would not implement the Real ID Act. Then other states followed suit. The the Real ID Act was not implemented nationwide.
Suppose that the Congress were to pass a law ordering that all churches were to be closed. Suppose that the Supreme Court then ruled that this law was constitutional. Would we obey that law? Should we obey that law?
Suppose that you were sitting on a jury in 1850, deciding the fate of a person being tried for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by helping a runaway slave? The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 mandated that states to which escaped slaves fled, were obligated to return them to the slave masters upon their discovery and subjected persons, who helped runaway slaves to criminal sanctions. In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional, without regard to the rulings of the federal government. The Vermont legislature approved the "Habeas Corpus Law," requiring Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist captured fugitive slaves. "Jury nullification" took effect as local juries acquitted people who were accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act. Ultimately the Fugitive Slave Act was not enforced in any state where slavery was not condoned.
At one time America was the force for freedom, that punished people who obeyed immoral laws of tyrants. The NUREMBERG trials are just one example. “We were just obeying orders” was the common excuse at Nuremberg. How did that work? Watch the old news reels, and you will see them laid out of slabs with the nooses still around their necks.
Hitler's words were the laws. The Declaration of Independence was illegal. In the final analysis no tyranny will ever condone the effective defense of freedom.
Our Bill of Rights is replete with phrases such as "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed".
King George said that our Founding Fathers were traitors.
Hitler called the advocates of liberty traitors.
The Tyrant's definition of patriotism is the support of tyranny.
Moral people cannot learn about what is right or wrong by listening to politicians, or by listening to their political appointees, even if they are judges.
In 1820 Thomas Jefferson wrote: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do,
if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
In 1798 Jefferson and Madison drafted The Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Act. 10 Nov. 1798Writings 17:379--80, 385--91
Thomas Jefferson wrote: 1. Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,--delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
The important and obvious reality is that the Alien and Sedition Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, and myriads of other outrageously unconstitutional usurpations have been perfectly acceptable to the Supreme Court. The most outrageous unconstitutional usurpations of our own time are Obamacare, The Patriot Act and the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). Any semi-literate, with an IQ above room temperature, could have quickly determined that none of the usurpations mentioned here are even close to being constitutional.
We should understand by now that the Supreme Court will never protect us from federal usurpation. The Supreme Court is A PART OF the federal government. All Supreme Court judges are political appointees, who got their jobs from the federal machine. Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court will protect us from federal usurpation would have to believe that the fox will guard his hen house.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
"The battle for liberty is never won, and is never lost.
The battle for liberty always continues.
It is never too late, and it is never soon enough, to defend freedom.
No matter how enslaved we are, we always have hope.
No matter how free we are we are never safe.
NOTHING EVER LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT THE PEOPLE.
Any generation that fails to defend freedom will lose it.
The next generation will have to shed blood to gain it back.
When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force.
At that point, failure to defend liberty makes slavery a certainty."
View the NULLIFICATION PLAYLIST:
No one has a duty to enforce injustice, regardless of any unjust laws, and regardless of the instructions of judges, bureaucrats, or even the President. All public servants have sworn an oath to support & defend the constitution. Anyone can swear that same oath without regard to any status in or out of government. If anyone is called for jury duty, or if anyone has been instructed by any government agency to perform a function, they can swear the oath to support & defend the constitution before responding. Every day our courts require people to swear an oath. They will put people into jail if you violating that oath. Can the judge order anyone to violate an oath? Tell the judge that you have sworn the same oath that he has sworn, and that you will honor your oath, even if he violates his.
A sheriff has more authority than the President, when he is in his jurisdiction.
States created the federal government and gave the federal government very specific and limited powers. If the federal government exceeds the limits that were placed on them, it is the duty of the juror, the sheriff, the legislator, or of any citizen, to resist that usurpation.
If the jury must rule according to the judge's instructions, then why are they even there? Is the jury there to rubber stamp, and to dignify the ruling of the judge? If that is our system then there IS NO SUCH THING as a trial by jury. In a free country the power is in the people. The judge is a government employee. Are we no longer concerned about justice? Jury Nullification is a way to allow the natural law to prevail over government legalization of tyranny. Government does not give us our rights. Our rights are inalienable, and are endowed by our Creator. The assertion that rights are provided by law is saying that we have no rights except what the government grants to us.
THERE ARE FOUR BOXES OF FREEDOM TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS:
1. THE BALLOT BOX
2. THE JURY BOX
3. THE SOAP BOX
4. THE AMMO BOX
PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON.
Understand your choice and your duty.
IT ALL BECOMES CLEAR HERE.
A Day In The Park - coming soon
To be removed from my address book,