Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2017
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.


Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.









Friday, June 28, 2013

Are You Aware Of These 12 Fundamental Supreme Court Decisions That You Should Be Citing In Defense Of Your Constitutional Rights?


Are You Aware Of These 12 Fundamental Supreme Court Decisions That You Should Be Citing In Defense Of Your Constitutional Rights?  

       Law Schools and Constitutional Law Experts around the USA are NOT out front in the Corporate Media sharing 12 required to know Supreme Court Decisions respecting our Bill of Rights and the limits of Treaties that may be submitted for ratification by the United States Senate.  Almost Unbelievably, the heavy Legal Staff of the  Corporate Media is NOT sharing these critical and turn-key to victory Supreme Court decisions with the general public of the Citizens of the United States.  They don't want the people empowered.  The Corporate Media and others don't want you, the public to familiarize yourselves with the very means of legally and peacefully constraining Congress with effective words that places the legal fear of lawful accountability in their hearts.  In the next few weeks and months, as you phone or write Congress, utilize these cases with your own words and legal and peaceful persuasion, and demand that Congress stay within the parameters of Constitutional Law already given by the United States Supreme Court, whether it deals with the Executive Orders issued by the Office of the Presidency or Legislation voted on by Congress respecting limitations upon the First or Second or Fourth Amendment, or where it regards a Small Arms Treaty with the United Nations, soon coming up for a ratification vote. 


       Earlier this year,, I posted these same cases before.  Please read and familiarize yourselves with, and share these 12 cases with your friends and family and be the educated and wary citizenry that Congress fears in a healthy way: that fear which is done out of respect, not terror, but out of a kind of admiration honest lawful accountability that will make Congress work for YOU the People in a better way because many in Congress will suddenly take notice and want to. 

       I have also included the Justia.com hyperlink addresses for open verification for whosoever will.  The @ of each case identification is followed by the page number where you will find the cited quotation of the Court. As our great late President Ronald Reagan used to say, "Trust, but verify."   And after you do, please copy this cases below and pass them on!  They are YOUR United States Supreme Court cases to utilize too, America!  -- Thanks.  Brian



Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html
"... 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."



Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."


Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/266/
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."


United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/
"But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "

[[[ This also extends to any "end-run" attempt made by Congress in ratifying a United Nations Small Arms Treaty that requires gun confiscation of its Citizens.-- Brian ]]]


Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/635/case.html
"By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."


The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/78/616/
"The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."


Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/133/258/case.html
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states.
It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."
[Case citations omitted]


United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
". as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution."


State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432-433
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/416/case.html
@ 432 "It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.
@ 433  Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution...."


Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/332/
"A treaty made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.
The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..."
[Case citations omitted]


United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208 

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/270/181/
"The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution.."


Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/case.html
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


As an added bonus, I am also including a temporary posting of some circa 1959 - 1961 Television Entertainment with Robert Stack as Elliot Ness in The Untouchables.    











Acts Chapter 7:1-19 in the King James and Alternate Word Pictures with Reiterations Versions


Acts 7
King James Version (KJV)
Alternate with Word Pictures and Reiterations (AWPR) 



1 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?   (KJV)

1)    Then said the First Priest - the High Priest,
               'If     [conditionally if]     there it follows that
                these things      hold (and continue to possess)?
                (AWPR)    


2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,  (KJV)

2)    The he shined forth in his answer and said, 
             'Men, brothers, and fathers.
              Listen intently and hear.
              The GOD of glory (to whom honor is duly rendered)
              was seen and beheld and perceived with the eyes
              to the Father of us, Abraham,
              being in Mesopotamia      prior to / before
              he dwelt in a permanent fixed dwelling place
              in Haran.
              (AWPR)
           
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.    (KJV)

3)          And said up to and alongside with him,
                    'Go away out of this land of you,
                     and out from the relatives / kindred  of you;
                     and here to this place, come,
                     into a land which to you 
                     I will show - exhibit - display 
                     [for you to see]. '
                     (AWPR)

                          

4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.    (KJV)

4)     Then at that time, going forth out of (the) Land of Chaldea,
         he dwelt and resided in a permanent  fixed dwelling place
         in Haran.

         And from that place, after the dying off   [by natural causes]
         of the father of him, 
         moved the house dwelling of himself into this Land,
         in which you now dwell.
         (AWPR)     



5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.     (KJV)

5)     And  [GOD]  He certainly not gave him  [Abraham] 
         of His [/ of GOD's]  own good will and accord 
         an inheritance in it, nor a step of a foot
         [not even a single step forward]:
         
          and   [GOD]   commanded by proclamation or decree /
          and   [GOD]  promised     
          him of His own good will and accord to give (it) 
          into a possession to own it,
          and to the seed of him [to the seed of Abraham] after him,
          (there) certainly not being or existing to him a child.
          (AWPR)
         
                  

6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.    (KJV)

6)     Then GOD spoke thus at random in this manner,
         that the seed of him  [the seed of Abraham] 
         will be a sojourner   [comparable to a resident alien]
         in another (of a different kind) / in a strange (even hostile) 
         Land;
         and they will subjugate - enslave it,
         and will do evil with injury, 400 years.
        (AWPR)


7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.     (KJV)

7)          'And the ethnic nation to whom they may 
              be deprived of freedom and serve  (as subjects to),
              I will judge, (and exact a punishment upon)'   said GOD.
               
              'But after these    will come out / will depart
               and will      serve for / worship to     Me
               in this place.'
               (AWPR)
             


8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.     (KJV)

8)    And He [GOD]    gave (of His own good will and accord)
        to him  [Abraham]    
        a Testament - a  Disposition to order - a Will of intent
        of Circumcision;
        and in this manner, thus he  [Abraham]  begat - he fathered
        Isaac, and circumcised him on the 8th day.

        And Isaac  [begat] Jacob, 
        and Jacob   [begat]  the 12 Patriarchs.
        (AWPR)
        


9 And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: but God was with him,     (KJV)

9)   And the Patriarchs being filled with (envious and jealous) zeal,
       gave over (for payment)  Joseph into Egypt:  
       but GOD was with him,
       (AWPR)    






10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.    (KJV)

10)    And took him out - plucked him out
          of all the crushing and squeezing (to the point of breaking)
          afflictions - tribulations    of him;
          and of His own accord and good will  [GOD]
          gave him  [Joseph]   rejoicing benevolent grace
          and wisdom / knowledge with understanding and (cunning) 
          insight
          in against / opposite / before / in the presence of
          Pharaoh, King of Egypt;
          and he set down - and he placed  (in office) him   [Joseph] 
          (as) Leader - Ruler     over Egypt
          and the whole house of him.
         (AWPR)     




11 Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Chanaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance.   (KJV)   

11)  Then came a famine - starvation - great suffering for lack of food
        (for a long period)      upon all the land of Egypt and Canaan,
         and great crushing and squeezing (to the point of breaking)
         affliction / tribulation;
         and the fathers of us certainly did not find 
         edible vegetation  [of the Earth, whether for men or 
         domesticated animals]
         whether by search or inquiry.
         (AWPR)

   

12 But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first.   (KJV)

12)     Then Jacob, having listened intently - having heard of existing
           wheat - corn - grain(s)    in Egypt,
           he sent away out forth the fathers of us first.
           (AWPR)    


13 And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.   (KJV)


 13)    And in the second   [journey]  Joseph was made known again
           to the brothers of him;
           and the offspring - lineage - family - race of Joseph 
           came into being as shining forth and revealed  to Pharaoh.
           (AWPR)

          
14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.  (KJV)

 14)    Then Joseph sending forth   sent for - called for - summoned
           (by invitation)  Jacob his father 
            and all the gathered together relatives of him:
            in souls, 75.  
            (AWPR)

15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,  (KJV)

15)    Then Jacob descended down - went down into Egypt
          and came to a completion / and died,
          he, and the fathers of us.  
          (AWPR)

16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.  (KJV)

16)    And they were transported - transferred into Shechem,
          and were set and placed 
          in the memorial sepulchre / in the tomb
          which Abraham bought - purchased 
          near to the sons of Hamor of Shechem
          (for) a price - (for) a value      of silver.
          (AWPR)

 




17 But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt,   (KJV)

17)    Then as the time of the Promise which GOD swore  by oath
          to Abraham drew near,
          the people increased in number - the people grew,
          and were multiplied to fullness as of a great multitude
          in Egypt 
          (AWPR)
          



18 Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.   (KJV)  


18)   Continually until (there) rose up - stood up another 
         king of a different kind, who certainly knew not
         nor saw Joseph.
         (AWPR)




19 The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.   (KJV)

19)    This one   down against wisdom / 
          This one with deceitful treacherous cunning

          [that subtility used to deceive with reasoning that is 
           used to cheat, delude, gain advantage, ensnare, or 
           overcome righteous opposition] 

          with the offspring - family - lineage - race of us,
          dealt dishonestly out of       the doing good / the good (labor)
          of the fathers of us  (because the fathers of us were good),
          to bring about - cause - make exposed and put or cast out to die
          the babes of them into that (which they) 
          might not be giving life as preserved alive.
          (AWPR)
           


Disclaimer:  The Alternate Word Pictures with Reiterations (AWPR) translation, translation mine, should be used as a Bible Study Aid only, and it is recommended that a direct literal translation or the King James Bible be used for regular and ecclesiastical purposes, and that the AWPR be used in association only as a Bible study aid so as to help the reader / user in their Bible Studying to clarify context and Scriptural Intent, and to get the full context and understanding into the English from out of the ancient Greek in which this New Testament passage was first written.    Thanks.  -- Brianroy



Monday, June 24, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Decision In 1891 Denies Obama Administration Claim That We Can Offer Constitutional Rights To Foreign Combatants




Since January 2009,  we keep hearing from the illegally ensconced Obama Administration as well as  Leftists, Progressives, Communists, Muslims, and other habitual liars of how the Muslim Terrorists have Constitutional Rights the same as us.  The United States Supreme Court Decision “In Re Ross” 140 U.S. 453 (1891) has laid out for us that such a notion as foreign terrorists or combatant against the United States as having U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights protections is a LIE of the most heinous kind upon the American People.   "In re Ross" tells us in clear and in no unmistakeable terms that the United States “Constitution can have no operation in another country”.  And if that is true for a U.S. Citizen not aboard a U.S. flagship or in a U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate, (which are by legal definition considered virtually the same as U.S. Soil) but in a foreign nation, it is doubly so that it would extend to include enemy combatants or aliens of any type, even were they brought onto U.S. soil by capture.  For example, during the U.S. involvement of World War II from 1941-1945,  German and Japanese prisoners of War  were housed on U.S. Soil, protected only by the Geneva Convention and having NO United States Constitutional Rights whatsoever.  There is no material difference between the military personnel and the Muslim Terrorist today in NOT having U.S. Constitutional protections.  The Muslim terrorist has LESS rights as a non-uniformed combatants and is actually over-generously treated at Guantanamo Bay with far too many privileges as it is.





In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) at 463-464 



we read that
 



... "The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries, and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments of withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries and the successful prosecution of commerce with their people.

The treatymaking power vested in our government extends to all proper subjects of negotiation with foreign governments. It can, equally with any of the former or present governments of Europe, make treaties providing for the exercise of judicial authority in other countries by its officers appointed to reside therein.

We do not understand that any question is made by counsel as to its power in this respect. His objection is to the legislation by which such treaties are carried out, contending that so far as crimes of a felonious character are concerned, the same protection and guaranty against an undue accusation or an unfair trial secured by the Constitution to citizens of the United States at home should be enjoyed by them abroad. 





In none of the laws which have been passed by Congress to give effect to treaties of the kind has there been any attempt to require indictment by a grand jury before one can be called upon to answer for a public offense of that grade committed in those countries, or to secure a jury on the trial of the offense. Yet the laws on that subject have been passed without objection to their constitutionality. Indeed, objection on that ground was never raised in any quarter, so far as we are informed, until a recent period.
It is now, however, earnestly pressed by counsel for the petitioner, but we do not think it tenable. By the Constitution, a government is ordained and established "for the United States of America," and not for countries outside of their limits. The guarantees it affords against accusation of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury, and for an impartial trial by a jury when thus accused apply only to citizens and others within the United States or who are brought there for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad. Cook v. United States,138 U. S. 157, 138 U. S. 181.


  The Constitution can have no operation in another country. When, therefore, the representatives or officers of our government are permitted to exercise authority of any kind in another country, it must be on such conditions as the two countries may agree, the laws of neither one being obligatory upon the other."


If America in World War II would not even remotely view a German Nazi Spy from abroad as having U.S. Constitutional Rights, nor them us; then why the hell is Eric Holder and Obama pushing for us to have Al Qaeda and various foreign terrorists to be treated as having U.S. Constitutional Rights except to aid and abet the enemies of the United States?