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.    











No comments:

Post a Comment