Admiral Ace Lyons reveals New World Order controlled Cap Weinberger sabotaged Reagan's order in 80's critical moment, and other interesting tidbits that could have averted much of this Al Qaeda and Iranian runaway terror Islamicism, which is more a political ideology than a religious one, one embraced by Obama AGAINST The American People. Watch and listen for yourself.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc0_1423721020
http://youtu.be/GqkZBWd6-nI
The
Constitution of the United States of America is an immutable contract
between the Republic of the United States of America and its citizens.
By
definition, a contract is a drawn together agreement between two or
more parties for the doing or not doing of a definite thing, and the
doing or not doing of those definite things are an agreement acquiring
the character of being enforceable by (and under) law.
For
example, in the Declaration of Independence, there is a listing of
those things that a Government of the United States has upheld that it
would do and not do by example as to why the Colonies of the various
States dissolved their political bands with England,* and acting
thereafter as free and independent states, join into a cohesive unit
later known as the United States of America.
The United States firstly
was a Confederacy from the days of its Independence from Great Britain,
until March 4, 1789, when it by agreement between the States, evolved
into a Republic having the main body of our Constitution, and soon after
settling upon themselves 10 Amendments that would be added and known
collectively as the Bill of Rights, because the present generation back
then which brought about the Republic knew that it could not take for
granted that succeeding generations would intuitively know these rights
existed and were meant by that generation UNLESS they were put down in
writing and made inarguable as a definite INTENT of the founders and
those who gave us our Constitutional Republic by action and with GOD's
Protestant Christianity prayer inspired guidances.
Law,
in and of itself, is defined as a body of rules or principles
prescribed by a proper binding authority, and established thereafter as
custom.
If
the governing authority is NOT a proper binding authority as agreed to
by contract, then it is the right of the aggrieved party or aggrieved
parties -- the citizens of the United States -- to declare the governing
authority in violation of the contract that is between the United
States of America and its citizens.
By example, because the contract,
the Constitution of the United States of America, REQUIRES that for any
law to be legal, it has to be approved or left on the desk of a natural
born citizen of the United States legally elected, legally occupying that position, and of right age and
residency in the United States, born of a United States Citizen father
having lived in the United States with sole allegiance to the United
States for the first 21 years of his life, and residency in the United
States for 14 years more in total at minimum after the age of 21, Barack
Hussein Obama II, without a United States Citizen Father and who by his
own admission and that of the nation of Kenya was born in Kenya, is in
no way a legal occupant of the Presidency of the United States. Hence
all federal laws signed or passed into law by him or because of him are
"fruits of the poisonous tree", and are trumped by the Constitution of
the United States as unlawful, voidable, and are not to be followed as
if law because they are contrary to the Constitution so long as that
illegal occupant usurps the office rightfully belonging to a United
States Natural Born Citizen than the alien usurper and foreign parasite
possessing what the Constitution does NOT grant him any leave or right
to possess. Under the terms of the Constitution, our binding contract,
we citizens of the United States have the right and obligation to
consider anything signed by Obama as non-binding, and to refuse to obey
unlawful orders and unconstitutional laws (every single thing he signs
or declares, without exception). Of course, because we have so many
ready to betray the Constitution and ignore it and try to play
anti-Christ in our lives as if gods ruling every last aspect, we are
being pushed by traitors to the Constitution of the United States into
choosing only one of two choices, as if they were the only two choices
that will ever be given us: either that of an eventual violent
confrontation -- they hope will NOT be top echelon precise leadership
or irreplaceable target specific (e.g., a George Soros or obvious other)
and somehow misspent with localized protests or no knock security raids
on homes State sanctioned executions (to be labeled shootouts, even
when the security forces are the only ones armed and and the only ones
doing all the shooting) -- or submissive relocations with executions (as
the Turks did to Armenians, and later Nazis did to the Jews, various
political opponents, and to many Christians).
In
the Declaration of Independence, dated July 4, 1776, the Founders of
the United States of America declared that the rights of its citizens
come from Nature's GOD, their Creator: who gives to them inalienable
rights, rights that by definition cannot be transferred to another;
among them, the right to life, the right to Liberty, the right to pursue
happiness.
The
right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue happiness.
These rights come from GOD, not political government, nor do they come
from any political contract between a political Government and its
citizens by way of a constitution. But rather, the right to life, the
right to be free and uninhibited, the right to seek after (so as to
attain) pleasurable success, these rights come solely from GOD -- the
most absolute authority in the Universe, whose authority over-rules and
over-rides all other considerations, as He, as Creator, created this
planet, nature, and humankind to live within it -- therefore, the right to life, the right to be free and uninhibited, the right to seek after (so as to attain) pleasurable success, cannot legitimately be transferred to another nor by any government legitimately taken away.
Effectually,
as stated by those who founded the Government of the United States on
July 4, 1776 -- even though they would evolve by mutual agreement from
a Confederacy into a Republic over the course of the next 23 years --
Government in and of itself exists by the consent of its citizens, those
are called "The People", those citizens who are specifically governed
by it.
And
according to the Declaration of Independence, we are to grasp that the
role of Government is a legal obligation upon itself, that it ensures
the perpetuation of both GOD given rights and Contractual (which we now
know as Constitutional) rights that it entered into with its citizens.
The Contractual Rights of the citizens of the United States are also
to include a guarantee by the Government of the United States for their
safety, as well as that obligatory restraint upon itself that it will
NOT be intrusive nor destructive upon the citizens of the United States,
especially in the areas of the right to life, the right to be free and uninhibited, the right to seek after (so as to attain) pleasurable success.
Clearly,
the 3 federal Branches of the Federal Government of the Republic of the
United States of America have forsaken their contract with its
citizens, WE THE PEOPLE.
--------------------------------------------------------
1)
The Declaration of Independence expresses a manifest requirement of
politicians and any person who would be deemed competent to have both
that religious political freedom to worship GOD and to, by means of
science and observation, know that the Universe and Nature on Earth was
designed and overseen by a Creator, which is GOD.
[This
perhaps also expects that a citizen of the United States would at least
have the intelligence to understand that for a plant to be natural and
indigenous, it must come from the seed of a plant that is native to the
soil of the land in which it is found over multiple generations as
normal to be there. In humanity, a seed is "sperma" in the Greek, or
"sperm" in the English, and requires a father. To be "natural born", as
in nature, one will have a father who is native or natural to the land,
who plants his seed in native soil, a mother who is also native or
natural to the land, and the offspring that grows afterwards is thereby
"natural born" to the land. Since Obama's father was an alien and
Kenyan national at his birth, as Ted Cruz's father was an alien Cuban
when he was born in Canada, as Marco Rubio's father was a Cuban
national, as Bobby Jindal's father was a citizen national of India, none
of these can ever be "natural born" citizens of the United States. The
founders expected intelligent citizens to commonly grasp this concept,
but instead, we have a nation where the majority have been reared up by
the founded in 1857 "National Education Association" and the Communist-Socialist
subversives into useful idiots and osmotic vacuates [a nice way to say
"thrusting / f' ing morons"] lacking even the most ordinary of
cognitive capabilities readily present in the 18th Century, which to
them was as ordinary knowledge as even "common sense" would be expected
as being something universally present in society by that time in 1776.
How far education has fallen in so many areas and failed our children
and the masses of the citizens of the United States because of
Communist-Socialist perversions and influences over the last 145
years!]
2) The Declaration of Independence expresses a manifest requirement that we acknowledge that "when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, [the right of its citizens] it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security."
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
3) The Declaration of
Independence also lays out grievances, almost half of which have been
duplicated at varying degrees of severity under the illegal to be in
place administration of the foreign usurper, Barack Hussein Obama II.
For example,
a) He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most
wholesome and necessary for the public good.
b) He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance....
c) He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in
the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
...
d) He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by
refusing his Assent to Laws ...
e) ...Judges dependent on his Will alone...
f) He has erected a
multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
g) ...He has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
h) ...For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
i) ... He has abdicated Government here, by declaring
us out of his Protection and waging War against us. [Passive war by forcing Islam as a State religion, siding with Islamic Enemies against the people of the U.S., declaring military veterans and Christians as enemies, importing heavily diseased illegal aliens and then shipping them to all 50 states with intent of plague and disease invasions,
his constant attacks to destroy the first and second amendments and to
usurp the Presidency in contrariness to the United States natural born
citizen clause of the Constitution, etc.]
[Think of the current many thousands of Al Qaeda and other Islamic fighters imported into the U.S.]
k) ...He has excited domestic insurrections amongst
us, and has endeavoured to bring on the ...
merciless... Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished
destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. [Re: the we are the
99% movement, his Trayvon Martin comments, Ferguson riots, his
intentional importation of Islamic jihadist Al Qaeda savages into the
United States from Syria and other Middle East nations, etc.]
-------------------------------------------------------
Addendum:
Refresher of essential U.S. Supreme Court Cases:
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."
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."
Ex
parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) @376 -377
“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.
An
offence created by it is not a crime.
A conviction under it is not merely
erroneous, but is illegal and void,
and
cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”
Huntington v. Worthen, 120
U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
“An unconstitutional
act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”
Ogden
v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322,
"The single question for consideration is whether
the act ...is consistent with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States?"
Ex
parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) 159 - 160
The act to be enforced is alleged to be
unconstitutional, and, if it be so...it is simply an illegal act upon the part
of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to
enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the
act which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the
Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes
into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in
that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is
subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The
State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S.
507.
Fletcher
v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) @
87
“The question whether a law is void for its repugnancy
to the Constitution is at all times a question of much delicacy... The Court, when impelled by duty to render
such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station could it be unmindful of the
solemn obligations which that station imposes.
… The opposition between the Constitution and the law should be such
that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility
with each other.”
A.L.A.
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @ 495, 528-29
@ 495 “Extraordinary
conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary remedies,
but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.”
@528
“Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the
argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies
outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not
create or enlarge constitutional power.
[Case Footnote: See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 120, 71 U. S.
121; Home Building &; Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S.
426. ]
The Constitution
established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they
have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national
government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these
grants are not at liberty to transcend the
Page 295 U. S. 529
imposed limits because they believe that more or
different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority
were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment --
"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." “
…Second. The question of the delegation of legislative
power. We recently had occasion to review the pertinent decisions and the
general principles which govern the determination of this question. Panama
Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388. The Constitution provides that
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and
House of Representatives."
Art I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized "To make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution"
its general powers. Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to
abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with
which it is thus vested. “
Norton
v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442
“…an
unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation,
as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Williams
v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29
“But the
Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States
specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always
subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates
other specific provisions of the Constitution.”
Poindexter
v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885) @ 290
"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no
place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state
itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its
government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law,
whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful
because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is
not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those
individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "
Ex
Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121
“…the President…is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute,
not to make, the laws;
and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which
resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."
Myers
v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177 (dissent)
“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
"… The duty of
the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go
beyond the laws
or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave
within his power.”
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, "
