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
-- 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.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Original Intent Of The Constitution In Today's Age of Unconstitional Usurpation Of Power

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. 



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:

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.]
j)  ...He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    [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.]



Refresher of essential U.S. Supreme Court Cases: 

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180
"... 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
"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

"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
"But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "

No comments:

Post a Comment