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.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

DNC 2016 - Violate And Pretend You Can Abrogate?

DNC 2016  -  

Unofficial...But Technically Insider Official, Hillary Will Attempt To Unconstitutionally Ban All Guns

 And HOW will she try to ban all guns simultaneously?  Via the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership attempt to overthrow the Constitution / TREASON Treaty). 

Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657
"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
"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

"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
". 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
@ 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
"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 
"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
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

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."

Abrogate:     To repeal or do away with  a law or right as if by an authoritative (general) act -- an action that is not legal to cancel, invalidate, nullify, void, negate, dissolve, countermand,  reverse, abolish, put an end to, do away with, get rid of, end, stop, quash, a secured law or right even though it may claim to be able to do so otherwise.   

In effect, unless the Constitution is AMENDED by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures, NO ONE has the right to executive order or by any means of proclamation (verbal or written) to abrogate the Constitution in any word or in any part or even as a whole.  There is NO legal right to say by a vote of 51 to 49 the first or second or any amendment goes away (as Senator Feinstein famously lied and claims in regard to the Second Amendment).  "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!"

 THEY become the criminals and are effectually subject to WE THE PEOPLE (those who are its citizens) becoming the legal enforcers of the CONSTITUTION if such an action occurs, first through Congress and the States, then by other means if Congress and the States also shirk their legal duties of representation.

Meanwhile, a member of the DNC Rules Committee rightfully supports opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership overthrow of United States National Sovereignty before dropping the BOMBSHELL REVELATION, the DNC Rules Committee no longer makes the rules and Super-delegates are told they now govern themselves and can censure or punish themselves at a later future time if they ever have a conscience or mind to.   

He is NOT alone in a right mindset to oppose the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership attempt to overthrow the Constitution / TREASON Treaty). 

Opposing the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership TREASON Against the Constitution Treaty)  is NOT about skin color, but a desire NOT to be enslaved to FOREIGN GOVERNANCE...emphasis on the DESIRE NOT TO BE ENSLAVED.  

 So what does the DNC do?  It rolls out a Muslim Brotherhood Immigration Attorney who sells pretty much sells U.S. Citizenship...and if he "sells", why?  Would it be so unreasonable to assume sales would be to those with serious criminal or terror related histories and to other like Muslim undesirables;  and for a hefty fee, this Muslim Immigration Attorney for the terrorist MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD especially, makes their applications look desirable, while making his servitude wife stand like the slave that she is in his presence. So how many MB terrorist purchasers through him are working for and with Obama since 2009? Hmmn?  

See also:



[[[Update 8/3/2016  Adding More News Expose links of Khan as a Muslim anti-U.S. subversive among us:


see also:

 End of Update]]]

No comments:

Post a Comment