Hillary On Levodopa Gets Michael Savage Kicked Off The Air Due To Tantrum Fit For Being Exposed As Even More Dangerous While On The Drug?

     Democracy and socialism have nothing in common 

but one word, equality. 

But notice the difference: 

while democracy seeks equality in liberty,

 socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. 

---

America is great because she is good.

If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. 

----

The American Republic will endure until the day

Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

~Alexis de Tocqueville    

Michael Savage, here in September 2016, was  CENSORED FOR DISCUSSING PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS AND REVEALING THE SEVERE MEDICATION AND  "of the side effects of Levodopa, used for treating Parkinson’s"  HILLARY CLINTON IS TAKING.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/26/exclusive-michael-savage-reacts-pulled-radio-pure-sabotage/ 

Furthermore, if she has any deviant proclivities, like personally murdering (such as alleged with Vincent Foster or ordering murders of others of which there are dozens alleged in the last 30 years for her to be involved in ordering done), if there is any proclivity to lie or enter compulsive behavior, the drug  Levodopa only intensifies these erratic compulsions and makes them worse.   Hillary frequently has wanted to start a war, even a nuclear war with Russia.  Hillary has overthrown Libya and given it to Al Qaeda / ISIS terrorists and laughed off not only killing Moammar Quadaffi as if she were Julius Caesar 2 in the “Veni, Vedi, Vici” quote (“I came, I saw, I conquered”) with her variant “We came, we saw.  He died!  Heah ha ha ha!”

—but she also applied that to her OWN ambassador Stevens and other innocent U.S. Citizens in U.S. Intelligence who died with Ambassador Stevens on 9/11/2012.  Who else does Hillary NOW and in the future have even MORE proclivity to kill and destroy and damn the consequences and anyone that even speaks up and points that out?  Hillary has been mentored by Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan Senator Robert Byrd,  Devil Worshipper and Communist Anarchist Saul Alinsky,  and has often praised Genocidalist Margaret Sanger as her hero and role model.  So with these mentors and that kind of personal hero in her life that she wants to be twice the child of hell as, what would she NOW have the proclivity to do if she ever gets the Presidency of the United States?  Who would she demand a nuclear strike on?  Russia, a third world overpopulated country, or a Conservative city of the United States that dares believe that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land  (U.S. Constitution, Article 6) and NOT Hillary?  

Never mind that Hillary would experience 

not just frequent nausea, light-headness, and confusion 

while on the drug; 

but that she will develop  “involuntary, erratic, writhing movements of the face, arms, legs, and/or trunk, which usually occur one to two hours after a dose of levodopa has been absorbed into the bloodstream and is having its peak clinical effect” according to those who specialize in Parkinson’s in talking about it, and by example the quote in red being from: http://www.parkinson.org/understanding-parkinsons/treatment/Medications-for-Motor-Symptoms/Carbidopa-levodopa

President Harry S Truman Jan. 20, 1949: 
“Communism is based on the belief that man is so weak and inadequate that he is unable to govern himself, and therefore requires the rule of strong masters.
Democracy is based on the conviction that man has the moral and intellectual capacity, as well as the inalienable right, to govern himself with reason and justice. …”

Hillary is a falling down epileptic with Parkinson's, a practicing Satanist and a felony murderess who has gotten away with at least 2 and likely 3 decades of her own alleged personal participation in sanctioning organized crime hits under color of authority and or connections with those who exercised that (including George Herbert Walker Bush while Vice President and President of the United States in the 1980s to his leaving office in January 20, 1993).  

Tomorrow the United Nations wants dominion of the Internet, but the United States Constitution, which is specifically for the dominion of United States soil and includes the Internet that traverses United States soil, is NOT subject to anything that violates the First Amendment.  

Under color of authority he does NOT have, even IF he were legal to be POTUS, which Obama is NOT, the United States Constitution allows us to IGNORE United Nations laws that illegally INFRINGE, SUBVERT, ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW our RIGHTS by our Constitution.  So again, I let the U.S. Supreme Court say:

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."

Abrogate:      Repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement):

repeal, revoke, rescind, repudiate, overturn, annul;

Law  disallow, cancel, invalidate, nullify, void, negate, dissolve, countermand, declare null and void, discontinue;    reverse, retract, remove, withdraw, abolish, put an end to, do away with, get rid of, end, stop, quash, scrap;

Law  disaffirm

Evade (a responsibility or duty):

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, "

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."