So it seams to be this should have never been added to Obama care to start with. it just proves a point, The Court fights of this are going to go on for many years, and will be picked apart, from Voters rights Violations being the origin of the votes and so on!
, it seams to be when they wrote this 3276, Sec. 2716, part c, they had Article 1 section 9 & 10, No ex post facto Law & attainder shall be passed Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 , in mind.. be it so can't.. be changed! as for the 2nd amendment? 3276, Sec. 2716, part c, Obamacare Forbids Gun Registration A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule).
A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the House, Senate, Executive (President or Governor), The Supreme Court, and individual jurors (jury-nullification). Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums.
Voter referendums allow legislators to blame bad law on the people. A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob. Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse,
Bruce Anderson • a day ago What happen to the elected Representative republic? http://www.c4cg.org/republic.h... ,
So would this mean he would be willing to fight to repealing standing laws in contrast to support to Obama Care, this should be funny to see in the courts, Obama care Forbids Gun Registration , What does it mean of any new law sought to be passed in any state or federal , Would this force the fact to be repealed? if so can it be , thus Civil rights Acts 1871 seam if the states seek to over ride the now federal laws would be able to be suited for seeking to conspire to deprive?, So it seams to be this should have never been added to Obama care to start with. it just proves a point, The Court fights of this are going to go on for many years, and will be picked apart, from Voters rights Violations being the origin of the votes and so on! , it seams to be when they wrote this 3276, Sec. 2716, part c, they had Article 1 section 9 & 10, No ex post facto Law & attainder shall be passed Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 , in mind.. be it so can't.. be changed! as for the 2nd amendment? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B... 3276, Sec. 2716, part c, Obamacare Forbids Gun Registration A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution).
A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the House, Senate, Executive (President or Governor), The Supreme Court, and individual jurors (jury-nullification). Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums. Voter referendums allow legislators to blame bad law on the people. A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob. Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship. Study Points for laws an views as researched about the 2nd Amendment.
, TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE Carl F. Worden January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of. The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45)
Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines. The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900.
In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him.
Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you. Understanding Your Rights of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, http://www.constitution.org/us... Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
Both of these cases are standing law to this day. The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you. I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did. Carl F. Worden , http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gun-l... TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE www.apfn.org The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment http://www.apfn.org/apfn/2nd.h... IT'S NOT ABOUT GUNS!! **IT'S ABOUT YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!** http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mmm.h... Gun Control http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gun.h...
ron erkkila > Bruce Anderson • 5 hours ago Mr Anderson May I have permission to post this in my own web site?
My reason for this post is to show basic use the of U.S. Title 42 usc section 1983 , 1985 and 1986 is for fighting back government related topics, suits for things an not limited to Judges,out side of action of impeachment actions http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... , thus in part is related to the 1st amendment ground use of , the right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals,
When Filing a case Pro Se this is what you write , an you have to Use terms Like Writ of Mandamus ,Signing Legal work Pro Se , Case law to add to, when , not limited to be able to be used in none related Government right matters, Writ of Mandamus is a command to the court saying it is when in your power to act or is with in your duty. Writ of Mandamus, Notice: The respondent in this action is a non-lawyer and is moving forward in propia persona. Hanes v. Kerner (92 S Ct 594) pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; prose litigants" pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Jenkins v. McKeithen (456 US 411 421 (1969); Picking v. Penna Ry. Co (151 Fed 2nd 240); Pucket v. Cox (456 Fed 2nd 233); Haines v. Kerner, et.al. (429 F. 2d 71 (1972)); Conley v. Gibson (355 US 41, 45-6 (1957)); Dioguardi v. During (139 F. 2d 774 (1948)) You can recover Lawyer fees filing pro se The specific case you want is Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies, 284 F. 3rd 1365 (2002). You can google that and get several citations. One address is http://www.law.georgetown.edu/... For a broad overview "cases and materials on pro se litigation and related issues:" http://www.pro-selaw.org/cases... http://constitution.org/pro-se... http://caught.net/prose/proser... Filing free , in relation to views of forma pauperis http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc..
Bruce Anderson > ron erkkila • 30 minutes ago
My Good Sir, by all mean take what you may as for
with the post made with the or bout the 2nd amendment, if it helps you and any one other then you fight back against the clear acts of constructive treason in office abusing powers or new ones elected to come , via the Petitions of the courts or other legislator petitions to prevent or remove or rebuke standing actions or hault pending actions from taking away our right by people from running like the views of Amendment 14 section 3 or the other style and use of rebuke Articles 1 section 5, in peace by all means please use it ,all of it for me was taken from other places at other times and chat rooms and not limit to the nra, please fact check and cross check, I am not a lawyer. God Speed
Thank you kindly, I shall with post haste. Prepsthf to you.
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves..." — Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169 The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.
He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." - Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859 The Dick Act And Reorganization: (1903-1908) http://kynghistory.ky.gov/hist... 2. Dick Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... 3. dick act. http://www.history.army.mil/do... 4. dick act 1903 http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=... The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. **
SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.
All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Bruce Anderson > Bruce Anderson Nehemiah 4:17 esther 8:11 , More Info With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov't defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.
I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government. I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment's notice. Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that's the case?
Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supercede the Constitution:
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, "... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares:
.’ "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result... "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519). "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.
The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."(including the courts. rce)
Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’ "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519). "In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.
The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined." Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that, "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 a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent." Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion: "This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED
This is not my work; name or person not known.
No comments:
Post a Comment