Monday, June 27, 2016

The return of 'arbitrary rule' here in America

   A written Constitution is meaningless if it can be altered at will by the 'opinions' of legalized monkeys in black robes. That is NOT what the men that founded our Constitution had in mind. As is evidenced by Mr. Alexander Hamilton:
   “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an in´Čünitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.
   Does not the treasonous kourt understand the meaning of the word "paramount"? Mr. Hamilton goes on further:
“…It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

   “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the POWER of the PEOPLE is SUPERIOR TO BOTH; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental….”

“…But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. . . .”

“…That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. . . .”

   “The Judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
   THAT is the TRUE meaning of our Constitution, and NOT what the monkeys in black robes have treasonously 'opined'. Our Constitution IS the "Supreme Law of the Land" - NOT the slanted 'opinions' of legalized monkeys in black robes. Their 'opinion' is nothing more than a blatant violation of We The People's Constitution. Which Mr. Hamilton again makes perfectly clear:
   “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .”

“. . . There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid….”

   “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
   And as far as the authority of the Federalist goes:
   “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed…”–Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

    “The Federalist is regarded as the highest contemporary authority on the construction of the Constitution….”–Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1868.]
   Sorry justices, but your 'ruling' has NO legal authority. All that you have accomplished by your 'ruling' is to make clear your blatant disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land. Which of course makes you not only useless to We The People, but traitors as well. You are nothing more than worthless servants that have [once AGAIN] betrayed your "rightful masters". You can go straight to hell.

   When those charged with making, upholding and defending the laws, hold the Supreme Law in contempt. Then all respect for and obedience to those laws which violate the Supreme Law comes to an end. For it is then that no one is truly legally bound to observe them. And not only that, but the people have the moral duty to FORCE a return to obedience of the Supreme Law by their hired servants. Or set up a new system of government which will be obedient.

No comments: