Sunday, July 03, 2016

If any of We The People can be cited for "contempt of court" . . .

   Then why can't the courts be cited for contempt of our Constitution - "the Supreme Law of the land"? For the Constitutionally defined purpose of the court is made quite clear in the Federalist Papers. Which are the detailed clause by clause description of the true meaning of our Constitution. And by which means We The People were enticed to ratify our Constitution. Thereby making The Federalist Papers the explanation of the contract by which we agreed to enter into.
   “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.]
   The Federalist Papers clearly outline the intended role of the courts in Federalist No. 78:
   “According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; . . . The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws. . . ”

   “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. . . ”

   “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.
   Is there any mistaking those charges by Mr. Hamilton? NO, there most certainly is not. Then WHY are they not being obeyed?

   Mr. Hamilton had also made it absolutely clear, (prior to the adoption of our Bill of Rights), that our preexisting right to keep and bear arms is "paramount" to all forms of government:
   “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 infinitely 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.
   Again, how can that possibly be misconstrued? Simple, it CANNOT.

   Why then is the court permitted to disregard the plain intent of those that had framed our Constitution. And instead substitute their own biased views on the Constitution? How can this possibly be allowed? I contend that it cannot. That the court(s) have clearly, treasonously and repeatedly violated their solemn oaths to "uphold and defend" the Supreme Law of the land". The Constitution states the following concerning our judges:
Article III.

Section. 1.
   "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
   Can anyone have the temerity to claim that ruling against the Constitution is most certainly NOT "good Behaviour"?

   Our Constitution goes on to state:

Article. VI. - clause II & III  
   "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

   "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
   We find in Amendment II, "Restrictive clause", of the Constitution:
   "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
   Which the preamble to the Bill of Rights itself makes absolutely clear is independent of the "militia".

   And yet despite these clear Constitutional provisions, both the courts and congress have obviously blatantly and repeatedly violated their oaths. They have infringed upon the right numerous times, and it has been upheld by the clearly treasonous courts. How and why is this being permitted? And more importantly, how do We The People stop them from continuing on in their treason against us?

   We The People have every right to demand the performance of the contract as it was presented to us when we entered into it. And THAT is part of the Supreme Law as well:
U.S. Constitution

Article I

Section 10
    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
   That this is indeed what was being referred to in our Constitution is shown here by Mr. Madison:
     "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the state constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us,  nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favour of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived, if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments, as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and with indignation, that sudden changes, and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators; and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions; every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society."--James Madison, The Federalist No. 44, Jan. 25, 1788.
    And our Constitution is most assuredly a contract between We The People and the government formed by us. That our Constitution is definitely considered as a contract or compact is shown by Mr. Madison here:
   "In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The more intimate the nature of such an union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist, that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into, should be substantially maintained."--James Madison, The  Federalist No. 43, Jan. 23, 1788.
   It certainly does appear that our courts have indeed betrayed us, doesn't it? That, or they are incredibly ignorant when it comes to true Constitutional law.

   So then, as has been previously proven numerous time before on this blog. We once again see, that it is Constitutionally proven that all 'gun control laws'; federal, state and local. Are nothing more than clear violations of We The People's Constitution. And therefore NULL and VOID. They have no true force of law, and rightfully should be disregarded by We The People. Whether the perverse courts declare them to be or not.

No comments: