Supreme Court opinions v the inherent, inalienable rights of

Post any relevant material in regards to their great WISDOM. Quotes, papers, trials, arguments. Generally any topic that supports Freedom and Liberty.
Posts: 1087

Supreme Court opinions v the inherent, inalienable rights of

Post#1 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:49 pm

Good piece on freedom vs. tyranny.

To take as fact opinions uttered by those feathering their own nests and/or the nests of their fellow comrades against the people is a grave error. Avoiding such errors requires vigilance and knowledge, neither one of which one is likely to acquire from mainstream media, public “education”, and officials dedicated to masters determined to take the people’s property, all the while treating our people as less than human.

Thus, let us examine a few facts that are easily verifiable.

First, Supreme Court justices state opinions, not Law. The decisions reached are nothing more than the side of the controversy with the most “like” opinions determining the decision. In other words, if five justices agree with one side of the controversy and four dissent, then the opinion of the five determines the decision.

Second is the fact that the “most” in agreement does not make it “right” or within the confines of the Law established by the Declaration of Independence, the Law of the Christian God indicated by the Ten Commandments that our Law is based on, and the limitations placed on government, whether federal, State, or quasi-government corporations created by the officials of the State government.

In other words, dissenting opinions that did not have the most justices favoring that side of the controversy might be the opinion that in reality served “justice”, while the other might have been a gross injustice. Most can think of quite a few cases in the years under Bush that fell in the latter category. And, that is without considering those held in foreign lands for torture, without counsel, due process, and so on through the whole gambit of righteousness.

Third, regardless of the massive onslaught of language, convolutions in thought and rhetoric, every decision should boil down to a gathering of facts that determine the truth.

For instance, there are a plethora of cases involving official immunity. Since we are supposedly a land of equality operating under the rule of law, we must ask, “Can officials ever have immunity from prosecution for crimes committed against the people or immunity from civil suits in which an American alleges damages caused by an official(s)?

This is to ask, “Can officials do as they want simply because they are officials elected or appointed to ’serve’ the people? Are our rights immediately surrendered to them and the Law negated as far as they are concerned?”

This, of course, leads to the question, “By what authority do officials have immunity, real or imagined, that shields them from suit or tried for alleged crimes?” Did the people actually state, “Well, they are elected or appointed as an agent/law enforcer and are now above the law so they can do to us what they want?”

Is “doing one’s job” a proper defense, especially when the official or whatever does not know the duty of his “job” or he acts as if “outside” the law. Can he behave lawlessly or in ignorance of the Law simply because he is an official or an agent for the official or an official/agent of any governing body politic?

Fourth, what is freedom? How do the concepts of inherent, inalienable rights relate to freedom, or liberty?

Do officials have the authority to regulate away rights, or to place rules on the exercise thereof?

By what authority do governing bodies politic have to charge people for their travel and modes of travel, or to place a fee for living on their own property in their home that they believe they purchased, inherited, or acquired in some other lawful manner?

Is the state governing body politic and its created quasi-governing bodies sovereign over the people with the authority to do as they wish concerning the people and their property?

Fifth, a phrase often used by attorneys, judges, reporters, etcetera, and dips in general is “case law.” Here we must consider the question of which of these has authority to make Law because if no authority is given, then opinions cannot be called “law”, but must be called “opinions.”

In other words, can opinions ever be considered as “Law” when dealing with human beings with inherent, inalienable rights, those human rights granted by our Creator?

Sixth, we have read and heard much lately about “not having standing” in the controversy about the high potential of the man in the White House being ineligible for the office. The question here is, “Just when do the people NOT have standing in a court established by them via the Constitution for the united States of America?” (Note that I will not call Obama, the Usurper, “President of the United States of America, the full title of the office he allegedly fills. He is a fraud well trained by the elite scumbag bankers to do their bidding.)

A second part to this is the many so-called judicial opinions floating around that say that the people are not a party to the Constitution for the united States of America. Can the people NOT be a party to a creation by the people, a creation specifically approved by the people to secure the inherent, inalienable rights of the people by limiting the actions by government?

We might ask, “Do the people have control over the actions of the governing bodies politic? This is particularly relevant since the people established the federal government to meet certain needs in common with the people forming the many states.

It seems as if it might take several volumes to answer the above questions. For certain justices answering the questions would take thousands of pages and possibly hundreds of volumes. If you do not believe this, start reading the entire opinions given in high court cases.

Our forefathers gave us a simple system to understand, if one knows the basic premises underlying these united States of America. They fought and died to give us, the American people, the land in which people live free, wallowing in liberty with no interference from government or their fellow man. Ideally, that is.

First of all, what is freedom or liberty? Think about it for a moment. What does it mean to live in freedom? If another or others can tell you what to do or think, are you free? What if they force their desires are on you and their demands interfere with you expressing your rights? Are you still free - or are you subservient to them?

To make a long answer short, freedom means “not under government control.”

But, does that mean that we can just do anything we want without restrictions? Of course not. The only way we could do that is if there were no other human beings any where close to us.

Remember, we are all created equal. Therefore, we each have to right to do as we wish but we also have the equal obligation to not interfere with the rights of others.

Thus, we may do as we wish but this right ends where the rights of another begin. We each must, as should be obvious, respect the rights of others who have rights equal to our own. Think about the Golden Rule and, of course, the Ten Commandments.

Secondly, our forefathers were refugees from a land ruled by monarchs and lords in which they were subservient to all classes above them. Do you imagine for a moment they would set up the same system of feudalism here in the new land?

Which came first - the people or the government? Who or what created who or what? Did government create the people or did the people create the government? Does government grant rights or does the Creator of the people give rights?

We have brains capable of rational reasoning and analytical analysis. At the same time, our brains are capable of imagination, emotional responses, expressing desires, inquisitive needs, and so on. Not only can it do all that, it can process billions of stimuli at the same time, while we are 99.9999 percent or so unaware of the processing that goes on every millisecond of our lives.

If the brain can do all this, and it not only can but also does, do you believe that elected officials or any group alleging control have the authority to oppress free will? Is there any other way to suppress thoughts without the barrel of a gun and/or mind numbing drugs?

Here we turn to the most important document, as it states clearly the relationship between people and the governments they establish. I write, of course, of “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” (the actual title of what we call the Declaration of Independence)

There is a godless and horrible hate-filled group of people that has through fraud and other criminal acts led - forced - the American people down the path to ruin. This group placed themselves above the people through the force of armed and dangerous enforcers, corrupt anti-liberty magistrates, fractional reserve banking, and instilling fear of government and the group. The Declaration disavows this group’s wrong thinking, as do the Laws of our Creator. It states:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind [all, not just a tiny portion of] requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (My emphasis)

And, then -

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”

Okay, now here is the question. Does it say, “that all men are created equal unless they are elected/appointed to office and then they are sovereign to the people”, or does it say, “that all men are created equal?”

That answers the question of official immunity. There is none. Immunity of officials is a lie. Those entrusted to protect rights must not continue hiding behind this lie.

An article will follow supplying detail in support of this fact. But, simply put, rules by government are meant to rule government entities and entities (artificial creations) formed by government, not to rule the people. Therefore, only government and its artificial creations can commit mala prohibita crimes.

Plus, the Declaration also stated that the people institute governments. The created can never be greater than the creator. The people are the rulers, not vice versa. We, the People, are the sovereignty. Sovereign, of course, means “supreme.”

Government, including the federal, can never lawfully dictate law to the people forming these united States. Of course, it wants us to believe otherwise but we are superior to every governing body politic and equal one to the other.

Thus, rights can never be legislated or voted away. It matters not what a bunch of treasonous SOBs in government tell us; they do NOT have the authority to regulate our rights, our property, or our thinking.

They may only force such upon us through armed and dangerous enforcers of de facto law, corrupt judiciary, and other coercive means. The latter includes such despicable acts as instilling fear (the war OF terror), mind control, poisoning us through the air, water, and food, along with other quite evil acts against our freedom and our beliefs.

Every official or appointee must subscribe to or affirm to a Sacred Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the united States of America. If he/she violates the Oath in any manner, he/she commits treason, as it aids and abets the enemies of America, including the psychopathic group mentioned above. It is, therefore, a high crime punishable by death.

We must consider the 9th Amendment before we continue. Remember that the Amendments become part of the Constitution via Article V of the Constitution, and that every official agrees to obey the Constitution. Therefore, amendments stand as written. Officials cannot alter amendments for their own selfish reasons. Note that I do not mention the other amendments. This is because the 9th covers every right, every behavior, that must not be interfered with, whether enumerated or not [by the other amendments].

The conspiracy and racketeering carried out against the people are in direct violation of the Constitution. Because of the Constitution, government is limited to specific jurisdiction (power to dictate law). No governing body has in personam jurisdiction over the people who stand in the Common Law jurisdiction.

Although most people do not know it, the Bill of Rights also had a Preamble, which states specifically the purposes of the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. (My emphasis)

We notice that the Amendments are restrictive clauses, to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of government’s powers. In other words, government can make NO law that contravenes the meaning of any amendment. No is No and that is that.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights or the Amendments themselves do NOT contain the phrase, “depending on what the government decides.” You will not find in any constitution of the many states or within the statutes written by legislators such phrases as, “the Bill of Rights may be interpreted differently if government and its creations decide it would be best”, or that “public policy determined by bureaucrats overwrites the Bill of Rights.”

Can any judge/justices/magistrates of any nature determine otherwise? NO!!! Period. Judges absolutely do not have any law making authority. This takes care of “case law.” It does NOT exist as law but merely as opinions.

Judges cannot do away with rights. Legislators may not legislate away rights. The people cannot vote away rights. Rights are inherent and inalienable, which means we possess them at conception and no one can alienate them from us.

In regard to the vote and awful democratic process, do you really believe that 51 percent of the people should have the power to vote the killing of the other 49 percent?

Or that the 51 percent have privileges the 49 percent does not have?

Or that groups other than Christians have rights Christians do not have, especially in a land formed by Christians while also protecting the right to believe as one wishes? (A rule prohibiting a Christian praying in school or practicing his religion openly, for examples, are Bills of Attainder arbitrarily made and illegally enforced, as they regulate against freedom of religion and thought.)

Think, People. The Constitution tells us where the government can make law. It also tells us that government cannot interfere with the rights of by birthright American people. If the federal government has no jurisdiction within the many states and, hence, over the people, then why are we allowing its statutes enforced by thug-like enforcers either invading the states (federal enforcers) or from within the many states (State and local enforcers)?

Thus, we must demand that federal laws apply federally, and to officials of the states via Article VI of the Constitution for the united States of America. We must also demand that government does not apply federal rules to the free people of the states, who are by law sovereign to all government bodies politic.

You see, we, the people of the states, are NOT territories or possessions of the US Government, or the United States. We are superior to the US Government, state governments, and local quasi-governments, and all are prohibited from interfering in our rights, whether travel, to own property, religion, thought, or whatever - just so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

Just as food for thought, the federal government sneaked into interference with the states largely through the commerce clause. Just a hint but “among” does not mean “between.” We are free to trade with the people in any other state of the union. The commerce clause has nothing to do with the states, other than trade between the many states and foreign lands are subject to regulation. Application of federal laws (statutes, not the Common Law or Nature’s Law of the People) against our freedom of trade between our fellow Americans is quite simply treason enforced by traitors.

To summarize, the inherent, inalienable rights of the people reign supreme over every judge/justice of these united States of America, whether they are a quasi-judge in a municipal court (an administrative executive in reality) or a justice of the “one supreme Court.” Opinions of these artificial entities (created by man usually to serve the governing body politic) apply ONLY in the case the opinion is given. Remember, opinions are NOT law.

No government has authority to rule over the people, as every government is subservient to the people. Our neighbors, so to speak, elected to serve us, protect our rights, maintain our public properties (roads, parks, buildings, etc. owned jointly by the people), and to defend our shores are NOT our masters; we are instead their masters.

Officials have no immunity to prosecution or suit, as we are all equal, whether in office or not. No one, and I mean no one, is above the Law or immune from the Law. As I stated earlier, a future article will detail this fact.

So, Folks, here is the nitty-gritty. If officials do not know the Law, or do not obey the Law, then it is our duty to force them to compliance.

However, if you do not know the Law that governs us as a Republican form of government, then your duty to yourself, your family, your posterity, your fellow Man and Americans, is to learn the Law our American society is based on. Otherwise, the lack of integrity, honor, morality, and tyranny by officials will increase, just as it has in my life of 64 years.

It is my firm belief that each of us must do all our courage will allow us to do in order to assure Mankind does not fully develop into a few evil, psychopathic “masters” enslaving the rest. We must assure the Man retains his free will, or Mankind is doomed to oblivion.

This means we must act as men, not frightened children when facing those that would do evil to us. This includes acting against judiciary opinions when such are clearly outside the Law that governs free people.

This is our land; it is our lives affected by out-of-control bureaucracies. We must not allow these thieves from behind closed doors to take from us what we believe we hold dear.

We must face those that act against the free will of our people and our inherent right to exercise freely our rights. We must, even though placing ourselves in harm’s way, stop allowing the tyrants to forcibly take our humanity from us.

Scary, yes, but so is living in complete slavery to a few evil psychopathic “masters.”

Besides, if we don’t do it, who will?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest