Mention Joe Rogan  --Get a $25 Credit Discount!


The bitter irony of being held captive in this perpetual cycle of systemic oppression in this nation is –  that it is we everyday ordinary people ourselves who are the only ones who can break free from it.

The politicians of the Democrat and Republican parties, the corporate-stream media, and even much of the so-called ‘progressive’ alternative media are tools of the U.S. power elite. They do not serve the legitimate needs, hopes, and aspirations of everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people. Nor do they want genuine systemic change.

It is time for everyday people to strategically submerge our differences, collectively band together, and struggle to bring about real systemic change that improves the lives and well-being of ordinary people in this nation and throughout our precious Mother Earth. This is, and will be, a long, hard, and protracted struggle – but it is absolutely essential.

Each one, reach one. Each one, teach one. Onward, then, my sisters and brothers. Onward…!


Please read the whole essay top to bottom... it's a good read and NOCP approved ;)

Views: 293

Replies to This Discussion

Tara how are things going for you and yours? I am glad to see you back and posting.

Come on give him a rub, you will feel better. Just saying. Love your way.

Ahhh... thanks Mystery! I've been busy with real life stuff my friend but I'll try to be around a bit more here soon.

Much love...OOXXOOO

It's almost election time :)!

Election time, really? Do we have a new Fed govt and system in place? Election time means the same ole same old once again, yes... more of the same until the system comes crashing down.

There's not much more that needs to be added that hasn't already been said.

Don't be a bummer ;)

NWO!!! Glad to see ya!!

U mean I'm not hiding behind a computer? ;)


Maloha Mystery

Get rid of the machines.  Hand count the votes in the open as is required by OUR laws where everyone can watch if they want to but NOT interfere.  ALL counts to be done within the USA and must be verifiable - again according to our laws.

There is a solution.  It is us. Lawfully!

“What is, Who Are The Militia, And Why Is The It Important?

Second Amendment:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The Basics of “Who” (are the Militia): All able-bodied Americans plus those lawfully allowed to be here - excluding “public servants” - from age 18 through age 60 are the Militia of the several states. The Militia equals “We the People of the USA” because each state's Militia is made of its lawful citizens excluding “representatives”, and the state's can work together as needed for defense and to enforce the US Constitution or each state's Constitution.

The people and the Militia existed here in the USA before the states were created. The states created the US Constitution which created, defined, and gave LIMITED powers to this central government – the federal government – whose duties were to handle mostly foreign affairs and to see that the states traded fairly with each other. PERIOD!

The US Constitution created, defined, and assigns the duties that were to be carried out by each branch of the federal government. instead of each separate state doing repetitive duties and alliances. Each state has representatives who are put there and are required to vote for who/ what represents the people's will in each state.

We the People” are the Militia of the several states. We are the lawful Defenders of Liberty within our nation from both domestic and foreign enemies. We are the lawful enforcer of all laws that are in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution and follows each state's Constitution. The “People” as the Militia of the several states ARE the LAWFUL defenders of ourselves, our families, property, counties, cities, states, and of our nation. So when a state's Militia goes out to assist a family / city / county / state or the nation itself, the people as the “sovereigns” lawfully call themselves forth, as the ONLY governmental body that is LAWFULLY charged to carryout those duties.

The Preamble to the US Constitution; starts with:

We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution”,

By those words it is saying that “We the People” are the source of any and all legal status of the state and federal governments. “We” created them for specific purposes, and it was NOT to destroy our lives, control us, spy on us, track us, or murder us. Basically all public officials – state and federal representatives, state and federal law enforcement, state and federal judges, the multitude of state and federal bureaucracies – are called “public servants” for a reason – they are literally our hirelings, and many are “temporary workers”.

The US Constitution and all that is “in Pursuance thereof” it, as the supreme (highest) law of this land in the areas where it has jurisdiction says that “We” (as the Militia of the several states) are personally responsible for maintaining and protecting the US Constitution, each state's Constitution, and seeing to their enforcement against ALL foes - domestic and foreign. “We” are the ones responsible for enforcing the laws of this land, and are charged with it's defense plus the defense of our homes, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, and country.

It says it here within the US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11:To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a “standing” military is raised:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

* NOTE: The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allowed time of two years for the support of a “standing military” was/and still is a misappropriation of funds (misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official...), a felony, a crime against the American people.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” is really straightforward, and no “misunderstanding” of the words can be used as an excuse for disobeying that lawfully required duty. The members of congress can be, and should be, held personally responsible for that breach of trust. That is correct, they must pay back the funds used unlawfully out of their personal accounts.

There can lawfully be no (NO!) standing army except in times of war, and ONLY the congress can lawfully declare war under the contract they get their duties and powers from.

*War must be declared by congress in order to be a lawful war that our US military are used to fight in, it must be in defense of our nation ONLY which is why so many lies were used as excuses to get us into wars. Since they were not, and are not, lawfully declared wars, ALL who died on all sides make that mass murder, etc that those who serve within our government had a hand in and MUST be fully prosecuted for.

War cannot lawfully be "declared" against a tactic such as the "war against terror" or the "war against drugs"; both are not wars and not even the congress can declare a war against a tactic.

*War defined: 'Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations'.

End of Note.


Clause 12 was put in as a lawfully assigned duty of congress because, as James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution warned:No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare”.

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”  Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress

Clause 15 requires of the congress:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS”.

This clause is very straightforward also. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias. The “suppress Insurrections” includes those who are our representatives who are working against the USA and her people.

Clause 16 makes it very clear that the ARMING OF THE MILITIA OF EACH STATE is a LAWFUL duty assigned to the congress that they are REQUIRED to carry out: Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that:  "a well-disciplined militia" is "our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them" and also a guarantee of "the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense."

When the founders created the US Constitution they realized that we would never be able to count on state and federal representatives or agencies to protect our lives, property, and freedom. They decided to continue with what the people here had already been using, and the one proven throughout history to have the best needs of the people themselves always put first, the Militia of the several states. Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60.

Each state's Militia is made up of “We the People”. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

  • Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution,

  • Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),

  • Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and

  • to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state's Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence within our nation.

The forefathers wouldn't put the militia under federal control as there was always a chance that those in office would turn traitorous against the people. They already had learned, and history taught – then and now, that people in places of power could not be trusted. So they broke it up; the people ARE the militia and would keep the best interests of the people themselves at the forefront of all decisions made. Then they assigned the duty of organizing, arming, and disciplining each state's militia to the federal congress; and to each state the appointment of their Militia's officers and their training; all under Article I, Section. 8, Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

The Militia of the several states offers everyone the greatest degree of equality with each other;

  • Because EVERY able-bodied person from the age of 18 – 60 is the militia of each state.

  • They, when trained, have the governmental powers to operate in every county, city, state, and throughout America when needed.

  • Plus through uniformity; the Militia requires the same general duty of service from everyone – though not all will have the same tasks as they can perform different tasks according to their abilities.

This is why the Militia offers the best protection against rogue politicians and usurpation’s for those serving within the governments, “We the people” protect our own natural rights and hold accountable those we put into positions of power by enforcing the US Constitution and each state's constitution. When everyone takes a part in guarding the security of the neighborhood, county, city, state that they live in; plus the country when needed, it basically stops or makes it very difficult for a small body of people to take over this nation. (Edward Vieira, Junior “Constitutional Homeland Security” Volume 1, the Nation in Arms”.)

The Second Amendment was and IS to preserve and guarantee the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms, it does not grant them.

What the framers, courts, newspapers of that time period, and the people said about the Militia, and the Second Amendment.

Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788:  "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788:  "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” (The Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases, in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.)

Thomas Cooley:  The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.

Samuel Adams: Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes.  Whenever a people ... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions”.

William Rawle, whose work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions, and was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania, describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms: The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

Tench Coxe wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Tench Coxe, ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it's the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:  As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

James Madison, Fed 46:Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...

Hamilton said there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms,

Hamilton,Fed 28:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despairThe people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate... If their rights are invaded... How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! (being armed)“

2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'


The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. They knew that a standing army is a tool of government and can be used by that government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. Because a standing army is usually distanced from the people, and its members are usually not from the locality in which they are stationed there is not a relationship with the locals making their use against the local population much easier.

Dennis Hennigan:...The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the existence of state military forces that can serve as a counterweight to a standing federal army. Thus, it seems fair to say, the scope of any rights enjoyed by the states under the 2nd Amendment would be determined by the goal of preserving an independent military force not under direct federal control.

George Mason:When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” and

That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State.”

James Madison:... large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

The New Hampshire ratifiers called for a guarantee (the Second Amendment) that: "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen...”.

The Pennsylvania minority at its ratifying convention demanded a guarantee of a very broad right to arms, that:  "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game."

Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, clergyman, theologian, popular poet, successful diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: " not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

Patrick Henry: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Veterans of Foreign Wars:  Whereas it has been proposed that the United States of America become a part of a world federal government; And ... this program...would entail the surrender of our national sovereignty and... bring into being a form of government whose authority would supercede that of the Constitution of The United States Government; And ... institute a system of laws where-by American citizens could be tried by aliens in controversion of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States; And ... the Veterans of Foreign Wars is composed solely of men who have worn the uniform of the United States on foreign shores and in hostile waters in time of war and from their personal experiences are familiar with the traditions and operations of other countries; And ... many of our comrades rest forever in foreign soil and their sacrifices were made to retain the dignity and sovereignty of the United States of America: Now therefore, be it Resolved by the Fiftieth Annual Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That we hereby declare that we are unalterably opposed to any program which would entail the surrender of any part of the sovereignty of the United States of America in favor of a world government...”

Walter E. Williams:The framers gave us the Second Amendment not so we could go deer or duck hunting but to give us a modicum of protection against congressional tyranny”.

Justice Robert H. Jackson (Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials - Nazi Germany):It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”.

Early American Caselaw: Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.” Bliss v. Commonwealth

Nunn vs. State: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

Both clearly recognize an individual right to arms.

Andrews v. State explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

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

State v. Chandler and State v. Reid: Concealed weapons bans are constitutional as a manner of time, place, and manner restriction since, while arms bearing is an individual right...”

State v. Buzzard: the lead opinion taking the view that the ban was a reasonable regulation and adding that the right to bear arms "for the common defense" meant only that the government might not impose regulations that interfered with the ability to resist tyranny, which a ban on concealed carry did not.

What is bad about defending our homes, our towns and cities (the peace officers do not do it anymore - ordered not to; but that is for another article), our counties, our states, our nation from those enemies attacking us from inside (domestic enemies of the USA) or from a physical assault from foreign entities or nations?

Some education: The Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 (Dick Act) broke the militia down into three groups.

The three Militia 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.

But that is unlawful, there is only one (1) constitutionally recognized militia, the Militia of the several states. The National Guard and the regular army are “standing” military organizations.

It states: "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."

They started calling the Militia of the several states - the ONLY lawful Militia - the “unorganized Militia” to put it down and make fun of it. It is another use of propaganda, social media, corporate news to destroy and change the way the people think. The only reason that there is an unorganized Militia is because:

  • the congress did not carry out it's lawfully assigned duty

  • the governors of the state have not “picked up the slack” and carried out those constitutionally assigned congressional duties

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House; about the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard – not really a militia) to fight a war in Europe "was so blatantly unconstitutional" that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached… wherein proves the rights of the people and the militia to buy, train with and bear arms is out of the reach of Congress or the President as well as drafting them into services outside of defending this nation.

The Militia was (and still is) made up of every able-bodied man in the area. When cattle rustlers, or other corrupt individuals or groups, made off with part of the herd, stole something, etc; a posse of militia was gathered from among the locals, and they set off to bring the scoundrels back. The sheriff could then present him/them to the judge, who prosecuted them.

When our nation was threatened by the British, the Continental Army could not resist the might of the Empire. It was the ordinary citizens who gathered their own arms and neighbors and went to defend our nation. The Militia fought in every major battle, and many minor ones, all the way through the civil war. There were entire units made up of only militia “volunteers”. The very essence of the militia is the community, for one is more apt to fight harder for his neighbor than for a stranger.

The concept that the People themselves are the enforcers of the US Constitution and each state's Constitution was deliberately written out of our history.  WE can LAWFULLY remove anyone who does not follow and KEEP the contract they agreed upon when they entered that office or position they are occupying.  WE also were charged with keeping the "laws of the land" - those laws that are in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution.

We are the ONLY group lawfully assigned that duty through our government.  Next, why we are the deciders of when judges in federal or state courts are using "Good Behaviour" as is required of them if they wish to keep that position.

Judges And “Good Behaviour” In The Courtroom

What is “Good Behaviour”? How Does “Good Behaviour” apply to both federal and state Judges?

How do “We the People” know what is required of the judges of this land, and when they are doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful way? More importantly, how do “We the people” know when the judges of either federal or the states are not doing their duty in a lawful manner, when they MUST be removed from office? What does it take to remove a judge from office when they are not using “Good Behaviour”? Why is it important that “We the people” understand the difference between judges who use “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms and those who do not?

How do “We the People” know what is required of the judges of this land, and when they are doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful way?

The US Constitution says what all judges, both state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position. We already know that they are lawfully required to take and keep an oath, or in the case of some judges – two oaths. So when are judges not doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful manner? According to the US Constitution, 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.

James Madison, Federalist 39, 250—53:

According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:

The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case, and the example of the State Constitutions.

Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary:

But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;...”

The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.

So what powers, authority, did the US Constitution assign to those who serve within the judiciary?

US Constitution, Article III Section. 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

--to Controversies between two or more States;

-- between a State and Citizens of another State,

--between Citizens of different States,

--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Does that mean that any law created is to be upheld by the justices? No, The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution,

... 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.”

Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

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.”

ALL justices – federal and state - MUST support the US Constitution and follow it or they no longer meet the contract, bound and verified by taking the Oath of Office, and would no longer lawfully be occupying the position they are serving in.

Under our laws all justices must make their case decisions based on that those cases are “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” or found to NOT be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” to be lawful decisions. They are using “Good Behaviour” and are keeping the contract agreed to when they do so.

Those justices that “interpret” the US Constitution, base their decisions on “precedent” without verifying that “precedent” to be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution”, or on foreign law are no longer in “Good Behaviour” and have broken the contract that they are under.

The justices no longer using “Good Behaviour” can be fired because they have broken the contract by not using the lawful authority assigned to the third branch of the federal government and to all justices within the states. They are REQUIRED to make sure that ALL laws - “The Laws of the United States, all Treaties made, or which shall be made - are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF” the US Constitution, and keep their oath to be in “Good Behaviour” and to remain lawfully a justice within the federal or state governments.

They can be fired for breaking the contract, for not using “Good Behaviour” as the law and contract requires!! Actually they must be fired when they are not using “Good Behaviour” as required of them.

Thomas Jefferson:

“…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

Thomas Jefferson:

The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

James Madison:

But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner. On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Alexander Hamilton:

"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."

John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802:

"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."




  • Add Photos
  • View All

Please remember this website is supported by your donations...

© 2017   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 2007-2015 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted