0
votes

The Supreme Court Nullifies the Constitution; In a twist of Law, The Nation's Supreme Law no longer matters

posted November 1, 2006 - 9:20am
The Supreme Court Nullifies the Constitution; In a twist of Law, The Nation's Supreme Law no longer matters

The U.S. SUPREME COURT denied certiorari in case 06-244. No jurist was likey present at the end of the Conference held Oct 27, 2006. The Nullification of the Constitution was reported October 30, 2006.

Historians with an interest in the once powerful nation, of, by, and for the People, can record as America's Last Day under the Rule of Law of the Constitution to have been: Monday, October 30, 2006.

Getting rid of that Pesky Document, the Constitution, was easy. All that was necessary was to oil and grease the track with the fat of money and the appeal of personal Power. Congress "worked" about 100 days this year, for 167,000 dollars, of our tax money, about $200 and hour. Nice work if you can get it. They could have called fotr a convention, any time. The states can assert this right to have a convention totally outside of the congressional approval. That is difficult, but not impossible. Congress want's to controll the process, and that is outside of the law of the Constitution.

Monday Oct 30, 2006 the US formally abandoned its own Constitution's supreme law. Not a shot was fired, not a shouting protest heard. The new fascists are celebrating; and they do no yet realize that, even now, their own end is outlined. But it will take time to stoke the fire in the people of the planet to recoup what this species owns, and that has been stolen from them, again. The Rule of Law, and their freedom to choose the laws -- outlined in the U S Constitution.

The Constitution has been nullified. All of it. All the Amendments, the Bill of Rights; all the Rules of treatment and fairness; all the doctrines that were built in a little over 200 years. Gone in a heartbeat. The beast of America is dead, but does not yet know it. It will, however.

THE AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP, ARISING. HOW OUR CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED.

The entire case, beginning in 2000, and 2001 (before 9-11) is online at www.article5.org. I recommend that you download, copy and download, as much as you can from this site, because I do not know how long it will remain accessible, and this has information in it you will find erroneously reported elsewhere on the net. For example, most do not know that all states have requested a convention. The chain of logic and clear direct precedent-setting train is there. It woud behove the reader to become familiar with how the Rule of Law of the Constitution was nullified.

The reason the I can make this "nullification statement" is directly dictated by following the ruling of a Federal District Court Judge and his interpretation of the structural law of the U S Constitution. He turns the structrual law of Article V's "shall call a convention" into a question of "political doctrine," a ploy used to ignore the direct and clear wording of Article V, and by doing this shell game of words, ignores and overrules the power and compelling structural preeminence of the U S Constitution, and fails to enforce the direct law of that Contract with America.

By letting the ruling of the lowest of federal courts stand, the Constitution is nullified. That has meaning to you and all Americans. Instead of enforcing the Law of the Constitution, and in violating their own oaths of office, the Court states clearly the the language of the Constitution can be vetoed, ignored, overruled -- and nullified, at the whim of the Congress. This has been orchestrated by a few congressional leaders, but every member is complicit. This District Court ruling makes new law that is not even open to the states for ratification.

ALL 50 states have applied to Congress -- 567 applications have been made -- and are all recorded in the Congressional Record. We know now that the Oaths of the Officers of the Supreme Court to support and defend the Constitution, have been by themselves and their employees, violated. Simple, no weapons fired.

Who runs the government? The People? The only tool used in this overthrow the rule of law has been money, money stolen from the people, money traded by those who have subverted a system for their own aggrandizement. It will take time, but the species will correct this. It may take many decades, cost many lives, waste much of our species future. Worse, it will not protect the many species with us who share the planet as well as the freedoms lost.

What freedom is that, you ask? The freedom to choose your own government, as evil as it may be.

--------------- TO RECAP

WHAT THE COURT DECISION MEANS Denial of Certiorari.

1) The courts have established the text of the Constitution may be vetoed by the government under the "political question" doctrine.

Do you believe that the Constitution is just an optional guide?

2) In its ruling the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically and intentionally changed the language of the Constitution from "convention to propose amendments" to "constitutional convention" thus establishing the right of the courts to amend the text of the Constitution by judicial decree. Further it established that if a convention is called, it shall be controlled exclusively by Congress rather than being independent of government control as intended by the Founders. For all intents and purposes the convention would be nothing more than a puppet of the government.

Does the Constitution Give the Court That power?

3) The courts established that despite specific federal criminal laws intended to prevent such actions by public officials of the government, those officials are considered immune. Very much like the current administrations attempts and successful passage of congressional approval of torture, and other egreious crimes, granting immunity for these act in the chain of logic and command.

Who is doing this to you? Well, it is your elected officials -- on your behalf.
Write them, use a stamp -- ask for a personal response, tell them what your state has already applied for, or that you want them to bring it up as legislation and fight for Constitutional Law.

Do you believe the Constitutional places Congress or the Administration above the Law? Ask them that question. Ask for them to uphold their oath of office.

4) Because it is clear the Congress will never call a convention and now has complete control of the amendatory process, can veto the language of the Constitution that Congress can "amend" the Constitution without following the formal procedures laid out in Article V.

Is the Constitution Constitutional?

5) The principle of "dead letter" has firmly been established for the Constitution. The right to amend the Constitution was a right under the right of the people to alter or abolish as established in the Declaration of Independence. That right is now gone. There is nothing to suggest, indeed the evidence is entirely contrary, that this principle of dead letter is limited only to Article V. Any right which is politically inconvenient is now at risk.

The Bill of Rights, and all your rights can now be ignored and suspended.
----------------------------------------------------

Read Article V. of the Constitution
-------------------
Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress. . .

This has been ignored. 567 calls, from all states.

What do YOU think the Constitution means?

Well, whatever you thought it meant is moot. You have lost it.



Comments

So Long as Old Imagination Sparks the New, It R-E-M-A-I-N-S Live

That's one of the reasons behind the book-burnings; because, just as gods of myth lost progeny to bastardization, so are many new ideas the bastardized brain-children sparked by old ideas. Disagree? Join Xomba to Defend Your Honor!(unless you're chicken!) Write-In Phil Hubbard 4 Prez!

---when You Join Xomba, you can join this- and MythMan's other-hot discussions!

It's ALIVE!

Somebody placed a comment on this thread... a year after the post was first written! Ah, the good old days (!?!?!?) of Xomba, when political/social battles would go on for two pages of comments...

You're Right that We Should Do More than Just 'Complain about...

... the Problem,' but the Solution doesn't involve "the voters." 'The voters' did not appoint the people who decided against certeriori (or whatever). And if I understand correctly, the man/men who did appoint the justices were not select by 'the voters' either ... oh, many of them would have been selected by 'the voters,' I'm sure; but the people's vote is more like "the (professionally-quantified) roar of the crowd" for the Electoral College to judge their decision by. Too bad "CRUCIFY HIM!" is a 'roar of the crowd' that's dismissed like a dethroneing-petition. Actually, the judges and presidents concerned don't deserve crucifixion, as that would now give their goals some sort of glorification; but someone ought to be able to cure these sores on the skin of the government (possibly by 'dethroneing' the Judges and Executives in question) and/or heal the governmental pestilence (by replacing the unworthy ones and with people who prove themselves worthy by the lives they live).Disagree? Join Xomba to Defend Your Honor!(unless you're chicken!) Write-In Phil Hubbard 4 Prez!

---when You Join Xomba, you can join this- and MythMan's other-hot discussions!

Ok, let me respond here once

Ok, let me respond here once again. Is this "using the slack?" Perhaps my sentence could have been worded differently. But this "blatant fabrication" as you call it, is not such a fabrication as it is my understanding of the article5.org website. In the previous case, Walker v. United States (2001), the case was dismissed...then Walker v. Members of Congress was filed in almost the same exact way. Well, if the first case was to be dismissed and the second was nearly a replica (directed at a different party), one would infer that the same result was to be expected. So, when I say the intention was for it to be dismissed, how does that make it a fabrication? If I'm wrong, then maybe the website could be written in a more easily understood way. In other news...I find it funny that you still have not answered any of the questions I've previously posed to you. 1. WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM? (What is plan B? Tell me you weren't betting the farm on this lawsuit.) 2. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THESE POLITICIANS AND/OR JUDGES THAT WON'T COMPLY WITH OUR LAWS? 3. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT TO THE PEOPLE IN A WAY THAT THEY WILL UNDERSTAND THE SEVERITY WITHOUT MAKING THEM THINK THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN SCARE TACTICS TO PURSUE AN AGENDA? These are legitimate questions that have not been answered. If your only point is to try to intimidate me with digital memory, then your entire argument will be lost. People want to hear a plan. Don't you think it's time to give them one?

Publius, Xomba is a digital construct, it has a digital memory

The last post (above) contains a blatant fabrication and it needs to be addressed. I answered this once, just before xomba crashed, on Nov 3, 2006 (My time). That post has not been recovered or linked, and the thread ends here on Nov 4, my time. The fabrication concerns the statement alledgeding I explained to the 'gentleman' that this filing of an appeal to the U S Supreme Court was intentionally flawed so that after denial of Cert, we could post that the constitution has been nullified. ================================== This statement: from above, pasted herein: The lawsuit that was filed was done in a way so that the case was going to be dismissed. This was the intention, as stated by the people filing the suit, the way that Les had explained it to me previously. It was filed to be dismissed so that they could then say that the Constitution has been "nullified." This is why I disagreed with the lawsuit from the beginning, and this is why the suit was denied. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't want to deal with suits filed in this nature because of its patent absurdity. ============================================ Xomba's digital memory has every scrap of digital text exchange or posted about this subject by me and by the 'gentleman' who blatantly fabricated the statement above. Trying to cut this youngster some slack intimates a level of ignorance that I think can be remedied with continued education. Think about any appeal to the U S Supreme Court. It takes a long time ususally, unless you pay -- for example, to have the Court rule you to be the 'elected' president despite a completely fraudulent vote count. That was the first clear case where appointments years ago to the court paid off politically. But that is not what this appeal is about. I use that only as an illustration, that if you have lots of money you can pay for the ruling of the court, and cover their administrative expenses. Al Gore obeyed the Court. A Case, to reach the Supreme Court, has to progress from the federal district courts -- through the circuit courts of appeal -- and be finally presented to the Supreme Court. For an ordinary citizen this is a lengthy and expensive process. For Walker v Members of Congress, et. al., the journey began for Bill Walker well before 2001. The case then was "Walker V. United States" and it laid out all of the facts as to why a convention call was required and should be legally enforced upon the Congress by the court and the clear structural law of the Constitution. Yet here the 'gentleman' says this was a contrivance aimed at failure. Actually, Bill Walker has been pursuing this in the interest of the American people, for at least 6 years, and working on it for much longer than that. It has been at great personal expense. And the youthful "gentleman" contends this was done in order to fail. Further he intimates that I, the author of this xombyte told him that. Why would I or anyone go to the supreme court to lose. Preposterous statement and an outright fabrication. In scientific efforts to support a theory, the dinosaur-extinction causing impact, for example, physical evidence is examined, tested, dated, and the implications examined and bolstered or denied by the anvil of reality -- upon on which scientists display and array their observations and measurements. The observations and measurements are the fundamental constituents of the process of acquiring "science" (the Latin word for knowledge) and these can be verified and re-verified over and over and by a variety of methods to validate the result and bolster the theory. This usually occurs over time, and the new or better understood knowledge becomes incorporated into the world you and I experience and learn about. But with the 'gentleman's' fabrication of my confidence in him that this was appealed so that it could fail and we coud claim the Constitution was nullified, there is a level of rhetorical deception so casually used that it transends common behavior. Since I'm old and experienced of so many years of both casual and causal debate, I have been willing to cut this youngster some slack, leaving room for him to wiggle into the realm of an honest 'mis-understanding' and assume that will be his stance here, despite the fact that I laboriously have copied and stored every scrap of text in xomba's digital memory related to this debate, and stored it to structurally use it demonstrate the validity or non-validity of the gentlemen's posting on this subject. Said another way: what he posted is a damn lie and I can prove it! And you can too. Now when the original American "Publius" in the persona of Alexander Hamilton, somehow got himself in a duel with AAron Burr it cost him his life and this nation potentially a great President. Two hundred and three years after Hamilton's death I mourn him and for us, this nation, for what I beleive was a great national loss. I do not like the persona of Aaron Burr, and do not recommend further fabrications on this issue. Any one care to discuss the art of kanly? Use the slack.

Ok, for the last time...this

Ok, for the last time...this is what I've said. The lawsuit that was filed was done in a way so that the case was going to be dismissed. This was the intention, as stated by the people filing the suit, the way that Les had explained it to me previously. It was filed to be dismissed so that they could then say that the Constitution has been "nullified." This is why I disagreed with the lawsuit from the beginning, and this is why the suit was denied. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't want to deal with suits filed in this nature because of its patent absurdity. That being said, I DO AGREE that our Congress has not fulfilled their duty by not granting the convention. In this post, there were comments to me from you, Les, and mobius. I addressed mobius' concern about Habeas Corpus, and in my last few comments, I was referring to you and Les when I wrote. And when I ask for your own input, or Les' input as far as a solution or an idea, all I get are snotty remarks about me not "getting it" or not offering my own ideas (which I have done). The perspective of Les and Walker were the only ones we got IN THIS XOMBYTE. I wasn't asking for the perspective of others who were making comments. I wanted to know if there was another perspective from someone involved in the case or the decision. When someone is completely pessimistic, can you call the thoughtful and hopeful? If all they do is tell you how everything is lost, are you supposed to pretend it's a fun little debate? I never called him a "baseless baffoon" and indeed there could be more key points made to help people understand what this article is about. Ken Light didn't know when he read it, why don't you ask him what could help him understand. What do you want from me? Do you want me to just stop reading and commenting on everything? How about this...I don't give a rats ass what you write about. It's all pointless anyway and it bores me to tears. If you care for my opinion, ask me. If you don't want it, great. I don't care if your feathers are "ruffled." If you don't like what I write, don't read it. Is that better?

*I* know it's just for fun

...but others don't seem to get it, or like it, or whatever. Religious arguments pop up on Xomba like dandelions in a suburban yard.

I could be wrong...

Pub, Honey, you are sometimes a walking contradiction...but I could be wrong. I could swear that at some point I do recall you saying something about our Congressmen's inability to call a convention as being a comedy of errors and that they had gone about it completely wrong, and something about it purposely being done that way, just so they could go back and bitch about it, and turn it into some sort of doomsday forecast. Now, I'm not quoting you verbatim here, and maybe it wasn't even in this thread. But somewhere along the line I recall reading comments like that, and I thought certain they came from your keyboard. BUT, I could be wrong. Also, IF I have EVER 'attacked' you, then you have been 'attacked' by quite a few other readers aside from myself and Les. There have been a good many others on here who have disagreed with you. So why is it that you choose to forget them? Perhaps you like to think that this 'little thing' is just between you, and US now, because the others dropped out, and don't defend their positions as virillantly as we do? Perhaps it's easier for you to handle it that way? Once again you seem to have missed the entire point of my last comment. And, effectively, your condescending inferences as to my inability to make a viable or understandable point, had me wondering if I was just a 'total failure' when it comes to making a clear point. But now, I KNOW that it wasn't me at all!!! It's YOU who is incapable of seeing my point, or anyone else's point either!! Aside from the fact that other's have tried to get you to 'cool your jets' toward Les, even 'attacking you', as you say, you went on to offer us further proof of your talent for skipping over a relevant point if it wasn't YOUR relevant point. It can be found in your statement, "the only perspective we get is that of Les and Mr. Walker". In fact, Pub, MANY other people have offered their "perspectives" on this matter, and you ignored them...repeatedly. And repeatedly, you went right for Les, saying things like, "Chicken Little", "the sky is falling arguments", "doomsday prophet", "enjoy your hopelessness"!! You, YOURSELF, are guilty of leaving out "very key points" in some of your OWN posts!! And I very distinctly recall that being pointed out to you time and again!! But I guess you skipped over those too. So "I'm not sure", in fact, it blows my mind, that you still are incapable of seeing how having someone come in behind one of your posts, calling you a baseless baphoon, or accusing you of leaving out key points in your article, how that might steer someone away from reading it, or of giving it any merit. THIS is how you MAY BE robbing other people of valuable knowledge. And it doesn't matter if you think it's valuable or not. Some people might think it IS!! You wear me out!! You truly do!! I think you would do well to spend a few days going back over some of your posts, and comments, and perhaps PURPOSELY keeping an eye out for your own contradicitons!! Perhaps then you will understand, why I don't understand, why you don't understand, why I don't understand, why my tail feathers are all ruffled up at you!! I am one of the most easy going, lovable people you can ever hope to meet. So how is it that you seem to be the only person on here who can't see to get along with me?

Oops...

Can someone delete this one? sorry...

Oh, come on, I posted that

Oh, come on, I posted that under "humor" its just fun with words! "Thank you for driving carefully through the villiage." That's what the sign says.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member