These precedents mean anything today?

1/15/2013 10:08:43 AM	These precedents mean anything today?
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	LAW OF THE LAND The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. " Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot; Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442 "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256 Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
1/15/2013 11:01:19 AM	These precedents mean anything today?
hodag Skanee, MI 62, joined Nov. 2007	Shawnee, Thank you for posting this! The Second Amendment, state constitutions, the rulings you posted above in addition to Heller vs. Washington, DC and McDonald vs. Chicago should give all of us confidence when we tell hussien obama to shove his tyrannical rules someplace the sun doesn't shine. This also should convince the military and police that "We The People" have the law on our side.
1/15/2013 12:10:25 PM	These precedents mean anything today?
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	Quote from hodag: Shawnee, Thank you for posting this! The Second Amendment, state constitutions, the rulings you posted above in addition to Heller vs. Washington, DC and McDonald vs. Chicago should give all of us confidence when we tell hussien obama to shove his tyrannical rules someplace the sun doesn't shine. This also should convince the military and police that "We The People" have the law on our side. You're welcome, the booklet is awesome. These are out of "The Citizens Rule Book" I buy 20 min copies at a time and give them out, been doing it for years. You can read it here (and elsewhere) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Annotated_Citizen's_Rule_Book Get them many places, Alex has them on infowars site in bulk. http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/ciru.html
1/15/2013 12:59:13 PM	These precedents mean anything today?
hodag Skanee, MI 62, joined Nov. 2007	Thank you for the links. I also just came across this. How much of it is familiar? A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the Citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully: Abolition of private property. Heavy progressive income tax. Aboliton to all rights of inheritance. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels. A Central bank Government control of Communications and Transportation Government ownership of factories and agriculture. Government control of labor. Corporate farms, regional planning. Free education for all children in government controlled schools It is amazing to me that liberals get offended when we suggest their leader is a Communist. Hodag
1/15/2013 1:56:17 PM	These precedents mean anything today?
hodag Skanee, MI 62, joined Nov. 2007	A Texas Congressman is threatening president Obama with impeachment if his administration exercises executive action to scale back the Second Amendment. photo In a press release titled, “Obama’s gun grab an unconstitutional threat to the nation,” republican Rep. Steve Stockman stated, “The White House’s recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic.” Rep. Stockman said that he will pursue “any means necessary” to thwart Obama’s use of executive orders targeting the Second Amendment “including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.” “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person – much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court,” Rep. Stockman stated. The Congressman said that the president’s actions would represent “not just an attack on the Constitution” but “a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger.” “If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.” Congressman Stockman’s strong defense of the Second Amendment comes at a crucial time in the gun control debate. Anti-gun proponents have been envigored by the recent tragic events in Newtown, CT and are seeking to capitalize on the nation’s emotional vulnerability during this opportune moment to pass sweeping gun reform. However, there are some law enforcers at local levels that say they will not enforce any unconstitutional mandates declared by the federal government. Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky during a town hall speech this past Saturday, told attendees that he had no intention of taking anybody’s guns away. “I am responsible for the people inside this county,” stated Peyman, adding, “I couldn’t justify, if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.” “I consider this a moral obligation… My office will not comply with any federal actions which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold,” Peyman declared. Earlier this year, Rep. Stockman, along with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), introduced H.R. 35 IH, or “The Safe Schools Act of 2013,” a bill that would have eliminated “Gun Free Zones” around schools. The bill labeled the “Gun Free Zones Act” a “deadly failure,” and one section goes so far as to say “the reason that the `Gun Free School Zones Act’ has made American schools unsafe is that shooters now know that they can victimize American school campuses with no fear that victims will be armed.” This article was posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 11:44 am
1/15/2013 4:46:24 PM	These precedents mean anything today?
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	Quote from hodag: Thank you for the links. I also just came across this. How much of it is familiar? A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the Citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully: Abolition of private property. Heavy progressive income tax. Aboliton to all rights of inheritance. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels. A Central bank Government control of Communications and Transportation Government ownership of factories and agriculture. Government control of labor. Corporate farms, regional planning. Free education for all children in government controlled schools It is amazing to me that liberals get offended when we suggest their leader is a Communist. Hodag Getting there aren't they. Bet you saw that in CRB, they know it too
1/15/2013 4:48:59 PM	These precedents mean anything today?
shawnee_b Edmonton, KY 60, joined Apr. 2010	Meese was talking about that too. I tried to post this, a 2 parter but was guilty of being a DH bumper I guess. "Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III declared in an exclusive Newsmax TV interview that President Barack Obama could easily be impeached if he bypassed Congress and enacted gun-control legislation by executive order. Meese's comments came on the same day President Obama told the White House press corp at the last news conference of his first term that he was reviewing actions, including issuing executive orders, where he could take action without congressional approval to confront gun violence in the nation. Obama said he would present a plan within days. The options include stronger background checks, a meaningful ban on assault weapons, and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines, Obama said, conceding that was unsure how such steps could pass Congress. Note: Should Obama, Biden Ban Semi-Automatic Guns? Vote in Urgent Poll “I’m confident there are some steps we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president,” Obama said. “It would not be legal. It would not be constitutional,” Meese, who served under President Ronald Reagan, tells Newsmax. “And, indeed, if he tried to override the Second Amendment in any way, I believe it would be an impeachable offense.” Meese, 81, is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation and is chairman of its Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. A close Reagan adviser, he also served on the National Security Council. Obama said at a White House news conference on Monday that he was reviewing actions he could take without congressional approval to confront gun violence in the nation — saying he would present a plan within days. The options include stronger background checks, a meaningful ban on assault weapons, and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines, Obama said, conceding that was unsure how such steps could pass Congress. The idea of embracing tougher gun laws has brought fierce resistance from the National Rifle Association and other gun-control advocates. They contended that their meeting last week with Vice President Joseph Biden’s gun-violence task force amounted to a strategy session on how to thwart the Second Amendment. “It should be remembered that the president cannot by executive order do things that affects the public at large unless there is some congressional basis for it,” Meese tells Newsmax. “In other words, some Congressional authority he has been given. “An executive order without specific congressional authority can only apply to those portions of the government that are under his control — in their words, the executive branch. Now there are some things he can probably do in regard to the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or some other governmental agency in its operations. “But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization,” he said. Story continues; http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/meese-obama-guns-impeachable/2013/01/14/id/471412?s=al&promo_code=11F25-1

skipthegames escort

free online hookup website