BOGUS PRESIDENT LEADS INSURRECTION
Current surrogate does what he is told.
Acting in service to the Jewist Cartel, like his many predecessors, the Bogus President Barrack Obama, the Magnificent Muslim Mulatto is a Domestic Enemy.
THE BONA FIDE CIVILIAN AND THE STATES HAVE THE RIGT AND DUTY TO SUPPRESS THE BELLIGERENT ACTION BY RENEGADE PUBLIC SERVANTS .
The conflict in the border states reflect the reality that the problem is not the border. The problem lies in the willful failure of renegade public servants to obey the laws.
The simple justification for General Civil Action To Suppress This current Insurrection by renegade public servants is EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. It is not necessary to argue about taxes and other minutia. This the Renegade Public Servants have already rejected and suppressed all Petitions For Redress. This Belligerent Act is sufficient to satisfy any requirement to exhaust any peaceful remedy. There is none.
I have drafted this hurriedly and request your indulgence. The notes below begin to shape what can be the requisite Indictment. Given time, resource and opportunity I shall work to refine this material and present a simple plan of action.
Our Father wiling we can avoid further calamity. As our Savior King Yahushua declared and commanded;
"All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and make disciples of all men.... and teach all nations to observe [Obey and govern by ] all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
NO KING BUT KING YAHUSHUA !
In His service,
Minister
Obama and Holder taking on Arizona's SB1070
FOX NEWS ASSET IS A FEDERAL SUPREMACY ADVOCATE
Judge Andrew Napolitano 'Arizona Law Is Unconstitutional' - Encore
Double minded LAWYER/JUDGE says that Arizona should "threaten secession." LAWYER TALK. "The Federal Government is "gilding the lily." Napolitano Says that the federal lawsuit is "not in inappropriately" putting the federal thumb on the scale of justice. Judge Napolitano loudly declares States Rights. He should intervene PRO BONO to bring the Court into alignment. The Sate of Arizona should, as should all formerly free states not Secede! This is OUR UNION it is not the possession the Renegade Mercenary Public Servants. The Congress of The People need only convene ONCE a year to celebrate:
THE END OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYTEM OF CREDIT FRAUD AND GLOBAL CONQUEST AND ECONOMIC SERVITUDE COMPELLED BY MILITARY FORCE.
NO LAWYER, LIKE JUDGE NAPOLITANO, IS CAPABLE OF PROPERLY DISCERNING THE NATURE THE STINKING US CONSTITUTION. WHILE WE CAN THANK HOM FOR DECLARING THE NEED TO CONSTRAIN THE CENTRAL POWER HIS DECLARED POSITION CONCERNING FEDERAL SUPREMACY REVEALS HIS DELUSION. NO! THE STATES DID NOT GRANT
THE SO-CALLED SUPREMACY CLAUSE:
“ 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. â€
TENTH AMENDMENT:
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT:
“ The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:
"No State [OR FEDERAL ACT] shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
WARNING: In Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that a state voluntarily waives the Eleventh Amendment when it invokes a federal court's removal jurisdiction. The lawsuit in Arizona shall not find jurisdiction in the US District Court, District of Nevada and certainly not in the
[edit]The Fourteenth Amendment
Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States, with emphasis being placed upon the rights of the citizens.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS:
Excerpt from 14th Amendment (below): nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The willful neglect of the Federal Public Servants in violation their DUTY to OBEY the Law and enforce the Equal Protection of the Laws cannot be tolerated or ignored. ALL THE PEOPLE OF ALL THE STATES HAVE BEEN HARMED AND THERE EXISTA CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
ALL "PERSONS" having the right to equal protection of the laws have Prima Facie Cause of Action against the renegade public servants acting within the federal government to disparage the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, including ALL bona fide (legal) residents. ANY JUDGE that willfully fails to uphold and acts to obstruct DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OFTHE LAWS is renegade and must therefore be utterly disregarded. Requesting such belligerents parties to resign is futile. It is of NECESSITY that forcible removal be effected with extreme prejudice. No criminal conduct shall tolerated. This is a Perpetual union of the Several Free States. None have surrendered sovereignty. Neither have The People.
The actions of the State of Arizona as commanded by The People of Arizona is no less potent for all the 50 Several States. These have steadfastly retained and have not waived EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. The belligerent conduct of the renegade public servants constitutes a State of Insurrection. ALL STATES AND ALL THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT AND DUTY to SUPPRESS this lawless insurrection.
Being a lawyer and a judge FOX NEWS ASSET Napolitano needs an Epiphany. Once he has freed himself from the shackles of the Bogus Supreme Court he may become able to recognize the SUBSTANCE OF PRINCIPLE does not reside in the Talmudic Text of the corrupted Courts occupied by renegade public servants. The STINKING CONSTITUTION is a FAILURE. The proof of this fact comes from the despicable acts of renegade Public Servants such as Mayors, Governors, Police, Administrative Agents, Lawyers, Judges, Representatives and Presiding Executives. None are found that will OBEY THE LAW. Not even hired Shysters like former Judge Napolitano. All these stand naked before a candid world.
ARIZONA AND ALL THE STATES SHOULD ENFORCE THE LAW AND SUE INTHE SUPREME COURT TO COMPEL THE RENEGADE PUBLIC SERVANTS TO RESIGN AND COMPEL THE FEW THAT ARE NEEDED TO ADMINISTER THE GOVERNMENT FORMED AND COMMANDED BY THE THE PEOPLE TO OBEY THE LAWS AS WE THE PEOPLE HAVE SO LONG AGO DECLARED AND ENACTED. ALL BONA FIDE AUTHORITY SHALL COMPEL THIS ACTION TO BE ENFORCED WITH ALL NECESSARY FORCE.
THIS LAND IS RULED BY THE UNION OF THE SEVERAL FREE STATES AUTHORIZED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL FREE STATES. This is NOT the realm of the Union of Renegade Pubic Servants in service to the JEWIST Central Bank and Trade Cartel Monopoly of Credit Fraud.
ABOLISH THE CENTRAL BANK FRAUD AND THE CENTRAL POWER THAT PROTECTS IT.
END THE FED AND NO MORE WAR.
Reinhold
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
[edit]Supreme Court and lower Federal Court interpretations of the Supremacy Clause
One of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court's ruling that a State law violated the Federal Constitution under its Supremacy Clause came in the landmark legal case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland could not place taxes on the Second Bank of the United States. This ruling established the principle that the states could not tax the Federal Government in any regard and to any amount.
The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when the Federal Government has acted in a given field. In the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[1]
1. Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2. "...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."
In a similar opinion, Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held (on the issue of injunctions and remediations) that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a Federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme." In this case, prisoners suing for tort damages appealed to Federal remediation law, suggesting that in their case Federal law applied (though it might not in every instance of remediation). The Court of Appeals agreed, and it granted compensation wherever Federal laws were applicable.
In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.
The Federal Supreme Court has also held that only specific, "unmistakable" acts of Congress may be held to trigger the Supremacy Clause. The State of Montana had imposed a 30 percent tax on most sub-bituminous coal mined there. The Commonwealth Edison Company and other utility companies argued, in part, that the Montana tax "frustrated" the broad goals of the national energy policy. However in the case of Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453U.S. 609 (1981), the Supreme Court disagreed. Any appeal to claims about "national policy," the Court said, were insufficient to overturn a State law under the Supremacy Clause unless "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained."[2]
However, in the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the State action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, the State law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives."[3] Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over State laws either, because (the Supreme Court said) Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.[4]
[edit]Some Concerns about the Supremacy Clause
There has been some debate as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights, could be affected by an ambitious treaty. In the 1950s, a Constitutional Amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears. This proposed amendment would have mandated that all American treaties shall not conflict with the manifest powers granted to the Federal Government.
Subsequent Federal court cases such as Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955), Diggs v. Schultz, 470 F.2d 461 (1972), and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) have, over the course of time, established in legal decisions most of the limitations that had been proposed by the Bricker Amendment.[5]
