IMPEACH OBAMA: Treason, Perjury, and Murderous Intent
by David Yeagley
It’s time. The truth has to be spelled out. Barry Soetoro, (a.k.a. “Barack Hussein Obama”), posing president of the United States, is an enemy of the United States. He is guilty of treason, openly denigrating the American constitution; he is guilty of perjury, publicly lying, repeatedly; and he is guilty of intentionally planning the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The United States Constitution states, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
To publicly declare that the Unites States Constitution is inadequate is tantamount to denying it, opposing it, and displaying open intent to change it.
To publicly state falsehood (to lie), before the Congress of the United States, before the American people (through mass media), is tantamount to offering false testimony in court. The people rule this country. The people are the highest authority in the land. The president is a perpetual witness, sworn to uphold the Constitution (Article II, Section 1). He has continually lied to the American people. This is mainly due to his not-so-hidden Marxist, anti-American agenda, which he continually and desperate attempts to sell to the people. He is running contrary to American values. He disdains them, and wants to change them. This is called a “domestic” enemy.
To remove health care from the elderly, the terminally ill, the abjectly handicapped and dysfunctional, is tantamount to the plotting of mass murder. (And yet the president plans to provide healthcare for aliens–while denying it at the same time. More “lying.”)
Add to this “high crimes,” we have the following Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009: HR 1388, (the re-authorization of an original Ted Kennedy bill from 1993) the $20 million for bringing Palestinians to the United States. This was one of the president’s first acts, January 27, 2009.
I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
How many more Muslim terrorists will enter the United States as the direct result of this measure?
And add the California Joaquin Valley crisis: the federal government, the EPA, has turned off the water source for the most fertile, productive land in the United States. The president of the United States has not responded to the crisis. He earlier announced a $260 million stimulus package for water projects in California, but this does not affect the Joaquin Valley!
It appears that the liberal Democrat administration intends to make America dependent on foreign food, as well as foreign oil. What other productive domestic lands will be condemned or prohibited?
When the federal government destroys the Joaquin Valley, America’s most fertile land, through the manipulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, we know that the government is the enemy of the people. At this point, the president of the United States represents the figure head of all that is anti-American, all that is set to destroy (i.e., “change”) the United States.
To impeach the president Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. “Barack Hussein Obama”) is the wisest, most imperative, exigent action the government can take. It will never happen, of course, since the present Congress of the United States is incapable of serious, constructive, reform.
But, right actions are not likely to occur without right thoughts. BadEagle.com hopes to at least provide a measure of those.
Just a question. If the Constitution was perfect when it was framed, then why would it have needed to be amended 27 times?
Sad Sack,
have you sworn
YES or NO
what we seem to forget is that when this usurper “took the oath of office” they flubbed it.. the justice made a mistake…
was it intentional? so they did a “do over’ so we dont really know if this idiot promised to uphold the constitution do we?
will
This is crazy. There is nothing treasonous about criticizing the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly allows for amendments.
Most people — including many of the founding fathers — believe that the Constitution as originally written was fundamentally flawed because it allowed slavery.
David,
No, pvt sad sack never swore that oath. That was another lie he told. He seems very at ease with that. That is a trait of the left. pvt sad sack has never been in the military. He is a liar.
Obama cannot be impeached due to the fact he is NOT eligible to be President.
He has bever been President of the United States.
He has to be arrested and placed in custody to serve trial for fraud.
It’s as simple as that.
NOT SURE HOW THE IMPEACHMENT WOULD HAPPEN OR BE DONE, READ SOMEPLACE HE COULD BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE IS NOT A LEGAL PRESIDENT, COULD ONLY BE PUT IN HANDCUFFS AND TAKEN AWAY, BUT I AM NOT SURE OF ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. THE LEGAL PROCESS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WORKING, OR BY THE TIME IT DOES WE WILL LHAVE SUCH GROSS INFLATION, AND NO MORE JOBS, CAN USA LAST UNTIN 2012 FOR ANOTHER ELECTION
;;;;;
????????
David:
Of course I have. I have sworn to defend the Constitution which includes ALL 27 AMENDMENTS.
Have you?
Hi again everyone.
This is the second time I have ever posted on this blog although I have been following these issues since 1983. IE: NWO , Bilderbergers, Rockefeller, etc…etc ad nauseum. I am fully aware of all of the issues concerning the usurpation of the presidency by whoever this a**hole is also. Starting with Berg and this one and that one onto Veira and thru to Donofrio and of course Orly. Suffice it to say I am pretty much “up to speed”.
As I have observed all of the disappointments we all have endured I can only come to one conclusion that would settle this issue once and for all. REVOLUTION!
These folks are all in cahoots with each other. The congress, senate , judiciary military CIA, FBI etc….etc.
WILL // Sep 20, 2009 at 2:53 am
what we seem to forget is that when this usurper “took the oath of office” they flubbed it.. the justice made a mistake…
I think you make a good point there. The second swearing in was done in closed session. I think all the justices have been bought too. Obama said Constitution is a flawed document and is working at warp speed to overthrow congress and the constitution, and it is happening right before our eyes. Really scary times.
Veteran78, you never cease to amaze me with your literal stupidity. If you would actually read the Federalist Papers, along with other writings of the Founding Fathers, the rest of us wouldn’t see anymore posts by you except for intelligent ones. The Founding Fathers stated the Constitution could be amended, but it’s foundation was to remain the same, protection of this country. You and your idiots want to ignore it, for we know Obama and his Marxist hacks would also rather ignore it because we know his and his minion’s ideas would NEVER be accepted by the American people.
RobK,
“The Founding Fathers stated the Constitution could be amended, but it’s foundation was to remain the same, protection of this country”
Please provide the source for your statement above.
Karen, if you aren’t intelligent enough to find it yourself, I’m for sure not going to compensate for your lack of education you received in the Public Schools and any other hack school you attended. I mentioned the source in my post, the FEDERALIST PAPERS. Did you even take time to read and subsequently comprehend my entry? (eyes rolling).
Where in the Constitution does it say this?
Karen,
please stop making a fool of yourself The Federalist papers are the primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Now given the degree in which public education has deteriorated you probably are totally unaware of how silly your remark really is.
RobK I fully agree with you about Karen having do take care of her own education so here a link for her.
Sad Sack
yoiu bet and contrary to what you appear to be I am an Oath Keeper.
On top of that I think Morgan Ward is definitely right when he writes:
David,
Is being rude necessary? Please provide the source in the Federalist Papers that supports your statement below.
“The Founding Fathers stated the Constitution could be amended, but it’s foundation was to remain the same, protection of this country.”
I worded my 2nd question incorrectly. Are the Federalist Papers mentioned in the Constitution?
Another question. What is the role of the judiciary in the government established by the U.S. Constitution according to The Federalist Papers?
I’ve read the posts with a great deal of interest. Thanks a lot for the link to the Federalist Papers. I’m not stupid but I am getting a lot older and it takes a great deal of energy and pain to sit at the computer to search, given my physical condition. So, again, thanks for the link.
I agree that the “O” is everything you say he is. I’ve alienated friends who wear blinders. I check and verify, where I can, then forward ALL true “O” bashing emails. LOL
I post links to Facebook so often that many have ceased to read my Facebook pages.
I can only believe that there are enough intelligent patriots of all races, religions and creeds to stop this man and his co-horts who are taking advantage of the things we’ve let Congress get away with to undermine our basic freedoms and even our physical health, not to mention the financial.
We’ve moved to the country, have garden and food animals so we might survive a bit longer than most…
Some forget about the Preamble that can not be changed by anyone in Government. What makes the Supeme court Supreme Nothing. They think they are Gods witch they are not. They are not even citizens of the USA. Lawyers are not citizens of the USA when they take the bar exams. BAR what does it mean? They have no legal rights to rule over us. Here is the proof.
Hiding Behind the BAR
Why Attorneys are not lawyers
In the U.S., they’re collectively called everything from “attorney” to “lawyer” to “counselor.” Are these terms truly equivalent, or has the identity of one been mistaken for another? What exactly is a “Licensed BAR Attorney?” This credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a State Bar License number. As we are about to show you, an �attorney� is not a �lawyer,� yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called “lawyer” when he is not.
In order to discern the difference, and where we stand within the current court system, it�s necessary to examine the British origins of our U.S. courts and the terminology that has been established from the beginning. It’s important to understand the proper lawful definitions for the various titles we now give these court related occupations.
The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word “bar” is of British origin:
BAR. A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails: one of which separated the judge’s bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be “called to the bar”, that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as “barristers.” The corresponding phrase in the United States is “admitted to the bar”. - A Dictionary of Law (1893).
From the definition of �bar,� the title and occupation of a “barrister” is derived:
BARRISTER, English law. A counselor admitted to plead at the bar. 2. Ouster barrister, is one who pleads ouster or without the bar. 3. Inner barrister, a sergeant or king’s counsel who pleads within the bar. 4. Vacation barrister, a counselor newly called to the bar, who is to attend for several long vacations the exercise of the house. 5. Barristers are called apprentices, apprentitii ad legem, being looked upon as learners, and not qualified until they obtain the degree of sergeant. Edmund Plowden, the author of the Commentaries, a volume of elaborate reports in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth, describes himself as an apprentice of the common law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).
BARRISTER, n. [from bar.] A counselor, learned in the laws, qualified and admitted to please at the bar, and to take upon him the defense of clients; answering to the advocate or licentiate of other countries. Anciently, barristers were called, in England, apprentices of the law. Outer barristers are pleaders without the bar, to distinguish them from inner barristers, benchers or readers, who have been sometime admitted to please within the bar, as the king’s counsel are. - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
Overall, a barrister is one who has the privilege to plead at the courtroom bar separating the judicial from the non-judicial spectators. Currently, in U.S. courts, the inner bar between the bench (judge) and the outer bar no longer exists, and the outer bar separates the attorneys (not lawyers) from the spectator’s gallery. This will be explained more as you read further. As with the word �bar,� each commonly used word describing the various court officers is derived directly from root words:
3 From the word “solicit” is derived the name and occupation of a �solicitor�; one who solicits or petitions an action in a court.
SOLICIT, v.t. [Latin solicito] 1. To ask with some degree of earnestness; to make petition to; to apply to for obtaining something. This word implies earnestness in seeking … 2. To ask for with some degree of earnestness; to seek by petition; as, to solicit an office; to solicit a favor. - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
4). From the word “attorn” is derived the name and occupation of an �attorney;� one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.
ATTORN / v. Me. [Origin French. atorner, aturner assign, appoint, f. a-torner turn v.] 1. v.t. Turn; change, transform; deck out. 2. v.t Turn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign.
3. v.i. Transfer one�s tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one�s tenancy (to), make legal acknowledgement of tenancy ( to a new landlord). - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.
ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.
- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service.
- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.) allegiance, service, etc., to another;
formal acknowledgement of such transfer: lme. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.
5). From the word advocate comes the meaning of the occupation by the same name; one who pleads or defends by argument in a court.
ADVOCATE, v.t. [Latin advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.] To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate.
- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
5). From the word “counsel” is derived the name and occupation of a �counselor� or �lawyer�; one who is learned in the law to give advice in a court of law;
COUNSEL, v.t. [Latin. to consult; to ask, to assail.] 1. To give advice or deliberate opinion to another for the government of his conduct; to advise. - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).
Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:
Solicitor - one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court
Counselor - one who advises another concerning a court matter
Lawyer - [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court
Barrister - one who is privileged to plead at the bar
Advocate - one who pleads within the bar for a defendant
Attorney - one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another’s rights & property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)
It’s very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant’s rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).
Feudal Tenancy
If you think you are a landowner in America, take a close look at the warranty deed or fee title to your land. You will almost always find the words “tenant” or “tenancy.” The title or deed document establishing your right as a tenant, not that of a landowner, has been prepared for transfer by a licensed BAR Attorney, just as it was carried out within the original English feudal system we presumed we had escaped from in 1776.
A human being is the tenant to a feudal superior. A feudal tenant is a legal person who pays rent or services of some sort for the use and occupation of another’s land. The land has been conveyed to the tenant’s use, but the actual ownership remains with the superior. If a common person does not own what he thought was his land (he’s legally defined as a “feudal tenant,” not the superior owner), then a superior person owns the land and the feudal tenant - person pays him to occupy the land.
This is the hidden Feudal Law in America. When a person (a.k.a. human being, corporation, natural person,
partnership, association, organization, etc.) pays taxes to the tax assessor of the civil county or city government (also a person), it is a payment to the superior land owner for the right to be a tenant and to occupy the land belonging to the superior. If this were not so, then how could a local government sell the house and land of a person for not rendering his services (taxes)?
We used to think that there was no possible way feudal law could be exercised in America, but the facts have proven otherwise. It’s no wonder they hid the definition of a human being behind the definition of a man. The next time you enter into an agreement or contract with another person (legal entity), look for the keywords person, individual, and natural person describing who you are.
Are you the entity the other person claims you are? When you “appear” before their jurisdiction and courts, you have agreed that you are a legal person unless you show them otherwise. You will have to deny that you are the person and state who you really are. Is the flesh and blood standing there in that courtroom a person by their legal definition?
British Accredited Registry (BAR)?
During the middle 1600’s, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.
When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.
Today, each corporate STATE in America has it’s own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?
Here’s where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner.
Another name game they use is “of counsel,” which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another.
A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can’t plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can’t represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder.
The official duties of an Esquire
Let’s not forget that all U.S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as a direct result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of “esquire.” This word is a derivative of the British word “squire.”
SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges. - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n.1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield - bearer, f. scutum shield: see - ary 1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.
During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire - was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment [see definition above] for the land owner and nobleman he served. Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? If our current U.S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. They have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall.
The BAR Attorneys have not hidden this from anyone. That’s why they deliberately call themselves “Esquires” and “Attorneys at law.” It is the American people who have hidden their own heads in the sand.
Knowing these simple truths, why would anyone consider the services of BAR Attorney-Esquire as his representative within the ruling courts of America? Their purposes, position, occupation, job, and duty is to transfer your allegiance, property, and rights to the landowner, a.k.a. STATE. They are sworn oath officers of the State whose sole authority is to transfer your property to their landowner-employer. Think about this the next time you enter their courtrooms. From now on, all Americans should refuse to enter past the outer bar when they are called. Who would voluntarily want to relinquish all he has by passing into their legal trap that exists inside that outer bar?
We must all refuse to recognize their royal position as Squires and refuse to hire them as our representatives and agents. They can’t plead or argue for you anyway; all they can do is oversee the act of attornment on behalf of the ruling government whom they serve as official officers. Nothing stops your neighbor from being a barrister or lawyer. No real law prohibits any of us from being lawyers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a well-recognized lawyer, yet he had no formal law degree. Let the BAR Attorneys continue in their jobs as property transfer agent-officers for the State, but if no defendant hires them, they’ll have to get new jobs or they’ll starve. Fire your BAR Attorney and represent yourself as your own lawyer, or hire any non-BAR-licensed lawyer to assist you from outside the courtroom bar.
Refuse to acknowledge all judges who are also licensed BAR Attorneys. Every judge in Florida State is a member of the Florida BAR. This is unlawful and unconstitutional as a judge cannot be an Esquire nor can he represent any issue in commerce, such as that of the State. Every Florida State judge has compromised his purported neutral and impartial judicial position by being a State Officer through his BAR licensure. This is an unlawful monopoly of power and commerce.
The Unauthorized Practice of Law
Fire your BAR Attorney. Refuse to acknowledge their corrupt inner-bar courts of thievery. Formally charge them with the illegal act of practicing law without lawful authority. Why? A BAR Attorney is not a lawyer by lawful definition. An Esquire is an officer of the State with the duty to carry out State activities, including “attornment.”
State officers have no constitutional authority to practice law as lawyers, barristers, advocates, or solicitors. Americans should begin formally charging these false lawyers with unlawfully practicing the profession of law since their BAR licenses only give them the privilege to be Attorneys and Squires over land transfers.
Below is the preamble and what it means.
We the People of the United States
Constitution for the United
States of America A
Adopted July 2, 1788
In effect March 4, 1789
The Preamble
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, 1
1 It is important to notice that this is a government of the people, not of the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, in effect as our first form of “national” government, agreed to by the Continental Congress on November 15,1777 and in force after ratification by Maryland on March 1, 1782 until the ratification of the Constitution for the United States in 1788 and George Washington’s inauguration as the nation’s first President under the Constitution on April 30, 1789, the States as political entities, and not the people, entered into “a firm league of friendship”, each State retaining “its sovereignty, freedom and independence.” The new Constitution for the United States brought in a new Nation, the United States of America, deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“The people, the highest authority known to our system,” said President Monroe, “from whom all our institutions spring and whom they depend, formed it.”
“Its language, ‘We the People,’ is the institution of one great consolidated National government of the people of all the States, instead of a government by compact with the States for its agents,” exclaimed Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying assembly while leading opposition to its adoption, “The people gave the [Constitutional] Convention no power to use their name.” Some States restricted the authority of their delegates to revising the Articles of Confederation. It was claimed that the casting aside of the Articles of Confederation (which could be altered or amended only by the concurrence of every State) for a constitution to become effective when adopted by nine of the thirteen States was revolutionary. It was, in fact, a coup d’Etat. Revision only was uppermost in the minds of many. On February 21, 1787, the Congress existing under the Articles called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.” But it was the belief of the Constitutional Convention that as the new instrument was to go to the people for ratification or rejection, the objections stated by Henry and others were really unimportant.
in Order to form a more perfect Union,2
2 Meaning “a more perfect union” than had been achieved by the Articles of Confederation.
“In the efficacy and permanency of your Union,” wrote Washington in his Farewell Address, “a government for the whole is indispensable. . . . Sensible of this momentous truth you have improved upon your first essay [the Articles of Confederation] by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns.”
The Union, made “more perfect” by the Constitution was nevertheless in later times said to be dissoluble at the pleasure of any State that might wish to secede. In his Farewell Address (1796) Washington had called upon the people “indignantly” to frown “upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.” To put the question beyond controversy it required a four year Civil War, after the secession of the southern States, beginning with that of South Carolina in December, 1860, following the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency in the preceding month.
In a great debate in the Senate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the former contended that the National Government through its Supreme Court, is the ultimate expounder of its own powers, while the latter stood for what was known as States’ Rights and argued for the right of the individual State, under its reserved sovereignty 163, to determine such questions for itself, as South Carolina had done (1833) by an ordinance declaring null a tariff law of Congress. Secession, he said, was the States remedy of last resort. Of Calhoun’s theory, and of the historic facts with which it presumed to deal, President Lincoln said, in a message (July 4, 1861) to a special session of Congress called to prepare for the Civil War:
“The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union [of the original thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation], and not they themselves procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, [other than the original thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation] and in fact, it created them as States.”
This is in opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gordon v. United States (1864), 117 U S. 697 (703). 163
The citizen was not, under the theory of States’ Rights, in contact with the National Government. He owed allegiance to his State, and the State, in turn, dealt with the Nation. After the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment set that theory aside by declaring: “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.” Every citizen now owes allegiance to the Nation as well as to the State.
It is interesting to note with what singular clearness James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a scholar from Edinburgh, laid down in the Constitutional Convention the doctrine which was, eighty years later, removed from debate by the Fourteenth Amendment 171, the question under discussion being whether the State or the people should be represented in the Senate:
“A Citizen of America is a citizen of the general government, and is a Citizen of the particular State in which he may reside. . . . In Forming the general government we must forego our local habits and attachments, lay aside our State connections, and act for the general good of the whole. The general government is not an assemblage of the States, but of individuals.”
Profiting by the experience of our country, the United States of Brazil, which was established in 1890, after the overthrow of the monarchy, carefully provided, in a constitution closely copying the fundamentals of ours, for a “perpetual and indissoluble Union between former provinces into the United States of Brazil.” And in 1900, when the various provinces of Australia were united as the Commonwealth of Australia, the Constitution, also closely following ours and adopting our terms, “State”, “House of Representatives” and “Senate”, provided for an “indissoluble Federal Commonwealth”
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, 3
3 Since the Ethical and Moral Purpose of our Constitution is to “establish Justice” to insure domestic Tranquility, guidance from moral principles such as equality before the law, the absolute right to petition for redress of grievance without resort to violence against human dignity and liberty, are constituents of “Justice”, and necessary to interpret it.
The governmental “judge” made doctrines of Sovereign Immunity and Judicial Supremacy inculcated over the last years of judicial incrementalism are untenable to the Constitution as written.
Sovereign Immunity changes the basic relationship between government and its people from one seeking moral justice under the law to one in which people have no enforceable rights and government has no enforceable limits. That concept of moral justice; of striving to establish Justice and domestic Tranquility is what distinguishes barbarian from civilized society. The Founders designed the Constitution to transform the barbarian rule we rejected as Colonies, into a civilization befitting the dignity of a free people.
The Constitution, by both its general design and its terms as written, limits government to the powers delegated. Immunity from accountability to these limited powers it injures in violation of the law is a power not delegated. The Tenth Amendment forbids it. Our Constitution is a closed legal and logical system that declares itself and the laws made pursuant to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that is the only law that it allows. There is no room in it for “inherent sovereign immunity”.
With regard to Judicial Supremacy no clearer reason for the rejection of Judicial Supremacy can be given than the words of Thomas Jefferson in 1819:
“If this opinion [of judicial supremacy] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation … The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
In 1820, he further clarified his rejection of the doctrine of judicial supremacy when he wrote:
“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 the 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 single tribunal.”
With respect to Supremacy, “The Supreme Law of the Land” is “The Constitution as it is written” and the laws made pursuant thereto. Its interpretations are not the supreme law of the land. They are mere interpretations that may or may not be correct, or may even be dishonest and treacherous to it.
The final arbiter therefore of the meanings of that Supreme Law can only be We The People through utilization of the amendatory processes contained therein, and through the absolute First Amendment Right of Petition for a Redress of Grievances.
Under the Articles of Confederation the expenses of the common defense were to be “defrayed out of a common treasury” supplied “by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states.” The Nation itself had no power of self-defense in the raising of money and in some other important respects. It turned out in practice that some of the States signally failed in emergencies to make their contributions to the “common treasury.” Indeed, only New York and Pennsylvania paid their full proportion of the costs of the Revolution. One State, which had suffered none from the ravages of war, contributed nothing. But (to illustrate the difference between a league of States and a Nation) when the United States entered World War 1 in 1917 the Congress promptly exerted its power under the Constitution and raised by the issue of Liberty Bonds, by income taxes, and by other means all the money that it needed for “the common defense.” The States as such were not concerned except in providing militia, a subject to be noticed later. So it had been in the War of 1812, in the Mexican War, in the Civil War, and in the War with Spain. The Articles of Confederation were wholly deficient in this most important of all respects, in the power of “common defense.”
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 4
4 Comment has been made that God is not mentioned in our Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” is expressed, and in the Articles of Confederation it is mentioned that “it has pleased the Great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress to approve and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union.”
The Commonwealth of Australia put in the preamble of the Constitution which it submitted to the English Parliament for approval (1900) that “Whereas, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God, have agreed to unite,” etc.
A very interesting discussion of the proposition that “this is a religious people” is contained in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (1892) holding that the Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 (prohibiting the bringing in of “foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States”), while applying to an alien brought in to perform “labor or service of any kind”, did not relate in purpose — although it did in language — to a minister of the Gospel who had been employed to come from England to accept service in a New York church. In applying the rule of statutory interpretation, that the intent of the legislature must be followed, the court said that “no purpose of action against religion could be imputed to any legislation” when the language did not clearly state it, for the reason that from the commission given by Ferdinand and Isabella to Columbus down through all the charters of the colonies, as well as in the Declaration of Independence and in the constitutions of all the States, there is to be found a “profound reverence for religion and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the United States.” c3
Footnote [A]: It is important to note that the words “Constitution for the United States”, “The Preamble” and the dates of adoption and effectivity do not appear on the Original Document. That document begins with the words “We The People” in much emboldened characters to emphasize that it is the People that are establishing this Constitution, followed by text in lesser case characters, “of the United States”, to further denote the Body of the Whole in Common Law. The aforementioned heading has been added to textual presentations as a document title for cataloging and reference purposes. It has no other purpose and neither carries nor implies any authority.
I have very deliberately titled this work “The Constitution for the United States” to re-iterate the wording of clause four of the “Preamble” ,i.e., “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America” and to emphasize that this is a charter that “We the People” have given to the united States, and not that the States or the National Government has given to “We the People”. It is “We the People”, the Sovereign Citizens, who must, through our efforts and responsibilities, secure this Charter of Liberty, Freedom and for Responsible Government for All Future Generations.
The authority of government lies entirely and irrevocably within the Body of The Whole, “We The People”.
High Resolution Images of the Original Documents:
Sheet 1, Sheet 2, Sheet 3, Sheet 4, Sheet 5, Letter of Transmittal to the States,
Declaration of Independence, Text of Letter of Transmittal to the States, The First 12 Amendment Proposals - “The Bill of Rights”, “True Bill” of The Bill of Rights Proposals
Additional Study Links to the Constitution of the United States from Groliers Encyclopedia Americana and other sources:
Constitution of the United States, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
An additional link to “The Flags of the Several united States” with links to State Homepages and images of each of the Flags of the Several united States and the Territories.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/Hiding_Behind_the_BAR.html
Lynn,
My frirend, you have discovered the truth, the Lawyers separate themselves over citizens, and over the years have given themselves immunity above Constitutional law, and have preverted Law (as they allow it) to be a joke when compared to Justice! Typical!!
Longknife 21, using Red 46 computer!
PS… it will only get WORSE! See Cass Sunstien’s BS! The real deal is Fight, Flee, or accept slavery! You choose!!
Karen, it truly is pointless to give you information upon information, upon information and you continue to 2nd guess. That isn’t how life works. I’m serious, please read the Federalist papers. The Federalist Papers give exact guidelines in interpreting the Constitution, textually. The First Continental Congress also established guidelines and boundaries of the original Constitution. The Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution to be a total release from Tyranny (the British Government) and to allow citizens of the United States the full right of freedom. These two items must always be taken into account when even one thought is put into possibly amending the constitution. Amendments must NEVER infringe on our freedoms, so that is why I say no one in this current Administration would ever be able to pass any Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because they are so far Left Wing.
David and Morgan:
I know I make you unhappy. And I know it is much easier for you to call me a liar than it is to actually argue against me… after all I am generally right and you are not. So if it makes you feel better to pretend I am not a Vet… have at it.
For my part I will only point out, yet again, that if the Framer’s thought the Constitution was perfect, they would never have included Article V.
Yet another example of where Obama is more like the Framers than you are.
Vet again you’re so off base. Obama is NOT even close to what the framers wanted for this country. That is probably the most unitelligent statement I have EVR heard. If in fact you think that then he wouldn’t think the constitution is flawed!
In all their wisdom there is no way they could know what the future held. I suggest you read the 5000 Year Leap to UNDERSTAND how & why they wrote the constitution the way the did! You seem like you need to educate yourself a bit!
Also, VET you show us that you’re uneducated on the constitution per Article 5.
Article 5 was written to make the constitution VERY difficult to change. The founders original INTENT was the constitution on it’s face was NOT a living document. That is why Article 5 was included! Without going into language you obviously won’t understand that was the intent of Article 5 which was obviously lost on you!
Maybe you should understand the original intent of the founders regarding the constitution than on its face!