AIM4Truther Mike N. wants all patriots to be aware of this information about the courts and constitution. We have included his entire note to us so that no details are missed:
In today’s (3/26/18) “My Bad” video/audio with Thomas, you stated that, “They’ve taken away all our Constitutional rights in these things [the agreements so vast they know we’re not going to read them].”
I don’t know if you’ve looked at the 8-page document I emailed to you a few weeks ago entitled, Non-authority of the Feds, which you said you passed on to the Conclave. So, I’ve attached another copy of it which I hope you will go through.
I doubt that any lawyers on your teams will agree with what I’m presenting to you, but they’re B.A.R. members and would be ostracized for straying from official and accepted doctrine.
First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several different decisions from the past that Congress has no exclusive jurisdiction over us unless we live in Washington, D.C., federally-owned lands, buildings, forts, etc., and the U.S. territories. FEDERAL STATUTES and REGULATIONS have no lawful applicability and effect on the citizens of the states. In fact, the U.S. Constitution has no effect on us, either, unless we’ve sworn and subscribed an oath of allegiance to it.
Of course, all those employed in the 3 branches of government have (purportedly) sworn that oath and are bound by it. The ONLY power/authority/jurisdiction that the Constitution gives to the federal government is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 – the Congress to enact legislation in pursuance of those enumerated responsibilities, the President to execute that legislation, and the judiciary to arbitrate disagreements that arise over those responsibilities.
It’s all a ruse. There are no courts of law anymore – merely administrative courts that have no lawful power to prosecute and punish. The U.S. Supreme Court was put in place only to arbitrate disagreements between states and to serve as the ultimate appeals court. Decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court have applicability and effect ONLY upon the two litigants in a case – the plaintiff and the defendant – NOT the whole stinkin’ country!
For example, federal courts (including SCOTUS) had zero jurisdiction to hear Roe v. Wade. The final LAWFUL decision was that of the Texas Supreme Court. But, let’s say that SCOTUS did have the lawful jurisdiction to decide this case. Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey, who later devoted her life to fighting abortion)and Henry Wade (Dallas County, Texas, District Attorney) were the ONLY entities affected by it. SCOTUS said that Norma McCorvey could kill her unborn baby with impunity – NOT EVERY OTHER WOMAN IN AMERICA!
The only reason we’ve gotten so far off course is that the American people have become too complacent, indoctrinated, brainwashed and cowardly to collectively tell the federal bureaucracy to go screw itself. This is where I’m hoping A.I.M. comes in. I’ve written to many other websites in the past admonishing them to “unbrainwash” and “unindoctrinate” the people out of their ignorance by being as vigorous in telling we, the people how much power and authority WE have over the boogeyman as they are in repeatedly reminding us that the boogeyman exists and what he’s going to do to us. I’ve received only one response to my many admonishments over the years and it was very nasty (Steve Quayle).
I have done four exorcisms over the years, Betsy, and they weren’t nearly as arduous as the ones in which written religious rituals are used, such as those portrayed in the movies. I have been amazed, actually, at how quickly demons flee once they’re shown that you have the power of Jesus Christ within you and you are the boss there. I hope I’m never called upon to do another because there’s gigundous emotional exhaustion afterwards. And then, the Church doesn’t even want to hear the truth about supernatural realities (of which the Bible is full). You know as well as I do that it all boils down to a “spiritual” battle we’re in.
If you think that telling your followers the truth about the federal government’s lack of authority over us is too much for them to handle, then at least keep posting the below quotes from SCOTUS.
ALL LAWS MUST COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION OR THEY ARE VOID!!
(ALL EMBOLDENING, ENLARGING, ITALICIZATION, UNDERLINING ADDED)
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but isillegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; 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 v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
“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 statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is 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. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 177
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is 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. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, in legal contemplation, IS AS INOPERATIVE AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED.“ – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 256