On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder <[email protected]> wrote:
Forgive me but I forgot the most important one in my last comment > >Article I, Section 8, 15 >"To provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the UNION , >suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions..." > >Clearly the southern states were in violation of the laws of the union which >coupled with the reference to the Articles of Confederation where the laws of >the union were that the union was perpetual now should settle the question. >And by the way just to clarify. The Founders did not "throw out" the Articles. >Those articles allow for "an alteration" singular and possibly unique, that >is, only to be done one time. Amendments add to but do not change the original >language. Alterations change original language. The Founders (those at the >1787 making the proposal which had no legal force whatsoever under Article >law) the Congress, the people and the states acting as authorized by Article >law altered the language of the articles with a single alteration which was >proposed by the convention. That is not throwing out. That is simply using the >law as described and exercising the same. > > >Bill Walker >FOAVC Co-Founder >http://www.foavc.org/ >----- Original Message ----- >From: [email protected] >To: TEA Party Movement >Cc: ArticleV >Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:49 PM >Subject: Private Attorney General's COMMENTS re:seccession: is it >unconstitutional as the MSM claims > > > > > > Private Attorney General's COMMENTS re:seccession: is it unconstitutional as >the MSM claims > > > > > > > > > >From: Supreme Law Firm <[email protected]> >Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM >Subject: Private Attorney General's COMMENTS re:seccssion: is it >unconstitutional as the MSM claims >To: Phil Holtz <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> > > > >Secession is not unconstitutional, chiefly because >it is not expressly prohibited to the States of the Union >and the power to prevent secession is not expressly granted >to the "United States" (federal government). > >"We do not make law by force or by fraud." Glass v. The Sloop Betsey > >Contrast the many other acts which ARE expressly prohibited >to the States of the Union: > >http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:10:1 >(secession is not one of them) > >The decision in Texas v. White was predicated in large part >on the "perpetual" language that is found in the Articles of >Confederation: > >http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html > >"... the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared >to 'be perpetual.'" > > >However, when the Framers convened to draft a new Constitution, >it is clear from the historical record that they "threw out" those Articles >are started fresh. > >And, by the organic Constitution lawfully ratified on June 21, 1788, >the Union was NOT solemnly declared to be perpetual! > > >When the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are construed together, >it is quite clear that the absence of any Clause -- expressly >prohibiting the States from seceding -- is immensely important: > >The organic Constitution as lawfully amended is a grant of >very limited and enumerated powers. > >And, the power to prevent any State from seceding is >also missing from the enumerated authorities expressly granted >to the Federal government by that Constitution. > > >Whether it is presently wise or advisable for any >State to secede is a different question entirely, >however. > >What our work has done most recently is to >focus the debate on the many differences between >a legislative democracy and a Constitutional Republic, >and the fraudulent processes by which a "democracy" >has slowly overwhelmed the Republic and >clearly obstructed the Framers' intent to guarantee >a Republican Form of Government to each State: > >http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#4:4 > >Because the Guarantee Clause is supreme Law, >it carries enormous weight in the context of this >entire discussion: > >http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a >(discusses violations of the Guarantee Clause in several places) > > >Has the Congress obeyed its obligation to >guarantee a Republican Form of Government >to the 50 States? > >Answer: NO!! Here's why: > >http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/ > >This 1866 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because >it violated one of the holdings in the Dred Scott decision: > >http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/excerpt1.htm > > >The population of federal citizens is now, legally speaking, >an absolute legislative democracy; and the phrase >"subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" >is correctly understood to mean "subject to the >MUNICIPAL jurisdiction of the Congress." > >http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q6 > > >State Citizens are not "subject to" that municipal jurisdiction, however, >because they owe absolutely no political allegiance to the District of >Columbia, >and are not subject to any municipal laws which apply ONLY to the federal zone >(D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico). > >See also "The Federal Zone" for a thorough discussion >of Federal municipal law, with a focus on the municipal nature >of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code: > >http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/ > > >Accordingly, by intent of the so-called Fourteenth amendment >-- which we now know was never lawfully ratified -- >federal citizens are SUBJECT TO that municipal jurisdiction >EVEN IF they inhabit the 50 States of the Union. > >There are many, very serious problems that have >resulted from this long-standing attempt to "morph" >or transform the Republic into a democracy, >some of the most serious of which are well documented here: > >http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm >http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm > >http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/lyon/ > > > > >Sincerely yours, >/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. >Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) >http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm >http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm >http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page) >http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy) >http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines) >http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines) > > >All Rights Reserved without Prejudice > > >From: Phil Holtz <[email protected]> >To: PAUL MITCHELL <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:35 PM >Subject: Fw: [catapultthenwopolicestatedepopulation] re:seccssion: is it >unconstitutional as the MSM claims > > > > > > >----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; >[email protected]; >[email protected]; [email protected]; >[email protected]; >[email protected] >Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:19 PM >Subject: [catapultthenwopolicestatedepopulation] re:seccssion: is it >unconstitutional as the MSM claims > > > > > > > >Bill, > >Obviously this SCOTUS decision to strike down the down the 10th Amendment was >to justify the Northern aggression Vs the South. Likewise it is just as >obvious, it is not based on the written Constitution; it is in fact another >example of a corrupt SCOTUS writing new legislation validated by the Might >Makes Right "Law of the Jungle" Doctrine. It is in fact, more proof that the >Constitution has been trampled to death. > > > > >Since the SCOTUS decison is the law of the land, not only has the 10th Bill of >Rights been made null and void, the Congress is not limited to the powers >delegated to it by the Constitution. IS THAT NOT WHAT SCOTUS RULED? > > > >Rich Martin > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > > > >From: "Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:12 PM >Subject: C > > >Rich, > >It is, according to the Supreme Court and official government documents made >prior to the civil war, illegal for a state to leave the union of states. It >is not unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise prohibited for a state to >withdraw its consent from the form of government created by that union >especially if it never consented to that form of government which currently >exists. The "form" of government in existence, when every state currently in >the Union joined, remains the same; the states', in joining, accepted it. > >Bill > >Bill Walker >FOAVC Co-Founder >http://www.foavc.org/ >----- Original Message ----- >From: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Cc: ArticleV >Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 12:12 PM >Subject: Fwd: RR: RR Secession: Is it unconstitutial as the MSM claims ? > > > > > > >Secession: Is it unconstitutial as the MSM claims ? > > >Since no power to prevent secession was ever delegated to Congress, >and since secession is not prohibited to the states, >it remains a reserved right of the states under the Tenth Amendment. >http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods213.html > > > >Amendment X >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor >prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to >the people. > > > >What does the above mean to you? This is how I read it: > >The Federal Govt has authority granted it in the Constitution (Article 8), and >nothing more e.g., the fedl govt cannot tell states how much to tax or not >tax, nor the method to tax state citizens. They cannot prevent or regulate >without Constitutional authority. (See below) The rest is the responsibility >of the states or We the People. > > > > > > > > >1sthttp://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/2e8e52bbe7cf30b1 >2ndhttp://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/4042764806fb8f7a >3rd >http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/a0f23878012dee8d >4thhttp://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/f3ec871c23ca740b > > > > >When replying to this message, >plz cc: [email protected] >to assure prompt reply. > > > >TEA Party Nation >Top Ten Tips For Getting The Most From Your TPN Membership! >http://www.teapartynation.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network > > > > > I’m as mad as hell, >and I’m not going to take it any more. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q > > >Mrs. Richard "Peggy" Martin (1935 - 2012) > >http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dfw/obituary.aspx?n=margaret-irene-martin-peggy&pid=159081400&fhid=12241#fbLoggedOut > >http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/dfw/guestbook.aspx?n=margaret-martin&pid=159081400&sort=1 > > > ><> <> <> > > > > >-- > -- To join RichsRants, send email to: [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en
