It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”
Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.
In the presence of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you
fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of
office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.
“That the constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”
“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of
the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”
“A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution
... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”
"We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule."
"Not only do the enactments of the early Congresses, as far as we are aware, contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States' executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization, they contain some indication of precisely the opposite assumption."
...the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which "presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights," Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion that "[t]he 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."
***"The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576-577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) ("the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]"). As Madison expressed it: " The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]"***
This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Gregory, supra, at 458. To quote Madison once again: "In the compound republic of America, the power [delegated] by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Federalist No. 51, at 323.
***"When a "La[w] . . . for carrying into Execution" the Commerce Clause violates the principle of state sovereignty reflected in the various constitutional provisions we mentioned earlier, supra, at 19-20, it is not a Law . . . proper for carrying into Execution the Commerce Clause," and is thus, in the words of The Federalist, "merely an act of usurpation" which "deserves to be treated as such."***
"Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered."
Originally posted by havok
Nicely done!
I am going to use this thread as a bookmark for future reference.
It clearly explains the severely unconstitutional acts of several states.
Not just with rights, but the licensing and fees associated with them.
I have always had a problem with alot of "fees" in what seems to be our rights.
Now, it's much clearer to me.
Excellent job putting this together!
*S&F*
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by havok
Nicely done!
I am going to use this thread as a bookmark for future reference.
It clearly explains the severely unconstitutional acts of several states.
Not just with rights, but the licensing and fees associated with them.
I have always had a problem with alot of "fees" in what seems to be our rights.
Now, it's much clearer to me.
Excellent job putting this together!
*S&F*
Yeah I kind of figured this would not get the attention it should but wanted to put it out there anyways for all to see if they will just look. This should be a top priority for anyone concerned with the erosion of our rights.
Originally posted by SmoothRhythm
I had to reply to tell the author that I greatly admire the effort put into starting this thread.
Unfortunately, there will probably be an ATS'er saying that we "interpreted" the Supreme Court cases wrong...
Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
This thread is great. Star and Flag! The only problem I see is that county sherrifs don't realize how much power theu really have against the federal government. I don't know how it works in the rest of the nation, but I live in the south, and a lot of sherrifs are just "good ol' boys" who have no clue as to what the law is. Basically, they do drug busts and issue speeding tickets.
Since I live in a county that is primarily farm land, our sheriff (a former state trooper with a hitler mentallty) we have someone who will kiss FEMA's a$$ and let them march us into camps. I voted for this guy, because I thought I knew him. I won't make that mistake again.
When the next election rolls around, I will be asking questions and demanding honest answers. I am going to do my best not to let these bastards scam me again.
'