VK.com
Telegram
Gab
Brighteon
BitChute
Declaration of Independence, Constitution & Bill of Rights
Moses (c. 1300's B.C.)--a Prophet |
Ten Commandements on front bronze doors of the United States Supreme Court building |
 |
United States Supreme Court |
The Swiss Reformers symbolized Lady Justice with no blindfold and her sword pointing
to the open Bible at her feet--the Reformers believed Revealed law (sola scriptura) is the only way for a nation to have moral laws. Natural
(i.e. secular) law was a fraud--the pagans always had a blindfolded Lady Justice. |
In 1789, President Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our Republic, and destroy our Rights! "The new Constitution has secured these in the Executive and Legislative department: but not in the Judiciary..." |
Topics covered: 1. Jury Nullification; 2. What is the correct way to interpret the Constitution?; 3. What about Darwinism's influence on Law?; 4. Should Natural Rights/Natural Law be rejected?; 5. Judges: Should they be elected or appointed?; 6. Why the Sheriff's Office is the most important Law Enforcement Agency in the Country; 7. Are Corporations entitled to free speech?; 8. Is Administrative Law Constitutional?; 9. Restraining Orders out of Control; 10. Say No for a Con-Con; 11. What about the Patriot Act Extension?; 12. What about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)?; 13. Nullification by States--remember the Fugitive Slave Law?; 14. Qualifications for President of the United States and What is a Natural Born Citizen?; 15. Natural Born Citizen defined by our Framers; 16. The Truth about the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and How the Government is Lying ; 17. Helpful articles and resourses on the Constitution and Bill of Rights ; and 18. Article V Convention being promoted by Citizens for Self-Governance, who launched the project under the name of "Convention of States Action (COS)" is a fraud; in the 230-plus years of American history since our Constitution has a convention been used to propose all 27 amendments to the Constitution including the first 10 (the Bill of Rights). For further information, see FAQ Tab, Q52, Q53 (Term Limits is a bad idea) & Q54 (closed-primaries).
(See Frontline Fellowship for information from Dr. Peter Hammond on Political & Social Issues and Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. (BA Harvard, M.Phil., & Ph.D. from Columbia) explains in a YouTube interview what the 10th Amendment means and our rigged system in the United States.
Also, see the following the articles entitled Where did the U.S., Britian and Switzerland get many of its principles for government? & America No Longer has a Functioning Judicial System (07/22/13) & Biblical Quotations in the Pennsylvania State Capitol--PDF & American History They Don't Want You To Know (01/16/15-video)--The truth about Constitution; we did not come from Greek Democracy (see TV video). Also, see Kris Anne Hall, Esq. -- Constitutional Attorney, Educator, Author, Speaker, Radio Host & Publius-Huldah's Blog (Understanding the Constitution) & Original Intent on the Constitution -- this is not promoting Theonomy; however, many principles were applied from the Bible.
And Why the Electoral College is Important & Infanticide and Abortion promoter O'Rourke, a Secular Humanist Globalist Irish man who is "not" Spanish, Says "There is a lot Wisdom" to "Warren's call to End the Electoral College ) -- Robert Francis O'Rourke known as Beto, who is not Spanish, is married to a billionaire heiress. His father- in- law is worth $20 billion. He was charged with a DUI and has been arrested for Burglary.
Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers
By John Eidsmoe - Baker Book House (1995) - Paperback - 480 pages - ISBN 0801052319
In this book, Dr. Eidsmoe shows clearly how most of our founding fathers were not secular men, as we often hear today. He explains how the influence of Calvinism gave rise to our republican form of government. He also documents how our founding fathers embodied several biblical principles in the Constitution. This book is recommended for anyone who wants to learn about our nation's truly Christian heritage, which has been virtually expunged by the secular revisionists. - from the Forward.
Historical and Theological Foundations of Law (3 Book Set) by Dr. John Eidsmoe, who is a retired Lt. Colonel in the Air Force and a Colonel in the Alabama State Defense Force, Professor and Constitutional Attorney. Unfortunetly, Dr. Eidsmoe is not aware that Natural Law is anti-Christian and Luther condemned it (see Dr. Robert A. Morey's book entitled The Bible, Natural Theology, and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? below). And Political Christianity--for the last 125 years, many evangelicals have surrendered under the white flage of pietism, refusing to enter the "wordly" political arena. This has resulted in God and His Word to be shut out of politics and allowing the secular humanists to install a new Savior--the State and Make Your Vote Count--What the Bible Says on the Issues.
(See the Politics/Voting tab and Internet News tab for further information on what is really happening-- most evangelicals and so-called conservatives and liberals do not understand what is happening in the political arena and how they are being misled by both political parties (Republican and Democrat), especially the phony well-known so-called conservative talk radio hosts. NJIAT does not like the term conservative (it lost its meaning). A Christian is suppose to apply the Lordship of Christ to all areas of life--you have stupid Christians with their heads in the sand supporting free-trade agreements such as NAFTA that has destroyed the middle class and poor, NDAA that passed in 2011, the Patriot Act, draconian drug laws, unjustified wars based on a lie, anti-gun legislation, same sex marriage, Obamacare written by the insurance companies, voting for an anti-Christ, etc.)
The Rutherford Institute--free articles on the Constitution
Vision Viewpoint: America, Christianity, Historic Values Challenged & Under Siege
The Rutherford Institute--issues such as free speech, search & seizure, parents rights, etc.
Family Guardian -- Nonprofit Christian religious ministry dedicated to protecting people and families from extortion, persecution, exploitation,socialism, divorce, crime, and sin. Advocate personal liberty, personal responsibility, constitutional and SMALL and accountable government, sovereignty, and religious faith.
Note: Our system is broken in the United States and you may know what your rights are; however, I would continue to pay your taxes and register and insure your vehicles & obey other laws, etc. because if you disregard the law (whether it is an illegitimate law per Constitution or not) you will most likely get arrested. If you are in jail, you cannot fight for your rights (there are limits, of course, such as forced vaccinations that should be resisted). When enough people fear God and know their rights as written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights then they can change the system in a peaceful manner--electing Constitutionalists and God fearing people. Also, God fearing Governors can take action to restore the rights of the people and defend the Constitution. There is a time when Bible believing Christians must obey God over Caesar such as preaching the Gospel and standing against tyranny; for example, people were authorized per Bible to resist and fight against Nazi Germany (see When it is Right to Fight by Dr. Robert A. Morey & and listen to his audio on war located at The Christian and War (9 Part Audio Lecture Series) . Why? Because God limits authority for governments and there are different spheres of authority in the Bible that God has delegated (see the Politics/Voting Tab for further information). We are a Repubilic governed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights--then what is different is that elected officials and the States are required to adhere to it or they become lawless! Good organizations to join: The John Birch Society (they publish the New American magazine), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), NRA, Oath Keepers & support Infowars.com, etc. These are peaceful organizations and are not anarchists and believe all races are created in the image of God. All races welcomed if you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A Christian Student's Survival Guide (6 x 9) (order from Xulon Press) by Dr. Robert A. Morey is a great book for high school and college students. Covers all topics.
The Death Penalty on Trial & The Age of Reason by Elias Boudinot & God & Government & Original
Christianity and the American Commonwealth & A Nation Adrift & The Constitution DVD Series
Jury Nullification
Yes, juries in a civil or criminal case have the power to judge the facts and the law in a particular case. If a juror believes the law is unjust and unconstutional, the juror can and has the authority to ignore it--in other words, nullify the law. The whole concept of a jury nullification goes back to the Magna Carta (1215)--this limited the corrupt power of the king's courts. This was an important element in our common law. The United States would not even have freedom of press without jury nullification. Do you remember the Zenger trial of 1735? Jury nullification was also practiced in trials of abolitionists, who were prosecuted for helping slaves escape and to drinkers during the Prohibition era. It does not matter what instructions a judge gives to the juries, they still retain the power to apply the law or disregard it in the case. A quote from John Adams (second President of the United States (1735 - 1826), "It is not only of law, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." (See the website titled Fully Informed Jury Association and left click the picture "Citizens Rule Book" to order (www.HomesSchoolPatriot.com) that was written by Charles R. Olsen with two other men. "Charlies" was a World War II Marine Corps veteran and printer from Boston, MA. See Why Jury Nullification Matters (video) --a jury can stop the government.)
Rule of Law?
North American Law Center (01/09/16) -- The RNC has been taken over by criminals and they are promoting Obama's Fascist agenda (why are both parties--Democrat & Republican--supporting all these policies?). Social safety net programs will be gone if the continued illegal alien invasion and migrants are not stopped and allowed to come in and jobs are shipped overseas (NAFTA, TPP?). Excerpt from the North American Law Center on the Rule of Law:
It is unfortunate that both political parties have sold out the American people except for the few Congressmen/women. We will have a totalitarian government with most people poor and the few ultra-rich....Perhaps the most destructive issue…a decision from the courts, instead of remaining a simple decision, becomes law, a precedent, if you will, which further perpetrates the fallacy of Stare Decisis, which by its very concept violates our Rule of Law …that each case shall be judged on its own merits. These tyrants, who continually violate our Constitutional rights and liberties, are not only in the legal system, but are found in other positions of power, i.e., federal, state and local governments, appointed and/or elected positions, individuals, panels or groups, politicians, agencies, etc...
What is the correct way to interpret the Constitution?
The Founders' Biblical philosophy remained the unquestioned standard for law and government until the turn of the 20th century. A different philosophy started to emerge in the mid-twentieth century among judges and educators, which was rejected by the founding fathers. This different philosophy was often termed "relativism" or "pragmatism" that means there are no absolute standards and man is the measure of all things (what is right or wrong)--it is also called "secular humanism". When the "progressives" apply this to law, they call it "legal positivism"--it is another word for "relativism". (Legal positivism was developed by Dean Christopher Columbus Langell of Harvard in the 1870's and followed by Dean Roscoe Pound, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and others, has been the predominant philosophy taught in law schools during the 1990's.) John Eidsmoe--a retired Lt. Colonel in the Air Force, Constitutional scholar and law professor--summarizes "legal positivism" as follows:
- There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.
- Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other words, law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has said it is law and is able to back it up by force.
- Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.
- Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law (Note again: Judges "make law").
- To study law, get at the original sources of law, the decisions of judges; hence most law schools today use the "case law" method of teaching law.
There is even a movement worse than the one mentioned above called "legal realists". They openly admit using the legal system to promote their own ends/agenda--the Critical Legal Studies movement is one aspect of "legal realism".
The Constitution is suppose to be interpreted, judged--according the founding fathers--only against the specific, self-evident wording of the Constitution, that is the original intent. Alexander Hamilton (01/11/1755 -07/12/1804) one of the Founding fathers and 1st United States Secretary of the Treasury stated the following in Federalist #81 about how to interpret the Constitution:
There is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution. (emphasis added).
James Kent (1763 - 1847) an American jurist, legal scholar and Chief Justice of the New York State Supreme Court also explained that the Judiciary compare a law only to "the true intent and meaning of the Constitution".
What about Darwinism’s influence on law?
Charles Darwin (02/12/1809--04/19/1882), author of On the Origin of the Species & Voyage at the Beagle at Tierra del Fuego (1831-1836) by Conrad Martens (1801-08/21/1878)
If the theory of evolution is adopted over creation by God, human law is no longer subject to God. To quote Dr. Augusto Zimmerman (Brazilian-born and an internationally known legal scholar who teaches at Western Australia’s Murdoch University):
As a result of Darwinism, many lawyers embraced the doctrine of legal positivism and interpreted law as a mere result of sheer force and social struggle. Consequently, law was reduced to a mere managerial skill used in the service of social engineering, which is the dominant view in the legal profession today…
Dr. Augusto further explains,
Many judges believe that their countries’ constitutions should be interpreted as if they were “living documents”, instead of being understood according to their original meaning. This apparently ‘progressive” view of law regards the constitution of liberal democracies such as Australia and the United States as old-fashioned document that should be regularly “revised” and “updated”, according to the “enlightened” decisions of a few unelected judges. So the “rule of law” is replaced by the “rule of judges”.
What were some of the arguments used by early advocates of a “living constitution”?
- Pro-slavery leader Alexander H. Stephens (1812 – 1883), who was a barrister from Georgia and Vice-President of the Confederate States, describes pro-slavery Confederation as a “progressive society”.
- Nazis legal theorists stated that the legal system should not be based on fixed rules of law but evolve in a continuous flow as a “living law—they were very progressive and acting on “evolutionary science”.
- After Hitler’s Third Reich, many legal theorists argued that the Nazi laws were valid under legal positivism.1
1Sarfati, J, Law and Creation, Creation, pgs. 16-17,vol. 31, No. 2, March-May 2009 ( https://creation.com)
Should Natural Rights/Natural Law in the Legal profession be rejected even if they were included in the Declaration of Independence?
Yes, according to Dr. Robert A. Morey (world renowned philosopher and theologian) natural law has caused great harm to Western civilization, especially the United States. Dr. Morey states the following about “natural rights” and “natural law” in Colonial America from his book entitled The Bible, Natural Law, and Natural Theology: Conflict or Compromise?, Chapter 11, Pg. 305
The Bible: Natural Theology, Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise? from Xulonpress.com & free articles and audio & Video lectures below.
Natural Theology: Is It Biblical? (Audio 8 Part Series)
Click small picture to purchase at Xulon Press.
Colonial America
This exposes the ugly side of Colonial America. We have conveniently forgotten that the “natural rights” found in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights and other documents from that period did not extend to women, children, slaves or Native Americans. Not even all white males had these rights. Only land holders were allowed to vote!
When modern Natural theologians pine for the “good old days” of Colonial America, I cringe. It means the suppression of women and the enslavement of non-whites. It means slave ships, whips, shackles, auction blocks, raping of women, selling of children, forced labor, torture, and other horrors. No, they were not the “good old days.” The historical reality is that Natural Law did not give natural rights to all people. It always fought against extending rights to all people.
The Abolitionist Preachers
It took preachers with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other to abolish slavery and to extend rights to all people regardless of race or creed. The leaven of Scripture finally worked its way through society and brought an end to slavery. The Civil War was not the beginning, but the end of that process.
There was one American church denomination that was always opposed to slavery. Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) commented in one of her fiery speeches, The Scotch Covenanters or Reformed Presbyterians is the only evangelical church in all the nominally free states of the North that can consistently claim freedom from all sanction of, or compromise with slavery, “the sum of all villainies.” The Old Scotch Covenanters refuse church fellowship not only to slave-holders, but to churches that fellowship slave-holders.
President Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence
The original draft of the Declaration of Independence rejected that truths are self-evident. A quote from Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) Journal,
In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had written, "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable..." [18]
Jefferson's original draft recognized that "truths" of human equality and undeniable rights came from the "sacred" scriptures, which George Whitfield , the great revivalist of the First Great Awakening had been teaching to the 13 colonies. However, the Founders, in order to appease the Enlightenment Rationalists in their numbers, changed Whitefield/Jefferson's understanding of "sacred truths" to "self-evident" truths. The Rationalists were confused by their compromised Christian assumptions. They did believe that God created human beings, but they thought that " all men are created equal" was a common sense (not revealed) truth. It would surely be assumed by all, Bible-believer or not.
Unfortunately, the seeds of Natural Theology and Natural Law were planted in the beginning of our republic instead of God's revealed truth. Many in the Evangelical Church have been misled by Natural Theology and Natural Law via apologetics ministries and seminaries. Many of the apologists and Protestant seminary professors are Thomists in disguise.
Endnotes: Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) Journal, volume 44:1 2021, pages 18 & 19. SCP's source: Jefferson, Thomas. "Declaring Independence: Drafting the Documents Jefferson's 'Original Rough Draught' of The Declaration of Independence." Liberary of Congress, 4 July 1995, www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html.
Judges: Should they be Elected or Appointed?
Judge and Prophetess Deborah (1,200 -- 1,124 BC; Book of Judges) by Gustave Dore
In Pennsylvania the judges are elected and appointed judges do not outperform elected judges and elected judges are more independent and take on a bigger work load according to a recent study that is contrary to the elitists' propaganda; the elitists want to take away this right in states that have an elected judiciary (it would also hurt African-Americans in areas that they would not have a black judge or Sheriff if they were appointed). Convicted felon George Soros, who has an international Arrest Warrant out for him issued by President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Jan. 24, 2012, has been trying to change the PA law to abolish elected judges for his own personal benefit through front groups such as Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts that is funded by Soros' Open Society Institute according to The New American; see article entitled: George Soros Buying Judges Now?--PDF. Also, See Judges: Should they be Elected or Appointed?)
This is fascism and one element of fascism is elitism. This is why you also have some politicians against the Sheriff's Office because they cannot control the Office (the Sheriff is directly accountable to the people). So should we have an oligarch in Hunterdon County or any other county in this nation? Some Politicians think that they should appoint everyone so they can control everything? Is there any respect for the Constitutional Officers and the U.S. Constitution in this county? See County Police vs. Elected Sheriff--PDF (a separate county police force is very expensive and a duplication of services--the Sheriff's Office is a county law enforcement office and is less expensive. It already exists). See the Local Government Tab and Police/Sportsman Tab for further information on the Sheriff's Office.
Note: Judicial Watch-- exposes and fights against corruption in the United States. And a major victory for the United States' citizens: Judge Permanently blocks the NDAA's Provision to Detain Americans Indefintely
Why the Sheriff's Office is the most important Law Enforcement Agency in the Country
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of United States (03/04/1801 -- 03/04/1809)--image by Rembrant Peale (1800) (Sheriff's Office Information on Supplemental Coverage & Mergers -- PDF (2017 Tri-fold Tract)
President Thomas Jefferson called the office of the Sheriff "the most important of all executive offices of the country."
(It should be noted that President Thomas Jefferson included bold anti-slavery language in the original Declaration of Independence, which was removed. He did get passed by Congress in 1807 a bill outlawing the importation of slaves--it took effect in 1808.) And Wisconsin Territory was part of the Northwest Territory, where slavery had been banned by an act of Congress in 1787 at the urging of Thomas Jefferson.
History of Sheriff's Office
The Sheriff can be traced back not only to the Magna Carta (1215), but to the Book of Daniel 3:2 when King Nebuchadnezzar II (634--562 BC) was reigning. The Sheriff was brought over to North America around 1634 and President Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) called the office of the Sheriff "the most important of all executive offices of the country." [See Sheriff David Gee of the Florida Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office established in 1845 (HCSO has over 4,000 employees that conists of 2,022 Deputy Sheriffs and Corrections and 1,375 civilians) for further details. It should be noted that Mr. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr., former Assistant Director in charge of the FBI's New York Division, was employed as a Deputy Sheriff for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office ]. Also, see Sheriff & Magna Carta.
First African-American Sheriff Elected in 1869 in Texas
Because you can elect the Sheriff, there was more opportunity for diversity. A case in point is Burton Walter Moses (1829 - 1913), who was the first African-American Sheriff elected in 1869 in the State of Texas in Fort Bend County. Also, he was a Texas State Senator and a member of the Republican Party.
Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona explains the
role and power of the Sheriff and why it is important in protecting
the rights of the citizens of this country.
| Charlton Heston & Sheriff Mack |
Senator Sylvia Allen, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Richard Mack, Senator Karen Johnson at a rally in Phoenix, AZ, June 2009 |
See Sheriff Mack’s website below for further information.
www.sheriffmack.com
Why Merging Township Police Departments is a Budgetary Disaster unless it is Done thru the Sheriff's Office ( Sheriff's Office Information on Supplemental Coverage & Mergers -- PDF (2017 Tri-fold Tract) )
Police Consolidation: The End of Local Law Enforcement--merging local Twp. Police Depts. has been a budgetary disaster and will set the stage for the creation of local police departments becoming an outpost of the federal law-enforcement agency such as the DHS & the use of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) is another bad idea (see above article)---this is not the case with the Sheriff's Office (an elected Constitutional Office). This is why any mergers planned should only be done thru the Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's salary is set by NJ Statute (which is lower than most Chiefs' of Police, but can be raised by the Freeholders), and citizens will keep their direct control and local sovereignty (many high ranking NJ State Police support merging thru the Sheriff's Office)--any county police force such as Bergen County and Union County (duplication of services) should be merged into the county Sheriff's Office; see Senator Gerald Cardinale submits bill to merge Bergen County Police, with Sheriff's Department). The Bergen County Freeholders who voted yes for the merger should be complimented, but County Executive Kathleen Donovan (who is either misinformed or intimidated by the county police and is no longer a Freeholder as of 2015; the new Freeholder voted yes to merge into the Sheriff's Office) should be ashamed of herself for any opposition in mergering the county police force into the Bergen County Sheriff's Office--an existing county law enforcement office that has one of the top forensic labs in the State. (See the Police/Sportsmen & Local Gov.Tab for further information on using the Sheriff's Office.)
Misinformation about Twp. Police mergers in Somerset County, NJ exposed: Say "NO" to Somerset Merging 19 Twp. Police Departments-PDF. The Somerset Freeholders and Prosecutor owe Somerset an apology for promoting this stupid plan. Clarification and Fact Sheet on County Police for Elected Officials in NJ & PA (03/11/13)--PDF.
Are Corporations Entitled to Free Speech? And What about 2010 Citizens United vs. FEC case (which lifted most federal regulations on unlimited corporate election speech)?
Yes, it is constitutional. Had the McCain-Feingold law (the law explicitly exempted "press" corporations such as the Boston Globe, New York Times and the six mega media corporations--that control 90% of the information Americans hear--such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.) been in place in the 1830s through the 1850s, abolition of slavery would likely have been a lot longer before it was abolished. This is also true of disclosure laws--civil rights organizations in the 1950s and 1960s probably would not have gotten off the ground if they had to disclose their donors and their addresses to every Ku Klux Klan member. Civil rights organizations are organized under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. See the in-depth article on this matter by The New American dated 09/12/12 entitled Are Corporations Entitled to Free Speech?
Is Administrative Law Constitutional?
Left: Headquarters of the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C. (who has regulatory authority)
Administrative law "allows for the creation of public regulatory agencies" and "contains all the statutes, judicial decisions and regulations that govern them." In other words, it allows bureaucracies to create a body of law and then implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions.
Where did the adminstrative law originate from? The Progressives, who disdain the Constitution as inefficient, founded the administraive regime in order to overturn the Constitution. The origins of administrative law came from Germany to America. They considered government a benevolent deity, not the enemy the founders of America feared. This was the philiosophy of Nazi Germany-- the State is supreme. In the 1870s, many U.S. citizens were attracked to German universities for advanced degrees in economics that promoted this philosophy.
Is administrative law constitutional? No. It is a abdication of the legislature not doing its job. This is why agencies escape general scrutiny when they saddle industries with many burdens and regulations. So in addition to the three branches of government, you also have bureaucracies intertwined in the three branches of government. An agency can write laws a la Congress and enforce them like the executive and the coup de grace adjudicates like a court. (It should be noted that administrative law through regulatory agencies has also been detrimental in destroying the father's authority in the home and family--unfortunately, the law enforcement community no longer knows the difference between law, with its checks and balances, and the policies and procedures that are in administraive law; administrative law gets its authority from statutes, not the Constitution.)
For further information see The New American magazine, Sept. 5, 2011 edition entitled The Second Set of Books by Becky Akers.
Restraining Orders Out of Control
When the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 sponsored by Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Senator Barbara Box (D-Calif.) and was signed into law by President Clinton, it took a bad system and made it worse. The act provided federal money to foment more dissension between the sexes and funnels money to certain favored programs. It also instructs local police to make more arrests and coordinates interstate enforcement of abuse-protection orders. The act is highly discriminatory and gives financial, political, legal advantage to women in the family court. There have been several versions of the act passed in intervening years. (Supporting the Biblical definition of a family and its obligations and duties of a husband and wife is far more effective in preventing violence against women.)
A listing of major problems with the Violence Against Women Act of 1994:
- An applicant can get a domestic-abuse restraining order for almost any reason.
- Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) issued a report that stated that it is as easy to get a restraining order as a fishing or hunting license—RADAR states: “The law defines almost any interpersonal maladjustment as ‘domestic violence,’ the courts then establish procedures to expedite the issuance of these orders.”
- Many women use the restraining order option for ulterior motives, such as to get custody of children without a court hearing, quick eviction hearing, added advantage in divorce and revenge.
- There are no rules of evidence, burden of proof, cross examination, no jury when an applicant files a restraining-order—the woman can come to court secretly and just state she feels fearful. One woman even filed a complaint for against her husband for kicking a plastic cooler while leaving the house after he found that she was having an adulterous relationship—she filed a total of 14 false criminal complaints about violations of the order.
- There were 4,796 emergency protective-orders petitions issued in West Virginia in 2006; an estimated 80.6 percent “are false or unnecessary” and cost the state $18,200,000 according to professor of accountancy Benjamin P. Foster, Ph.D, CPA, CMA.
- Women commit abuse more than men and this is confirmed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There report states: “In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70 percent of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women, but not men.”
- Restraining orders violate and interfere with Second Amendment rights. The state’s laws require that a defendant surrender all guns and ammunition (it is not only a state crime, but a federal one under this act). Many law enforcement officers and military police had to take a desk job because their wives’ got a restraining order against them and thus lost their right to carry a weapon—this is a disgrace.
- Restraining Orders Out of Control
- NJ Alimony Reform
- The Feminist Movement has caused the Undermining of Due Process of Men--PDF
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and all subsequent acts should be immediately repealed. Many of the liberal politicians and (many conservative politicians pressured by the feminists) in both parties are responsible for the passage of this highly discriminatory and family destroying act. Please lobby your Congressmen and Senators to repeal these laws.
Gregory A. Hessian, J.D. “Restraining Orders Out of Control” New American (August 4, 2008): 12-17
Say "No" for a Con-Con
There are serious consequences for state-initiated constitutional conventions. Article V states that Congress, "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments." Amendements is plural. Yes, the Constitution authorizes the consideration of more than one amendment at such a convention. History backs this up. When the 16th Amendment (the individual income tax), the 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. Senators), and the 18th Amendment (prohibition of alcohol) were passed by Congress (all three Amendments were very harmful to the Republic), they still were ratified by three-fourths of the states. It should be noted that the promotion of the 18th Amendment was in response to the Carry Nation's Movement and was condemned by Dr. Machen and many other fundamentalist Christians as being in conflict with Scripture. Alcohol in moderation is biblically permissible and not sin.
In the event that the U.S. had a constitutional convention and state legislatures opposed any new Amendments or new constitution at the convention, the Congress has the power under Article V to circumvent the State Legislatures. They can authorize special state conventions to ratify a new constitution or new Amendments. This was the case in 1933 when Congress wanted to repeal prohibition through the 21st Amendment--Congress authorized state conventions to ratify the 21st Amendment and repeal the 18th Amendment otherwise it would not have passed. Many states such as Utah were staunchly opposed to its repeal.
A constitutional convention would open the opportunity to abolish our constitutional republican form of government. Tell your elected officials to enforce the constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and interpret the constitution by its original intent. See StopTheConCon.com & Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity calling for a Con-Con--don't listen to them & States Should Enforce, not Revise the Constitution by the New American Magazine--PDF & Exposing the real agenda behind the push for an Article V convention (YouTube) by Publius Huldah. (This presentation was given on April 17, 2017 at the beautiful old Supreme Court Chamber at the Tennessee Capitol Building in Nashville.)
What about the Partriot Act Extension?
Image credit: by David Dees
S. 990 extended for four years three provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire. The three provisions are: 1. The "roving wire tap" provision that allows the federal government to wiretap any number of a suspect's telephone/Internet connections without specifying what they will find or how many connections will be tapped; 2. the "financial records" provision that allows the feds to seize "any tangible thing" that has "relevance" to an investigation; 3. the "lone wolf" provision that allows spying on non-U.S. citizens without a warrant. These provisions violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that no warrants be issued "but upon probable cause" (a much highter standard than "relevance"), and that warrants must contain language "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed."
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can issue warrants called "National Security Letters" without going to a judge. This provision never expired.
All law enforcement personnel should have opposed the extension of the Patriot Act--your oath is to the U.S. Constitution, not to your superior or pay check. The so-called "War on Terror" is lost if the U.S. Constitution is destroyed or gutted. Why is the border not being sealed? Many retired Federal Agents have spoken out about this and many other issues at anti-terrorism symposiums. See Forfeiting "Enduring Freedom" for Homeland Security" : A Constitutional Analysis of USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department's Anti-terrorism Intiatives.
What about The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)?
This is one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation ever passed--it was approved by the House of Representatives (283 - 136) and the Senate (86 - 13) on Dec. 15, 2011. Since this bill labels all of America a "battlefield" in the "War on Terror", it can hold American citizens without charges or a trial for an indefinite detention. It will also allow the Pentagon to treat the Internet as a 'battlefield". So any dissent on the internet could be quashed. This bill gives the president enormous powers under section 1021 to arrest and jail people, by use of the military, without due process (see the 5th & 6th Amendment).
The use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) and the applying the laws of war to the colonists and the infamous Star Chamber in English history was the reason the Founding Fathers made sure that international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies--they can now be applied to American citizens. The Article II Treason Clause establishes for non-military citizens to be tried in a civilian court. Also, international laws do not trump our Bill of Rights. One of the causes for the American Revolution was the denial of the right to a jury trial. Every member of Congress that signed this bill should be thrown out of office. It has nothing to do with "Homeland Security."
TheHill.com posted this report quoting Dr. Ron Paul [a Republican Congressman in the 14th district in Texas, who served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon (1963 to 1965) and the U.S. Air National Guard (1965 to 1968)] and stated the following: "GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country's 'slip into tyranny' and virtually assures 'our descent into totalitarianism.'
President Barack Obama has signed this bill (NDAA) from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii making this his last official act in 2011. Two retired four-star Marine generals wanted the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed stating it is "misguided and unnecessary." Osama bin Laden was just handed a victory with the passage of this bill.
Historical note: In 1933, the German Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, granting to Adolf Hitler the expansive powers that helped create his ruthless dictatorship. The NDAA gives similiar powers to the President and for much the same reason: the protection of the people.
The priviledge of a writ of habeas corpus (dervived from the Latin for "you may have the body") guaranteed by Article I , Section 9 of the Constitutition has now been suspended. Now a U.S. citiizen does not have the right to due process of law and the right to know what charges are being made against him. The concept of habeas corpus formed a large part of the Anglo-American jurisprudence since the 14th century and the principles can be found in the Magna Carta written in 1215.
A quote from Alexander Hamilton (writing as a Publius) from The Federalist, No. 84:
The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.
North Carolina in 2012 and other states have drafted resolutions to nullify NDAA because it violates Articles I, Section 9 (habeas corpus guarantee); Article III, Section 2 (right to a trial by jury); and Article III, Section 3 (the definition of treason). Each of these critical clauses of the Constitution are said to be violated by the NDAA, according to the bill’s authors in North Carolina.
Specifically targeted in H.R. 982 is Section 1021 of the NDAA. Section 1021 places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner).
Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Unfortunately, tyranny is being implemented little by little by the oligarchy currently ruling on Capitol Hill. Also, see Help Us Stop the NDAA.
What about Torture in the 2014 Senate Committee Report?
The naive U.S.Senators believe torture is justified because we are engaged in warfare (June 5, 1942 was last time Congress actually passed a declaration of war). Any civilian government agency such as the CIA have to ignore the following 3 amendments in the Bill of Rights: 1. 5th Amendment's prohibition against holding a person accountable for a crime without an indictment from a grand jury; 2. 6th Amendments' guarantee of a speedy and public trial in the state or district where the crime was committed; and 3. 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
If you think there is nothing wrong with this behavior, you will make a great Nazis.[See Controversy Continues Regarding Senate Committee Report on CIA Torture (12/11/14) & U.S. Torture Practices Right Out Of Nazi Playbook (CIA torture widespread in Middle East)--12/12/14, Video & False Flags: America in Crisis by Dr. Peter Hammond (Missionary from South Africa) .
States can Nullify Federal Laws if they are Unconstitutional--remember the Figitive Slave Law?
In 1854, Wisconsin rejected the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated Northern states return Southern slaves without due process, demonstrating both the validity and usefulness of nullification. (See article entitled How State Nullification Can Defy Tyrannical Government.)
Qualifications for President of the United States and What a Natural-Born Citizen Is
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."
The clause states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The Supreme Court did address the meaning of "natural-born citizen" in Article 2, Section I of the Constitution in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). Chief Justice Waite stated:
The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
According to this standard, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida , Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and President Barack Obama (unless he was just hiding the fact of who his real father was--Frank Marshal David) might not qualify. The President's parents would only have to be U.S. citizens at the time or his or her birth, not natural-born citizens. It has to be both parents.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural-born citizen."
The word "natural-born citizen" is only used in the presidential requirement clause.
What about Obama's Qualifications?
State of Hawaii became a official state of the U.S. in 1959
Note: The whole forged birth certificate episode could have been a set up from the White House to draw attention away from the fact that "Frank Marshal Davis" was his real father according to Infowars. See Video: Obama Admits Noted Communist "Schooled" Him On White Racism (04/15/15) --Barack Obama admitted in a recently unearthed 1995 video that the Communist schooled him on white racism.
(A lot of the blame can be attributed to the long history of discrimination in this country--seminaries in the South would not allow black people to enroll, etc. And we wonder why prominent African-Americans are adhereing to Communism or other anti-God philosophies. Shame on the coward U.S. Evangelicals who did not take a stand against segregation--they use the same excuse to not stand up for marriage in the 21st century (thumbs up for the Christians who did take a stand back in the 1960s and the Republicans who got the Civil Rights Act 1964 passed; see Should Natural Rights/Natural Law be rejected? on this tab for further details.)
The legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.
The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
The resolution clearly determined "natural born" to mean born of two parents who are U.S. citizens.
An excerpt from WorldNetDaily article dated 10/02/11 titled: Debate is over! He's not natural born
So there is no avoiding the fact that all members of the U.S. Senate know what natural born citizen means, that John McCain is one, and that Barack Hussein Obama isn't.
The McCain resolution was based upon the official legal opinion of Tribe & Olson,posted here in pdf form. The Tribe & Olson opinion states clearly:
We conclude that Senator McCain is a "natural born Citizen" by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain's birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.
The Tribe & Olson opinion was based upon an in-depth legal review of all related historical legal decisions since the formation of our country. But it all begins with a statement made on March 26, 1790 in 104 FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790:
"[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:"
Once again, no matter the birth place of John McCain or any other child born of U.S. parents, whether born beyond sea, in or out of the limits of the United States territory – the natural born child of U.S. parents "shall be considered as natural born citizens."
....Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court and every half-intelligent member of the U.S. Congress knows what natural born citizen is, what the U.S. Constitution requires for the offices of president and vice president, and that Barack Hussein Obama II is not eligible or otherwise qualified for the office he currently holds by way of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people...
Read the following two articles for further information:
Sheriff Arpaio Proves Obama Birth Certificate Forged (12/16/16) -- Proof Obama's birth certificate is a phony. Lets congratulate Former Bergen County, NJ Detective Mike Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio for their hard work.
Birther Summit--a gathering of truth
Debate is over! He is not natural born
Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility
Pravada (a Russian News website) Asks: What Happened to American Media?
Stunner! Balanced CBS Report on Arpaio Probe into Obama's forged birth certificate
Donald Trump: Say it is so, Sheriff Joe--Trump supports Arpaio's Investigation.
Natural Born Citizen Defined by our Framers
Flag
of the State of Hawaii
In order to understand what was meant by natural-born citizen, one has to go to the first law that the U.S. Congress passed in 1790 defining the natural-born citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not accept a person a natural-born citizen if they were born on U.S. soil, but only referred to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
The following people offered a definition on natural-born citizenship:
1. Representative John Birgham of Ohio, the main framer of the Fourteenth Amendment states, ..."United Sates of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is...a natural born citizen."
2. The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel in 1758 was used by many of our founding fathers as a source of understanding of law, which was established in the Constitution of 1787. His treatise in Book 1, Chapter 19 states, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those childern naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights....In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
The meaning of natural-born citizen will either not be discussed or the people will be lied to by your major media outlets, but there are many legal cases that support the above definition. Wikipedia has unfortunately sanitized its site of the true definition of natural-born citizen after the release of President Obama's birth certificate (President Obama was probably born in Hawaii and both parents were U.S. citizens, but it has been alleged that the President did not want people to know his real father who might be Frank Marshal Davis--see Video: Obama Admits Noted Communist "Schooled" Him On White Racism (04/15/15)). Also, there has been no investigation by the major media outlets on the authenticity of the birth certificate. For further information see articles by WorldNetDaily entitled Authors:Even Hawaii birth won't make Obama eligible (April, 28, 2011), Bombshell: U.S. Government questioned Obama citizenship in 1966 (May 9, 2011), That bogus birth certificate (May 12, 2011) , Criminal Complaint Filed with FBI over Birth-Certificate "Forgery" (June 5, 2011) , Ex-CIA: "Forged Document Released as Birth Certificate (June 15, 2011), Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Posse: 'Probable Cause' Obama Certificate a Fraud (Sheriff Joe is a retired DEA Agent and served in the U.S. Army) and Law Professor says Fox News Anchor does not know what the hell he is talking about in regards to what the meaning of a "Natural Born Citizen" is for presidential eligibility.
Birther Summit--a gathering of truth
The Truth about the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and how the Government is Lying
-
Thousands of Citizens defend the Bundy Ranch in Nevada against the BLM--see "video" entitled BLM & Tyranny of Regulation (a clip from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on unjust laws) on what the State Controlled Media is not telling you.
-
What about the jurisdictional issues? and the "Nevada Open Land Laws?"--see BLM is in driect conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution & Federal Judge: BLM Engaged In a Criminal Conspiracy Against Ranchers (video)--the Rise of Control Grid & Interview by David Knight of Infowars of Cliven Bundy: Domestic Patriot (video--04/19/14).
-
Hours After Infowars Breaks Sen. Reid (D-Nev.)? Chinese Connection to Bundy Land Grab, BLM Backs Down (04/12/14) --- The Infowars exclusive yesterday exposing U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) involvement in the Bureau of Land Management's land grab, which was meant to push out American ranchers such as Cliven Bundy in order to make way for Chinese solar farms, was the #1 news story in the entire world over the past 24 hours thanks to the Drudge Report and others, forcing the BLM to retreat from the standoff. (Also, see from The New American an article entitled War on the West: Why More Bundy Standoffs Are Coming.)
Some facts: 1. The federal government is not "the landowner" of the "public lands" and Cliven Bundy is not a "tenant" or "freeloader"; 2. The "public lands" in the Western states are comprised of what is known as the "split estate"; 3. Ownership is split between surface rights (wildlife, timber, grazing, water) and subsurface rights (gas, oil, minerals) that are divided among mutiple owers; 4. The multiple owners are federal government, state gpvernments, private individuals, and corporations; 5. Subsurface rights are owned by the federal government, which is questionable (Virginia's Act of Cession of 1784 stipulated that the ceded lands would be disposed of for revenue for the United States and state legislatures and members of Congress are challenging the federal government; 6. Cliven Bundy with many other rangers owns range rights that were bought and paid for by Land-use law in the arid Western states that falls under the "Prior Appropriation Water Doctrine"--the person who acquires title to the water has a right to acquire the use of as much land as is necessary to put the water to beneficial use; 7. Bardon v. Northern Pacific Railway Company has been cited 133 times by other courts and has never been overturned in whole or in part.
Also, see United States v. Estate of Hage--U.S. Federal District Court Judge Robert C. Jones states that the BLM engaged in a criminal conspiracy against ranchers. The BLM ignores Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution--the clause is known as the Enclave Clause that authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions: arsenals, dockyards, magazines, the erection of forts, not to protect a tortoise.
Helpful articles on the Constitution and Bill of Rights
- Constitutionalism 101 --PDF
- Republic vs. Democracy--PDF
- How to decipher the Constitution--PDF
- Faith and Firearms by Dr. Peter Hammond—PDF or FirePower and Faith
- Thomas Woods--History, the Constitution and Nullification by States.
- Lawmakers in 35 States move to reclaim sovereignty under 10th Amendment provision
- Thomas More Law Center
- The Electorial College: Preserve or Abolish?--PDF
- LEAGLE--Comprehensive Law Library: Federal and State
- The Supreme Court is not the last step in opposition--the Declaration of Independence is
- Lord Mockton, Copenhagin and the Constitution (Treaties cannot override the Constitution)—PDF
- The Feminist Movement Has Caused the Undermining of Due Process for Men--PDF
- Fully Informed Jury Association - see their media catalog
- Handbook for Juries
- Caught. Net - Jurors’ Handbook
- Sherrif Mack - the Constitutional Authority of the Sheriff’s Office.
- High School Students Lose more of their Rights—1957 vs. 2009--PDF
- Supreme Court of the United States - look up documents.
- Dumbing down the Constitution--the natural-born citizen requirement for president
See Second Amendment Tab for an a detailed explanation on the original intent on the "right to keep and bear arms."
LibertyNewsNetwork--a news organization that defends the Constitution.
https://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv
Renew America, click link for Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Communist Manifesto, etc. https://www.renewamerica.com/documents_menu.htm
For more information on the Constitution click the side bar .
Note: This is why it is important to appoint "Strict Constructionist" judges.
Legal References--Abbreviations for New Jersey Law, U.S. and PA (NJ Permanent Statutes)
1. et seq ("and the following") 2. C.F.R (Code of Federal Regulations)
3. N.J. (New Jersey Supreme Report) 4. N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative Code)
5. N.J.S. (New Jersey Statutes) 6. N.J.S.A (New Jersey Statutes Annotated)
7. N.J.Super (New Jersey Superior Court Reports) 8. U.S.C. (United States Code)
9. U.S.C.A. (United States Code Annotated) 10. 18 Pa C.S. & 6111 (Title 18, PA Crime Codes, Section)
The two sites below have official government links to PA and NJ Firearms Law and other areas. Also, see 2nd Amendment Tab and Right-to-Carry Tab for further information.
- Firearms Owners Against Crime—PA Pro-Gun Political Action Committee that has Voter’s Guides by County,
PA Laws under Title 18 & great pro 2nd Amendment links.
www.foac-pac.org - AllStays Travel--New Jersey and other states Gun Laws and Travel Advice.
www.allstays.com
- Nazi Weapons Laws of November 11, 1938--Gun Control has always resulted in Genocide.
www.jpfo.org
- Death by Gun Control--A Genocide Chart of Countries that confiscated guns.
www.jpfo.org
