Friday, March 21, 2014

Do I trust the Supremes? No. But that's not the point.

A comment on a repost of my open letter to NJ & RI pols contains this:
Well this is the second time he has said they need to see what the Supreme Court decides before pushing their law both in the first letter and now.
So what happens if the Supreme Court says it is legal then what does he do, does he shuffle his feet on the ground like a 6 year old and say gash darn sorry boys turn in your guns.
Please do not get me wrong I agree with him very much but I have seen the Supreme Court make many wrong decisions through history and this could be one of them. They sometimes add to much feeling in their decisions and not base their decision on the constitution and why and how it was formed.
Two points.
First, my proposal to put off enforcement until the Supremes rule on these various intolerable acts is more likely to be acted upon (either openly or covertly) by the forces of state violence than a demand to repeal the law. It also positions us as more reasonable in the court of public opinion and uses their own supposed "legal" forms against them, exposing their hypocrisy. And that is a modest win. We look moderate and compromising, they look, well, like the grasping totalitarians that they are. Do I have faith in the current roster of Supremes? Of course not. Not before or after Heller. But that is not the most important point, which is:
Second, like the pursuit of the truth in Fast and Furious I am trying to buy time for our side to get ready. Time to organize, politically and militarily. Time for training. Time for logistics. Time for planning in 4GW in your own AO. Time. Time for more firearms to be purchased. Time for more ammunition to be laid back. Time. Time that we will desperately need if the Supremes eventually do uphold these intolerable acts, when of course, we will have to fight. Time.


WarriorClass III said...

Well said. I've seen from comments here and other places that people need time just to get over their anger so that it's not an impediment to a logical, well thought-out and executed plan.

Remember the old saying, "Don't get mad, get even." Well in this case, "Don't get angry, get justice." The cooler, well-trained heads will win the day.

Wyatt Earp used to say that he wasn't the fastest gun in the West, but he remained calm in a shoot-out and took aim rather than shooting fast and wild. The thing to remember about Wyatt was that he lived to tell the tail in his old age. His hot-headed adversaries didn't.

Anonymous said...

Just as Heller demonstrates, the Supremes DO NOT HAVE THE GUTS to outright bans guns the way legislators do. The Supremes know full well that they are the last recourse prior to, well, civil war.


Time for anger to percolate. That's the most important factor of time. It grows our ranks daily!

rexxhead said...

SCOTUS issues opinions, and sometimes they are wrong. They once said of Dred Scott that he could not be a person because he was black.

Their opinions are binding upon government, They do not bind us except insofar as we allow them.

Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court found, between 1935 and 1995, exactly zero laws made by congress were unconstitutional. Zero.

Anonymous said...

Rexx is correct. It's ALL about what WE ALLOW IT. Remember, government works for us not us for it.

That's the run of the school/media indoctrination. Those government agents portend the opposite of truth, that government is the master and we are the slaves.

The time now is for is to EDUCATE! That's why Mikes pages are so valuable. It's why spreading this message WE DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY is so important.

It's also why we must oppose the NRA. The very premise that we are to turn over our right to defend ourselves to another is flawed from the get go. We have to oppose this con job.

We can steer SCOTUS by standing up vocally first and then with overt action. This is exactly how we AVOID another civil war!

The founders wisdom is self evident to all who choose to see. The first is first and the second us second for good reason.

Teach all you know that it's THEIR OWN tesponsibility to assert themselves as CITIZENS, with rights, so their silence is not construed as agreeing they are but subjects with permissions.

I am a citizen of these united States and of the state within which I choose to reside. As such, I declare my enumerated rights, both privilege and immunity, as constitutionally enunerated and formally declared by our founding and framing documents. I sign away, trade away or otherwise relent NO authority over exercise TO ANYONE OR ANY ORGANIZATION OR CORPORATION. I refuse and withhold my consent to be governed any other way.

It's amazing how differently LEO treats you when you begin interactions with you when you make such a statement. Citing title 42 section 1983 makes heads turn also. The KEY is to KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, it unlocks the chains LEO tries to lock you down with.

Why do folks think mike v hasn't been arrested and prosecuted? It's because he knows his rights and exercises them openly - without fear. How about those folks openly saying THEY WILL NOT COMPLY? Why aren't they already arrested? LEO doesn't want to open that can of worms with these folks - they want to target the ignorant instead. They want to target those they can intimidate. It's why they pass these "laws" that only affect the "law abiding" instead of executing existing laws against ACTUAL criminals.

Anonymous said...

achedkttime is not on our side!wating for
you're enemy to make the first move gives him the advantage.I don't want want to see this war brake out but if it dose I hope it's not on the government's terms
and time table!

Anonymous said...
" As slaves were private property"

It is hard to take serious a government that will declare a man as the private property of another.


Anonymous said...

"the principle that one class may usurp the power to legislate for another is unjust, and all who are now in the struggle from love of principle would still work on until the establishment of the grand and immutable truth, "All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Anonymous said...

From the "Son of Illegal Mayors Against Guns" department:

Anonymous said...

In my opinion insurrection is unavoidable. The Ayatollah keeps pushing and pushing. We see innocent citizens being killed for no reason by militarized police. It is getting to the point that this is happening more and more across the country. The intel agencies are totally out of control and Muslims are being installed in high positions of this government which should give everyone pause.
We understand that the GOP is useless. They are no different then the leftists in their desire to be in charge of an ever expanding government. In that they are like Britain. During campaigns the two sides each pledge they can get the goodies to the peasants faster and cheaper. No different here.
Both parties are each one side of a counterfeit coin.
With the continued bastardization of the Constitution and the founders vision this is not the America I was born in. The decision for us all is do we love this country enough to want to save it. Or leave and let the Red Diaper Doper babies flounder in the shit of their own doing. I have decided my course.

MtTopPatriot said...

Mike, if you haven't seen this:

Neil Wampler said...

I certainly feel the pressure building, akin to 1859 and the early part of 1860...But we must keep the high moral ground and avoid impulsive actions.I am one who has a deep rage in my gut - against the traitors, we can all name them - and fantasize about firing squads etc.If we are to establish the rule of law however, we cant act like bandits ourselves.We must personify the principles we are fighting for. We must let the Facists start it, and reveal themselves for what they are.Until then we can Prepare,we can Reach,teach and inspire.

Cal said...

"... they need to see what the Supreme Court decides before pushing their law both in the first letter and now."

Let's discuss what powers, what type of term limits do judges have?

US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

That is correct. All judges - state and federal - are allowed to keep their position as long as they use "Good Behaviour" in the courtrooms. They are NOT in for "life", unless they use "Good Behaviour" for life.

James Madison, Fed 39, 250—53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention: “... The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour..."

Tucker’s Blackstone, Vol I, Chapt 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;...”

US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."

The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution,

“... 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 the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

They are REQUIRED to make sure that ALL laws - “The Laws of the United States, all Treaties made, or which shall be made - are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF” the US Constitution, and keep their oath to be in “Good Behaviour” and to remain lawfully a justice within the federal or state governments.

Cal said...

(continued) Thomas Jefferson: “…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... . The Constitution has erected no such tribunal,knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort"

Alexander Hamilton: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802:
"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

The courts were NOT given the power to decide what Constitution means, to “interpret” it. They were given the power and duty to decide if the case in question follows the US Constitution, if it is in Pursuance thereof it. The US Constitution defines the standard that all laws must meet, that they MUST be in Pursuance thereof it to be lawful here in the USA.

The courts gave themselves the "power" to "interpret" the US Constitution which is usurpation.

The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people's unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.
Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it's guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.

Cal said...

(con't) In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite any belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury nullifies a law that it believes is either a bad law.

Once a jury returns with a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court, plus the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law."
And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams:
“It is not only his [the juror’s] right, 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.”

“though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?

Samuel Chase: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

Patrick Henry: “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off…This gives me comfort, that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.”

What this means is that judges/justices are LAWFULLY in office ONLY as long as they use "Good Behaviour" - doing their duty as the US Constitution assigned it to them and KEEPING the oath they are PERSONALLY bound by to get into that position.

It means that neither the executive, legislative, or judicial branch makes the decision if those in the courts are using "Good Behaviour", that is done by the people.

Even though "Good Behaviour" does not apply to the other branches which are given constitutional remedies for those who overreach their powers, that all three branches are allowed to stay in the position they occupy ONLY when they keep the oath and do the duty as it is assigned by the US Constitution. That is where they ALL get their authority from, and when they deviate from that authorization they are no longer lawfully occupying the position they are in and they can be immediately removed by "We the People" - fired. Then arrested, charged, prosecuted. But that is UP TO US.

Anonymous said...

Millions of Americans believe that the Supreme Court is the "final aribter" on what is constitutional.....and what isn't.

This comes from the case "Marbury v Madison that the SCOTUS heard in 1803. In that unanimous decision, the Supreme Court essentially "gave itself the power to be that final arbiter" a decision that was heavily criticized by Thomas Jefferson at the time.

......"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; 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.... Their power [is] 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, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves"........

Works for me! The Supreme Court has been corrupt for years as new judges are appointed based upon their OWN political ideology. No question in my mind that "WE THE PEOPLE" are the final arbiters of what is constitutional, or not, and that ALL levels of the federal govt answer to us!

Ed said...

The Judge Taney and the SCOTUS in the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision decided that to grant Scott's petition, then for Scott and other slaves

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

So, you can logically infer that anyone who would deny anyone their right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went" considers them a slave.

Does that make it clearer to everyone? Just because a state legislator votes for a bill that deprives you or your rights and a governor signs that bill, or a member of Congress and the President does the same, or the President signs an Executive Order that deprives you of your rights, does the deprivation of the rights become tolerable. It does not matter who enslaves you - you are enslaved. Whether the SCOTUS ultimately approves of this or not does not matter - your status in the meantime is the same. Armed slaves are dangerous to those who would keep them enslaved.