Supreme Court trashes Constitution

A 14th Amendment US Citizen does not have access to petition for grievance of the ORIGINAL Constitution, but only the parts of the Constitution AFTER the 14th Amendment. Ratification of Amendments is a part of the ORIGINAL Constitution, hence a US Citizen does not have the right to petition for grievance. A Non Resident Alien on the other hand WOULD have such access, but the Non Resident Alien would have no need for such, because the Non Resident Alien is not bound to the Income Tax system. Non Resident Alien BTW, is one who is born in the US, but NOT a Citizen of the US. Being a non citizen makes you alien from the US, and it makes you a non resident IF you are living within one of the Several States.

The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witness is, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment… the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because these rights were not within the meaning of the clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States…

“…it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law… If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.”

(Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98-99, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97.)

The Supreme Court effectively trashed the Constitution when it arrogated to itself powers it was not intended to have way back in 1803 with the case of Marbury vs Madison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

It is hard for me to understand why the early legislature was unwilling to challenge this precedent-setting ruling when it had the chance.

Art 3 section 1
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,