Constitution - Know Your Arguments And You Will Win
Submitted by ProudAmericanFirst on Wed, 11/21/2012 - 11:34* Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: 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 had never been passed.
* Murdock v Penn, 319 U.S. 105: clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.
* Shuttlesworth v Birm, 394 U.S. 147: Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can't punish you…they have to let you go.
* Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn't exist in law.”
Taken from Carl Miller:
http://privateaudio.homestead.com/CARLTEXT.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ
- Login to post comments
I wonder what would happen if ...
... you get pulled over by a cop and hand him a paper that basically outlines the following (along with the relevant legal references):
(1) He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution
(2) That any act he takes in violation puts him at legal risk
(3) Article 6 of the Constitution (supreme law)
(4) Right to travel
(5) State cannot convert right to privilege
(6) If state does, it is null and void
(7) If LEO acts under "color of law," he can be liable for 1983 lawsuit -- and what "color of law" means
And a statement, "Officer, I would prefer you just tell me I am free to go and I'll get on with my day and you can get on with yours."
I wonder how many cops would say, "Have a nice day," versus how many would still issue a ticket (assuming a relatively minor infraction, such as speeding or running stop sign, etc.).
This has worked for me when stopped by a leo
Let it be known that I claim Common Law Jurisdiction. I have the constitutional right of common law process.
Amendment IX of the US Constitution states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
Amendment X of the US Constitution states: “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”
If I haven’t damaged any of your property and you can’t show me a contract that I’ve reneged on, I shall be fee to go. You can accuse me of something but you cannot kidnap me or take me to jail without violating my Constitutional rights under the supreme law of the land.
Supreme Court Decisions that provide precedence for my Constitutional right to travel unmolested on the public roads:
Supreme Court Decision #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221)
Supreme Court Decision #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579)
Supreme Court Decision #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." (Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125)
Supreme Court Decision #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." (Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941)
It cannot be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
DENY CONSENT
I would agree...
With everthing stated here except for "Constitutional right".
Vernacular is very important when dealing with these scumbags. Stating "Constitutional right" confers the right was given by the Constitution which in fact it did not, it merely secures or guarantees the right.
It should be stated as "right guaranteed by the Constitution" or "right secured by the Constitution" or any other similar statement which would confer the same.
Reread what was stated in those Supreme Court decisions and amendments to the Constitution, never does it say "Constitutional right", enumerated by, guanteed by, or secured by, yes.
To state common law right in one instance then to state Constitutional right in another brings the two statements into conflict.
Knowing HOW to say something is more important than merely knowing what to say.
just to clarify...
What I was trying to say above.
This is a copy and paste from team law;
Constitutional rights:
There is no such thing as, “constitutional rights”. The Constitution grants no rights. Our Rights do not come from the Constitution; rather, the Constitution recognizes our Rights are God given and inherent. Crafting a Constitution does not change the fact that people cannot create rights or give rights they do not possess to others. Further, the Constitution does not, and cannot be lawfully amended to, limit the sovereign people of the United States of America. The Constitution for the United States of America is the document the people used to create their government. It is a Trust Indenture, wherein the delegates of the college, with the creative authority from the People, formed the Indentured Trust called “government”, wherein the officers of said government are collectively assigned with “Trustee” capacities (each limited by the duties of their respective offices) and the People remain the beneficiaries. The Bill of Rights was attached to The Constitution for the United States of America to form the contract known as, The Constitution of the United States of America, which binds government officials to the limited operations of government as specified in the contract (and that which follows); and so, limits said government officials from violating the God given inherent rights of the people. These constitutions neither prescribe nor claim to prescribe any rights to anyone. Instead they grant privileges to officers of government and restrict those officers from any action that would violate The Constitution of the United States of America. Our Constitutional Republic government, only governs itself as it is limited by its Constitution and Law; it has no authority to control the sovereign people of this nation; the people govern themselves. Again, the Constitution grants no rights; our Rights are God given, inherent and unalienable.Therefore, though most rights in The United States of America are constitutionally secured, there is no such thing as a “Constitutional Right”.
***
Thanks for that. I have added this to the flyer that I hand out.
My goal is to disrupt the establishments plan of dumbing down America. Knowedge, is indeed, power. Then maybe more constitutionally sound politicians will be elected as a by-product :-)
"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul
We are past that now. They will do what they want to you
and there is nothing you can do to stop them unless they really don't want to oppress you which is highly unlikely. If their minds are made up and they are hell bent on crushing you under their boot, you will lose. Judges don't give a rats a$$ about the Constitution - no one in government does. They all say they do, but none of them understand it enough to know they violate it with nearly every action in office they take.
Either you'll be made an example of by them otherwise ruining your life, or they will simply kill you. (of course, claiming you "had a gun" or were "resisting arrest" or other some such nonsense.)
If you are unlucky enough not to be summarily executed, they will "disappear" you to a place where waterboarding is part of breakfast, lunch, and diner.
The only thing I'll accept to prove me wrong, is for government officials to start arresting each other and trying each other left and right, convicting each other, and imprisoning each other for violations of the Constitution.
Since that isn't going to happen - you can put your false faith and hope in knowledge - it isn't going to help you.
They have more guns, and they intend to use them on you unless you obey them.
This is not a free country.
Get with the program already.
Pessimism at it's finest.
Sure, complacency is rampant, but the weak sacks of crap that live on it also tend to fall to pieces when confronted by people with reason and conviction. The type of guys capable of making people "disappear" are few and far between. besides, they would be goons for mobster if not for government. They've always existed. There's a few at the top now, and it's a problem, but it's nothing new.
The real killers are the ones that turn a blind eye and perpetuate the system of fear and violence. They are weak, that's why they turn a blind eye, and they are certainly not worthy of fearing. If the judge is going to give a rats a$$, it will be when someone decides to stand on their feet. In my opinion, you're safer standing.
I'm not saying don't stand your ground, but trying to educate an
officer who is there to crush you will be considered "interfering" and will get you in a world of hurt if not worse.
I'm sorry, I have zero faith in any officer who doesn't upfront show respect for my person to be the least bit responsive in the way I would want should I start babbling this stuff to him or her. If they show they are ignorant of their place and their limitations, then they aren't interested on the scene to learn anything different. It will just piss them off and they'll use it as pretext for escalation.
Say it isn't so........
samadamscw............Maybe knowing what you have said is true, could explain why some part of us can't condemn Dorner for going after those who have the attitude the law doesn't apply to them even though they're job is to uphold it! I don't want anyone to die but the thought of those bad boys shaking in their boots is not repugnant. A turn the tables, the fear of being at the mercy of a brutal force that this time is not the innocent victim but, aimed at them. He was working with and under a renegade bunch of totalitarian thugs. Thugs who lied to cause him great loss because he wouldn't be complicit and tried to do something about it. At some point, will the people be doing the same thing for survival?
Deekey
I'm not sure what Dorner is all about. I read most of his
rambling (the unedited version) and I found it suspect.
He seemed more in a place (mentally) of anger and frustration than one of knowing he had an ugly task to perform, but understood it was his duty to perform it.
I'm more inclined to think he's either been off his rocker for some time, and likely has brought about much of his own misery, or he may be part of an in-progress false flag, or something that will be turned into one.
I completely disagree with going after family members, unless they are specifically documented to also be part of the problem. (Did the daughter lie under oath to protect her father for example? - if so, fair game)
But I'm not unhappy about LAPD or any officer in CA or elsewhere being "scared" that the people they've been pushing around might one day be gunning for them. That is as it should be. Thugs and bullies deserve no less.
I understand how you feel. I
I understand how you feel. I have been involved in the sovereign law movement for decades I have seen first hand some of what you describe. I almost passed this up myself because of my many years of research study and action. But this guy is different. I encourage you to take the time to look at least before you write it off. The guy has a 90% win record. No magic law voodo just knowing the constitution and how to use it.
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
I agree knowing it and how to use it is critical.
This just slapped me the wrong way as not being useful as presented anymore. I feel we're beyond the opportunity for utility it was meant for. When it was made, it was correct. I don't think that is the case any longer.
Thanks for the post, it is
Thanks for the post, it is very good information and I have bookmarked and cached it locally for future reference.
This kind of post is the reason why I like the Daily Paul. I wouldn't have found this without you posting it.
I suppose that the Constitution even prohibits judgments against it from the judicial branch as being binding if they are unconstitutional. So, basically, we need good damn good judges or some sort of public recourse against bad ones. What do you think?
I think
I think it is imperative to elect Constitutional sheriffs, local and state who are Liberty minded and will act/vote accordingly.
I firmly believe that once more people [citizens] are in the know and practice their rights (such as what is outlined), the more the judges will be held accountable.
It is 'We The People'. But if 'we the people' drop the ball, so will the Constitution, that is part of the establishment dumbing down society.
I printed a bunch of these out and distribute to people every chance I get :-)
"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul
FOUR people have been trying to talk this up this week!
I know the videos are old, but it seems perhaps their time has come? I have not been in that bunny hole as long or as deep as hawkiye, but I had never heard of him until last week. Now ProudAmerican, silverngold, hawkiye and I have all been trying to get folks to PAY ATTENTION!
Ironically enough, hawk posted a thread titled "When we will all get it?" and a reply turned him on to Carl Miller:
http://www.dailypaul.com/263523/when-will-we-all-get-it
He got excited enough to make a thread:
http://www.dailypaul.com/263574/know-your-constitution-defen...
When I started watching, I tried to threepeat the message:
http://www.dailypaul.com/263860/let-me-threepeat-know-your-c...
THIS IS IMPORTANT! It gives me great hope to see this catching on so well here at the DP - this can be a tough crowd! - this man has a heart of gold and gonads of some less malleable metal!
That awakening, that "apocalypse" - this might be it. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
Heres the videos
Heres the videos too
http://privateaudio.homestead.com/CARLTEXT.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q35DoJroTYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9fdSirNinQ
I started a similar thread a few days ago but the more the merrier...
http://www.dailypaul.com/263574/know-your-constitution-defen...
This and Jury Nullification could really turn this country around!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
And I started one this morning - this stuf is catching on!
Your "Wow!" comment got my attention, then your email got me to watch. WOW!
We should host a "Carl Miller Film Festival" - sit around and watch youtubes and educate ourselves and others.
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
jury nullification
That is all.
"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"
agree Delvin
Wouldn't hurt to try this but I wouldn't count on it. People have to learn to NOT listen to the judge.....think! ...jury nulification
Deekey
Carl Miller is the bomb that will blast through tyrany
look up his youtube videos and learn them. This is how we become free.
WATCH CARL MILLER!!
I am SO excited to see this - I started a very similar post just this morning. I have dabbled in "sovereign law" since '08, but this guy is the shiznat.
BUMP for DIY Liberty!
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
Bump for great post
Bump for great post
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien
Only one problem...
An unenforced Constitution is NO Constitution AT ALL!!!
Watch the Carl Miller videos
Watch the Carl Miller videos friend and learn how to enforce it. This guy has a 90% win rate...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Wrong.
It is up to you, and me, We the People, to uphold the Constitution.
"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul
With
WHAT army...
Me and THIS army! *holds up
Me and THIS army!
*holds up fists*
Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.
http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com
You
You are part of that army.
I got your flank.