The Straight Scoop on Impeachment:
1. It is NOT necessary that the president, other officers in the executive branch, or federal judges commit a felony before they may be impeached & removed.
He points out in Federalist Paper No. 81 (8th para), that federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations.
2. Throughout The Federalist Papers, it is stated that impeachment is for “political offenses”.
3. The House has the SOLE power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2, last clause). The Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3, next to last clause). The decision to convict is not reviewable by any other body – and common sense tells us what that means! The House may impeach, and the Senate may convict, for any reason whatsoever; and their decision cannot be overturned.
4. The language at Art. II, Sec. 4. about “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is far broader than one might at first glance think. Somewhere I saw a scholarly paper showing that the “high” refers to the status of the official – it does not refer to the severity of the offense.
Now! Pay close attention: “Misdemeanor” has a much broader meaning than a lesser category of criminal offenses. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows the primary meaning of “misdemeanor” to be:
“Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”
This shows – proves – that a president, vice-president, and all civil Officers of the United States may be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for “mismanagement”.
“Mismanagement” and “encroachments” have never before been so aptly applied to a civil authority as to Obama, Hillary, and their minions; except, perhaps to Nero, who also fiddled while Rome burned.
Errant members of Congress are never impeached – they are expelled (Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2).
Military personnel are never impeached – they are court-martialed (see UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice).
May 9, 2013
* * *
Are Opinions of the Supreme Court Really “Supreme”?
The supreme Court claims that their decisions are “settled law”. And this is what all American law students are told in law school. Accordingly, 99.999% of American Lawyers (most of whom are incapable of independent thought) accepted the indoctrination and believe that EVERYTHING the supreme Court does is “the final word”; that they are gods; and that once they have ruled on an issue, the issue is “settled”.
But the Truth is that the opinions of the supreme Court are nothing more than opinions in the cases before them.
Furthermore, they rule on a whole host of issues they have no constitutional authority to decide. See, e.g., http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/judicial-abuse-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-abortion-sexual-orientation-gay-marriage/
The supreme Court has been usurping power for a very long time. They usurp power when they rule on cases they have no authority to hear. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 lists the categories of cases they are permitted to hear.
Now look at the “supremacy clause” at Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution: Are supreme Court opinions part of the “supreme Law of the Land”?
Of course not! It is astonishing that progressives get away with the Lie that supreme Court opinions are “settled law”.
Is there a remedy? Of course! Our Framers were very wise men. Federal judges serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1); and when they usurp powers, impeachment is the proper remedy (Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para, Alexander Hamilton). http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed81.htm
It is not true that federal judges have “lifetime appointments”!
March 21, 2013.
* * *
May the Federal Government Lawfully Make ANY Restrictions on Our Guns & Ammo?
By Publius Huldah.
When you look at it from the perspective of limiting the federal government to its “enumerated powers”, it all becomes very easy and clear. We haven’t been looking at it this way because we are so ignorant of our Constitution that we don’t know that it delegates “enumerated powers” only to the federal government.
The Truth is, that when WE THE PEOPLE “created” the federal government, we itemized (“enumerated”) in the Constitution all the powers WE delegated to it.
We nowhere delegated to any branch of the federal government power to restrict, infringe, etc., guns, ammo, etc.
So any federal laws or BATF rules for the Country at large which purport to restrict, infringe, etc., guns or ammo, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government in Our Constitution.
THIS is what we need to get people to understand. Their misplaced focus on the 2nd Amendment as being the “source” of our right to keep & bear arms, has been a disaster:
Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, enumerates the powers of the federal courts – it lists the types of cases they may hear. One category of case they may hear is “all cases or controversies arising under this Constitution”. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. That is how they claimed judicial power to decide the scope and extent of our “rights” under the 2nd Amendment; and hence, what federal restrictions on our “2nd Amendment rights” are “reasonable”.
Do you NOW see why you must point to The Declaration of Independence (2nd para) and assert that your right to keep and bear arms – to self-defense – comes from GOD and is Unalienable?
PEOPLE! Wake up! The federal government has only “enumerated powers”. NOWHERE in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government authority to impose ANY restrictions on guns, ammo, etc. They violate Our Constitution when they impose these restrictions.
And YES, private American citizens can have armed ships! Remember the Privateers who fought the British ships in the War of 1812? Remember Letters of Marque & Reprisal (Art.I, Sec. 8, cl. 11)? Our Framers contemplated an American People who were so heavily armed that they could be Privateers, as well as wreak vengeance on our enemies via letters of Marque & Reprisal.
So be a patriot and buy a tank … or an armed ship!
Originally, Congress had no problem with the Right of Citizens to own Warships. During some of our early conflicts, Congress would contract (Letters of Marque) with the owners to assist our Navy and raid enemy ships.
‘In this painting the American privateer, General Armstrong, fires on British ships during the War of 1812′ (painting by Nathaniel Currier, courtesy Library of Congress, LC-USZC2-1904).
Many Thanks to Grumpy Opinions for the photo and his caption
Oh! And do read this on the BURN BARRELS! This is how manly men & womanly women act in response to tyranny: http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/01/nunc-pro-tunc-the-coming-day-of-burn-barrels-and-blessings.html
January 29, 2013
The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws”.
Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?
Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc.
In addition, the 2nd Amendment recognizes this God-given right.
Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds (see, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46).
Furthermore, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL laws made by Congress, ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution.
Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the BAFT are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS. Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make regulations of general application!
In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not do it by Treaty. See, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/
But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.
And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an “ex post facto law” is.
This accurately explains what a “bill of attainder” is: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Bill-of-Attainder.htm
An “ex post facto” law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.
Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a law retroactively criminalizing barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution), even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.
Now, say Congress passes a “Law” making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”. That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.
Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.
It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
But it would not be an ex post facto law.
People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral. So always ask someone who really knows.
If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago. If People loved TRUTH more than they love lies, we wouldn’t have gotten into this trouble in the first place.
We must stop forwarding and circulating stuff until we have checked it out!
December 31, 2012.
* * * *
Restrict Spending To The Enumerated Powers: That’s How We Balance The Budget!
What those who ignorantly support the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) overlook is that our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. That means that everything which WE authorized the federal government to do is actually listed in the Constitution.
Look at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 3-16: It lists – itemizes – most of the powers WE THE PEOPLE delegated to Congress.
Now this is the Key: Congress is authorized to spend money ONLY on the enumerated objects of its powers. I.e., Congress may spend money on operating a patent office because issuing patents and copyrights is an enumerated power delegated to Congress. See: Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8.
But Congress is NOT authorized to appropriate funds to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink alcohol responsibly. That is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress.
Congress is NOT authorized to appropriate funds to provide medical care to old people or poor people. That is not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress.
SO! It is the list of Congress’ enumerated powers which is to control and limit its spending.
See, e.g., this paper: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-taxing-clause-five-lawless-judges-and-obamacare/
at the subheading, Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really Means.
That is how Congress is to control its spending: They may lawfully appropriate funds ONLY on the objects of its enumerated powers.
So, Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, requires Congress to periodically publish the list of what it has appropriated funds for (e.g., such and such amount for salaries of federal judges [authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 9 and Art. III, Sec. 1]; such and such amount to build ships for the Navy [authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 13]; and such and such amount to pay the salaries of the people who mint the coins and the guards at the mint (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 5).
Congress is also required by Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause to publish the receipts it took in.
Our Constitution contemplated that the federal government would obtain its revenue [which was to be spent ONLY on the enumerated objects of Congress' powers] in two basic ways: (1) import & export tariffs, excise taxes (e.g., tax on whiskey) and (2) apportioned contributions from the States.
So, if the federal government had a shortfall in its constitutionally authorized expenditures on the enumerated objects, and the revenues from the tariffs and excise taxes, the federal government would make up the shortfall from the States. The amount due from each State would be apportioned based on population [Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3]
Congress never had a “budget” until the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Progressives wanted to substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers.
This was the beginning of the wholesale ignoring of Our Constitution.
Do you see?
December 22, 2012
WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON (a/k/a “Art. V Convention”)
Rob Natelson can’t be a big States’ rights guy – I expect that is a mere pretense to sucker people into supporting him in his push for a con con – the same kind of deceit & trickery which got the American People to support various disastrous Amendments to the Constitution (such as the 17th).
I expect the ploy is this: One pretends to be for something (e.g., the 10th Amendment) in order to induce the supporters of THAT to trust the deceiver on another issue (e.g., a con con).
Perhaps I should write a formal rebuttal of the two glossy pdf’s two nefarious organizations are disseminating in order to deceive State legislators throughout the Country into supporting a con con. I hadn’t before b/c others have already done such a great job of explaining why – if there is a con con – our existing Constitution is CERTAIN to be superseded. The national Eagle Forum website has a page with several papers and letters on the dangers of a con con; and the late Henry Lamb wrote a short and brilliant paper, “No, no con-con” which you can read here: http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/268253/
In a nutshell, the TRUTH is this: That if there is a con-con, Congress “calls” it (see Art. V). Congress [the ones who gave us $16 trillion in debt] will have the power to appoint the delegates, since they are the ones who “call” it. Congress may appoint whomever they wish: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John “The Backbone” Boehner, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, every wacky left wing law professor in the country, and those who pretend to be all for the 10th Amendment while they connive to take Our Constitution away from us altogether.
Some people are laboring under the delusion that the States will get to appoint delegates – but they really are delusional. CONGRESS “calls” it – so CONGRESS APPOINTS THE DELEGATES. CONGRESS WILL APPOINT DELEGATES WHO WILL DO WHAT CONGRESS WANTS.
And we all know what a great job CONGRESS has done in controlling spending and in overseeing judicial nominations and in controlling the innumerable usurpations of the Executive Branch!
IT WAS CONGRESS WHO RAMMED OBAMCARE DOWN OUR THROATS. Now, we want a con con where CONGRESS will appoint the delegates?
Supporters of a con con also tell us the monstrous lie that we need not worry, b/c whatever the con con comes up with will have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. But THAT is a requirement of Our Existing Constitution – the new Constitution may well set up an entirely different mode of ratification – e.g., a majority vote of Congress.
So, the proponents of a con con are either the biggest liars in the history of our Country, or they are the most gullible people ever, or they are truly stupid, or they are mentally ill, or they are incapable of rational thought and analysis.
There is no innocent explanation – THIS is the greatest danger our Country has ever faced. THIS is their opportunity to take away our guns, ban Christianity, eliminate private property, legalize a whole host of new perversions, etc.
WHY would we agree to give this power to CONGRESS? Remember! Whoever appoints the delegates determines the outcome. CONGRESS won’t send people like James Madison and George Washington to a con con.
November 28, 2012
* * * * * *
What Would Really Happen if Roe v. Wade Were Overturned by SCOTUS?
Liberals/progressives say their constituency should vote for obama because if Romney is elected, he will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade; and this [so they say] will mean the end of abortion in our Country.
Since abortion is a Sacrament to the left, they can think of nothing worse than outlawing the baby-killing they so delight in.
So when obama/biden tell their blood-hungry constituency that a Romney Presidency would mean the end of baby-killing, they fall for it.
But let us look at the Truth:
Roe v. Wade is merely an opinion issued in a lawsuit by SCOTUS. What it purported to do was to overturn all STATE Statutes (“laws”) which outlawed abortion. If a future SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, it would merely return the issue to each of the 50 States [where it belongs] for each of them to decide what to do about it. Some State Legislatures would outlaw it, others would permit it.
So it is not true to say that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in the outlawing of abortion throughout our land.
To get the issue back before SCOTUS, all that is needed is (1) a case where abortion is an issue and (2) SCOTUS would need to accept review – agree to hear it (or as lawyers say, “accept cert”). It would not be difficult to get this back before SCOTUS! Some State legislatures would need to get some Spine & Moral Character and then pass strict anti-abortion laws for their States. Then the baby killers will file suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the anti-abortion state statutes. Whoever loses takes it up to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. Whoever loses there asks SCOTUS to accept review. Piece of cake!
Of course, the better course of action by far is for the States to wake up and Remember that they are Sovereign – that decisions about abortion is one of the powers retained by The States and The People – that power over abortion was never delegated to the federal government, and that SCOTUS’ opinions on the same are irrelevant as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government and to that Court.
October 24, 2012
Jury Nullification in Criminal Trials in Federal District Court
OK! You have been summoned for jury duty (“petty jury”) for a trial in federal district court. Here are a few things you need to know:
1. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, shows that the federal courts are granted permission to hear several categories of cases. You may be called to be a juror in either a “criminal” case or a “civil” case.
a) A criminal case would most likely involve an alleged violation of the U.S. (i.e., federal) criminal code.
b) A civil case would most likely involve a case between citizens residing in different States over some non-criminal issue as breach of contract, negligence, etc.
2. The issue of jury nullification arises in criminal cases where Defendant is charged with an unjust, unfair, or unconstitutional federal [or State] law. E.g., the “crime” of failing to buy health insurance.
Here is the Issue: Even if the Prosecutor proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant failed to buy health insurance, do you, as a Juror, have the Right – or the Duty – to refuse to convict?
a) The Prosecutor & the Judge insist that you do NOT have that Right! In fact, the Judge is most likely to instruct you that if you find – as a matter of FACT – that Defendant failed to buy health insurance, then you MUST find him guilty.
b) Defense counsel desperately wants to tell you that the Judge is lying to you, and wants to tell you about your Right – really, your “Duty” – of Jury Nullification. BUT JUDGES DO NOT ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SO INFORM YOU! They will jail defense counsel for contempt before defense counsel can tell you.
3. So I will show you here that Jurors have the Right – the DUTY, really – of Nullification in criminal cases in federal courts. Art. III, Sec. 2, last clause, U.S. Constitution, says:
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury…”
Now note the entry for “Jury” in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
“…Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions…” [emphasis added]
When Our Constitution was ratified, our Framers understood that Jurors had the Right to decide the law in criminal trials! This means that the Jurors have the Right to judge the “law”. And if you find the law unfair, unreasonable, unconstitutional, unfairly applied, that Defendant has been unfairly singled out, or whatever; then you have the right – the Duty, really – (in a criminal case) to find the Defendant NOT GUILTY.
Alexander Hamilton, a lawyer, was well aware of the problem of unjust criminal statutes. He says in Federalist No. 83 (12th para):
“… arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared to me to be the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all relation to criminal proceedings….” [emphasis added]
4. But the Judge in the case where you are a Juror will probably require you to take an Oath that you will follow the Law as s/he explains it to you and that if you find that Defendant violated the Statute, then you MUST find him guilty.
If you say anything about “judging the law” or “is the Statute under which Defendant is charged constitutional”, then the Prosecutor will kick you off the Jury “for cause”.
Before the trial starts, both counsel have the right to ask potential Jurors questions during “voir dire” to determine whether each will be a good Juror for their side. You are under Oath to tell the Truth when you are being so questioned. So, if the prosecutor asks you about “Jury Nullification”, do you know about it, do you agree with it, YOU MUST TELL THE TRUTH! You don’t want to be tried for perjury.
But you have the right to assume that the Judge is fair & impartial and will obey the Constitution (since s/he took an Oath to do so – Art. VI, clauses 2 & 3). So, when you take the Juror’s Oath, you have the right to assume that the Judge will obey the Constitution.
But once you are seated, and find out what Defendant is charged with, and hear the evidence, and learn to your shock & horror that the Prosecutor & the Judge both spit on the Constitution they each swore to support, and you then go into the Jury Room to deliberate; you must do as your conscience dictates.
5. Here is a very good short article written by a law professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia: “Jurors’ Handbook A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty”: http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf
There is much on that web site. I had concerns about some of the stuff, and I didn’t have time to read everything on the site. But what the law professor says in the linked paper is Right On! PH
The Opinion of Obama Puppet John Roberts upholding obamacare:
We have seen several articles recently which purport to show how John Roberts did us all a great favor by upholding obamacare.
It is astonishing that anyone could be so easily deceived. Yet, some are! “Talisker” is one who is deceived – see his post at Free Republic
In Truth, Robert’s opinion has probably done more to destroy our Country than anything which ever before spewed from the fetid minds of the judges on the supreme Court.
First, let’s look at what Our Constitution actually says about the powers of the federal government to tax:
1. The Constitution is specific about the types of taxes Congress may impose:
(a) “Direct taxes” which must be apportioned. A “direct tax” is a tax paid directly to the federal government. The original idea was that the federal government would assess each State it’s pro rata share of the tax bill based on population. So if the federal government needed $100,000., it would assess each State it’s pro rata share based on its population and the States would collect it from the People. See Art. I, §2, cl. 3 & Art. I, §9, cl. 4.
(b) Import tariffs and excise taxes on certain articles of commerce: These taxes are paid by the consumer to the seller who then sends it to the federal government. Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. I, §9, cl. 1 [which permitted Congress to levy an import tax on slaves brought here]; Art. I, §9, cl. 5 [which prohibited the levying of taxes on articles exported from any State]; Art. I, §9, cl. 6 [which prohibited the assessment of taxes on ships traveling from State to State]; and Art. I, §10, cl. 2 & 3 restricted the powers of States to levy certain taxes in commerce.
(c) A tax on incomes- 16th Amendment. Not Estates. Not gifts, just “incomes”.
So! Our Constitution is very specific about the kinds of taxes which the federal government is permitted to assess and collect!
2. Furthermore, the purposes for which Congress may lay and collect taxes are limited by its enumerated powers! So it may lay and collect taxes (of the 3 types authorized) to fund the military, pay the salaries of the people at the patent & copyright office, etc.; but it may NOT levy and collect taxes to fund programs which are not among the enumerated powers. I prove the foregoing in this paper: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-taxing-clause-five-lawless-judges-and-obamacare/
3. What John Roberts did was to look at Art. I, §8, cl. 1 and say it permits Congress to levy any kind of tax it wants for any purpose whatsoever.
It is the final destruction of our Constitution.
Roberts should be impeached, tried, convicted, kicked off the bench and prohibited from ever holding federal office again (Art. I, §3, last clause). And the bars of which he is a member, should disbar him. It is clear that federal judges may be impeached – and should be – for usurpations of power (Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para, Alexander Hamilton). PH
July 24, 2012
* * * * * * * *
Four Ways to Get Rid of Obamacare:
1. The supreme Court may declare obamacare unconstitutional when this case gets to them. Anthony Kennedy is the “swing vote”, and court watchers tend to think Kennedy will vote that obamacare is unconstitutional.
2. The President has the power and the duty (imposed by his Oath of Office) to refuse to implement it. He should issue an Executive Order directing federal executive agencies not to implement obamacare. But this requires us to elect a President with a BRAIN and a SPINE who will actually HONOR HIS OATH to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. If we did, obamacare could be dead as soon as the new President takes office.
3. Congress could repeal it – but we have to send people to Congress who will do this.
4. State officials are required by their oaths of office (Art. VI, 3rd clause, U.S. Constitution) to refuse to implement obamacare.
It really is in the hands of The People. We just don’t seem to have the wisdom to elect people who will honor and obey The Constitution. We go by image & personality. Watch all the gushing among the people on our side over their candidate of choice for the nomination: None of the discussion is about obeying Our Constitution. We are like silly high school girls gushing over a silly boy. PH October 1, 2011.