Abuse of power is not accidental. If you know that something is wrong; you must act. It is time for action. We can wait no longer. My Sheriff will be informed of this, I can assure you. We will no longer stand quietly on the sidelines while THIS HAPPENS;
Thats a great video, here's another one: see link below
CHECK THIS WEBSITE
Twenty-Five Landmark Cases in Supreme Court History So, we are all citizens of our Home State - I was born in (edit), but I am a citizen of (edit).
Keep in mind that all case law precedent on the Federal Level are usurped as Article III does not allow British case law theory nor does it allow for Judicial review.
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.
"DEAR SIR, While Burr's case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law."
"I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case.you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive."
Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges—instead of legislators—may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.
SCOTUS Cases supporting BOR incorporation
1878 - Freedom of Religion - Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145
1897 - Eminent Domain - Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226
1908 - Limited rights applied but not 5th. - Twining v. New Jersey 211 U.S. 78, 99
1925 - Freedom of Speech - Benjamin Gitlow v. People of the State of New York, 268 U.S. 652 45 S. Ct. 625; 69 L. Ed. 1138
1931 - Right to Representation - Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158
1931 - Freedom of the Press - J. M. Near v. Minnesota, ex rel. Floyd B. Olson, County Attorney, Hennepin County, Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 51 S. Ct. 625; 75 L. Ed. 1357
1937 - BOR Privileges and immunities so fundamental that states required to abide by them through Due Process Clause - Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288.
1939 - Freedom of Assembly - Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496
1961 - Freedom from Warrant-less Searches and Seizures - Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 81 S. Ct.
1684; 6 L. Ed. 2d
1963 - Right to Counsel in a Criminal Trial - Clarence E. Gideon v. Louie L. Wainwright, Corrections Director, 372 U.S. 335 83 S. Ct. 792; 9 L. Ed. 2d 799
1964 - Right against Self-Incrimination & Forced Confessions - Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977
1964 - Right against Self Incrimination - Malloy v. Hogan, Sheriff 387 U.S. 1
1966 - Right to Counsel and to Remain Silent -384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694
1969 - Rights against Double Jeopardy - Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784
1973 - Right to Privacy - Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
I hope you don't consider all of this a "blizzard."
I have read that all before and and have reviewed all that are not repetitive - please notice that not one of the cases above reverse Barron and the clear statement that the Bill of Right do not apply to the States only the Federal Government nor do any of them point out any real authority inside the four corners of the Constitution. In other words they have no LEGAL FOUNDATION.
The two seminal cases Marbury V Madison and McCulloch V Maryland were conjured ideas created without Any Constitutional Foundation by Justice Marshall.
So, the only Conclusion is that the misuse of the 14th in so many lawsuits in based in usurped powers of the Courts acting outside the LIMITS OF THE ARTICLE III POWERS GIVEN.
The method to correct is here
from President Jefferson comes the ability for the 'Leader' of a nation to stop the Supreme courts decisions. also in Barron vs Baltimore John marshal inferred to the states holding the bill of rights. My conclusion was that to day from the actions of those people our court system was held easy to corrupt. It just took time to get the right people in there.
Now the State courts are the peoples the government of their states are the peoples, and none can argue that the desired Republic lied in the hands of the people by the very admissions of the declaration of independence. BUT the government by and for thr people in the federal case is untrue. For it being a contract between the states and the Federal government formed.
And how can you have a federal Government which is a Corporation negotiate with states without a contract. God in his Infinite wisdom gave to the people the very way to extradite themselves from Satan IF- THEY- SO- WISHED. Its as plain on its face as it should be on every ones.ability to understand
Q, you and some of the others might enjoy this mans works he thinks very well and was a Sheriff and Cop - even a Marine.