Article submitted by Kirk Beck
Article III U.S. Constitution:
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
This section of the Constitution is called the Exceptions clause. Legal scholars have long referred to it colloquially as stripping the jurisdiction of the Court.
I spoke with a pro-life attorney recently and asked him if the Republicans should push for the stripping of the federal courts from all cases having to do with marriage and abortion. His canned response was that Marbury v. Madison answered the question of federal supremacy long ago.
I told him that I thought he was overlooking something. This epic case really seems to be exaggerated in its significance. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that;
Congress could not confer an authority to the Court which the Constitution did not sanction.
Maybe I need some serious correction, but where I come from there is a great deal of difference between your telling me I have to do something and my telling you that you have to do something. All the Court had to do in Marbury was to refrain from doing something. In the first case, I can simply remain passive and do nothing. In the latter, I better have some power behind my desire to command you to act. Exactly what power do 9 people in black robes have in commanding Congress to do anything?
One thing I did point out to the attorney was this: If Congress only has the check on the judiciary of confirmation to the bench and impeachment for gross misconduct, then Congress really has little check on the judiciary at all, but if Congress had the ability to strip a rogue federal judiciary from ramming abortion and homosexual misconduct down the throats of 50 and 34 states respectively, then that has some real bite to it.
The House made policy determinations in 2004 when it passed the Todd Akin (R-MO) bill to give immunity to the Pledge of Allegiance and the John Hostettler (R-IN) bill to give immunity to the Defense of Marriage Act against court challenges.
So why was the Supreme Court able to rule DOMA unconstitutional? That was because the Senate did not pass the Hostettler bill. Then by a 5-4 decision, homosexual marriage was forced upon 30 states most of which have statewide ballot initiatives supporting traditional marriage.
Now the Senate and the House are firmly in the hands of the Republican Party which has stated its solid support for traditional marriage and state restrictions on abortions. Now is the time for virtuous people to mount a campaign for the GOP to show some backbone and remove subject matter jurisdiction from the federal bench and put these societal questions back into the legislatures of the various states where rigorous debates can be undertaken, and errant legislators can feel the displeasure of the electorate if they turn a deaf ear to the will of the People.
Truth has no fear of open debate. Where pro-aborts and pro-life advocates have squared off in open debates, restrictions on abortions continue to gain approval. It has never been about a woman’s right to kill her unborn child, but rather who or what is it that is really in the womb. If it is a "who" and not a "what", then sanity demands that human life is more valuable than a woman’s desire to go to school. I know there are tougher issues than that; and for those, we have courts to settle the issues.
This is where our state courts will work with the state legislatures to find the most compassionate pathway to justice. It has not often been found in Washington, D.C., where politics is off the Richter Scale.
Replies
I respectfully disagree with your appraisal of Marbury v Madison. It was this SHOW-CASE, that proved, beyond any doubt, the Judiciary has NO power, whatsoever, over the People!! Marshal stated it plainly, and clearly, that the Judiciary, as the political arm of the Crown Templar, had NO RIGHTS to open the US Constitution, because of the "foreign governance," and its own foreign Corporate Nature, and to do so, in ANY manner, was a mockery, and a crime against the Constitution, and against the People!!
Thus, OUR government has NO Judicial branch, and NO jurisdiction, authority, or power over ANYTHING but their own Corporate, For-Profit business, which was, and is STILL, declared NULL & VOID by their OWN court of corruption!!
I would urge everyone to read, and then reread Marbury v. Madison, where you will be astounded at the purity & hypocrisy by which Marshal & his gang were ADMITTING to their OWN Acts of Treason On-the-Record!!
This is the IMPORTANCE of Marbury v. Madison!!!!!
What's more, is the FACT, that the rulings emanating from this case, gave us the Titles of Nobility Act, and the Original XIII Amendment, and abolished & dissolved ANY previous & future usurpations, and abrogations the attorney class could ever muster!! This included the abolishment of Judiciary Act of 1789, and the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act, and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, and the Emergency War Powers Act of 1871, and the Trading with the Enemies Act, etc., etc., etc., for it was this court that stated, in essence;
"All acts, rules, practices, legislation, codes, ordinances, and ALL "Colors of Law," that contradict, or abrogate the Constitution, or the Spirit & Intent of Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution was founded, was, and is, deemed to be NULL & VOID upon its issuance, or execution!!"
In the first place We The People MUST get Common Law back into the courts to take back the courts and get rid of all the rogue "authorities". National Liberty Alliance is on this.
Secondly the Supreme Court was NEVER to make law, site precedents etc, they were to ONLY determine if a case was done per the Constitution. They, the Supremes, have for some time now been legislating from the bench. Each case is to be determined on its' own merit, not how another case has been decided.
In the hierarchy of power, it is WE THE PEOPLE at the very top, no one or nothing over us, then the Constitution, Declaration, Bill of Rights, the states and lastly the Federal Government. Until we get back to this nothing will change and we will continue to be wronged in all phases of our lives.
You seem to be missing the key component to your 'hierarchy of power;' in 1871,'the federal government created a foreign government for the District of Columbia and gave it power to legislate and pass laws for our territory and its cooperate members. but prior to that, in 1868, the federal government created a new class of citizen called [14th Amendment] 'U.S. citizen.' This new class of "citizen" is the creation of, and is subject to, this private corporation located in Washington, D.C. called 'UNITED STATES, INC.
We the people don't need to get anything 'back.' Any man or [wo]man can evoke a common law "court of record" trial by jury in any state court in their state. Just because this forbidden knowledge has been intentionally kept out of the school curriculum does not mean that common law "courts of record" have disappeared and that you need to 'bring back.' It's still here; this country is a common law country; people get confused between jurisdiction of the foreign government corporation called District of Columbia doing business as UNITED STATES, INC, and the 50 states of the union.
you seem to be confused as to exactly who all of this stuff you mentioned apply to.
by your comments, it appears that you are one of those who have not discovered the forbidden knowledge that has been intentionally kept from the people.
can you show me proof that any of that stuff applies to i [a] man, or one of the people?
by you allowing this type of post with misinformation clearly shows you lack the proper education and knowledge in regards to the hierarchy of law/power and relationship between the people and the government.
And you call this 'Constitution Club?. is this supposed to be a sick joke?
a lot of misleading info. this is why the people will never get out of bondage.
Maybe it was a "test", Sweetie, to see if WE were paying attention.
Hey KYR,
Calm your jets. Who died and made you the world's constitutional expert? We don't claim such knowledge as you suggest, we simply believe in the sovereignty of the people and we often can be seen as NOT in agreement with "The Constitution of The United States" as opposed to being in favor of the Original "Constitution for the united states of America" instead. So consider well what you say here. My patience grows shorter with every day that we inch closer to totalitarian rule.
If you think we're full of it and have no idea what we're talking about, then why don't you just straighten us all out with your obviously superior education. Anyone can simply criticize our efforts. Why don't you educate us instead. We do so love to learn.
It is well known that our whole system is broken. But as a 70 yo grandmother, I offer my opinion that the government has no right to dictate sexual activity between consenting adults or overseeing my morals.
Who is "know your rights"? I notice that most posts are by proper names, not English phrases. Identify yourself and I will acknowledge your comments, otherwise I will ignore them.
*The Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT.
It does not pass any rights to anyone!
* Rights are from the CREATOR.
All unstated rights go to the States and to the people.
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."
USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it's intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and viod because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.)
Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/advocacy---article-v.html
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next