Taking Back Constitution Piece By Piece

by Frank Miele - August 29th, 2010 - Daily Inter Lake

History is plain. So are the words in the 14th Amendment. But both are now being ignored thanks to a feckless adherence to judicial precedent no matter how wrong-headed the decision.

We are told that every child born in the United States has the right to claim citizenship in our country based on the wording of this amendment, but for goodness’ sake, before we sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, shouldn’t someone actually read the amendment?

It PLAINLY says that there are TWO elements which are BOTH necessary to qualify for citizenship. One is that you must be “born or naturalized in the United States.” The meaning of that is more or less self-evident. The meaning of the second element — that a potential citizen must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — has been conveniently forgotten or obfuscated. More invisible ink?

Anyone who bothers to spend half an hour researching the history of this amendment will find ample proof that the phrase is intended to exclude the children of foreign nationals from acquiring citizenship just due to the accident of being born in the United States. To claim otherwise requires a willful ignorance so profound as to be frightening.

Frightening. That is the perfect word. Frightening.

Proponents of this progressive abuse of our Constitution are frightening. By twisting the clear meaning of words to invent a new right to citizenship that didn't exist under the amendment and that was in clear violation of the intention of the people who passed it shows the amazing arrogance of our judges. It also shows their total contempt for the people and the nation they have taken an oath to serve.

This single judicial abuse is the foundation for my belief that until we establish the right to mass impeachment and conviction of judges, America will never regain its freedom.

Fed Agents Frustrated By Judges’ Immigration Decisions

by Sara A. Carter - August 31st, 2010 - Washington Examiner

In March, Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Sandoval — who had committed serious crimes in the United States since 1998 — stood before Florence, Ariz., Immigration Judge Bruce Taylor on a deportation hearing. That day the judge canceled his removal proceedings, allowing him to stay in the United States.

Four months later, Sandoval was arrested again on an outstanding warrant but was released. Three days after that release he led police on a 100 mph car chase. Then in August, in response to a 911 call from his family, he shot at Arizona deputies who came to his home. That night, he escaped.

Federal Judges have no accountability. As long as there is a political party that is intentionally subverting the Constitution, there is no willingness to allow their political decisions to be challenged through the normal impeachment process. As a direct result, our courts are out of control. Liberal, incompetent and even anti-American judges regularly make rulings that are simply insane from any perspective that follows the rule of law. However our judges no longer believe in the rule of law. They don't believe in the Constitution. They believe in "progressive" politics and protecting their political party's constituents. Illegal aliens have a massive lobby within the Democrat Party. As a direct result, the laws of our nation mean nothing.

Judges abuse their discretion to free criminals from foreign lands under the pretense of defending the constitutional rights of people who have no legal right to be here as described in a constitution they don't otherwise respect. In a just world they would be impeached, convicted and exiled from the nation whose laws they hold in such contempt.

Somali Pirates Who Fired On U.S. Navy Are Not Really Pirates

by Andy McCarthy - August 20th, 2010 - National Review

Putting federal judges in charge of national security — what could go wrong?

Federal judge Raymond A. Jackson has dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men who are alleged to have fired on U.S. naval warships on the Indian Ocean. Why? Because the attacks failed to ravage our vessels — indeed, they were captured and brought to Judge Jackson’s civilian court in Virginia. According to Judge Jackson (appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1993), to be prosecuted for piracy (under Section 1651 of the federal penal code), pirates have to succeed in carrying out a robbery on the high seas. If they try but we capture them, they can’t be charged.

Makes perfect sense, right?

What annoys me about the author of this article is he actually tries to excuse the judge - blaming his ruling on actions of the legislature that fell short of specifically describing an attempt as piracy. The argument is that if the legislature had been more specific, a judge seeking to subvert justice would not have had the room to do so. This is non sense. These corrupt judges will merely make up some different excuse to destroy justice. It is the judges who are corrupt.

What is very likely to happen is that this will become a precedent that will allow bank robbers who fail and rapists who are stopped and murderers whose victims survive to avoid justice as well. I mean if you try but fail, you haven't committed a crime, right? This judge said so.

Clearly this judge does not think these "poor Somalis" should be held accountable. After all we are a rich nation and we have not given them all the food and clothing and middle class comforts they deserve, so how can you charge them with a little thing like taking what they want by force?

There is no justice in America. The courts are corrupt.

California's Bumbler In A Black Robe

Editorial - August 17th, 2010 - Washington Examiner

Walker's decision is best read as an attempt to show that "judicial application of the rationality test can be a parody of intelligent analysis," according to constitutional law professor Robert F. Nagel. The decision contains, for example, a "finding of fact" that "religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." Walker is entitled to his own opinions about religious faith and the faithful, of course, but his clearly prejudicial reasoning exposes himself and the federal judiciary to parody and ridicule.

It appears lost on Walker that how he arrived at his decision is as important as the ruling itself. His lofty judgments on mankind, insolently cloaked as "fact," are suggestive of an arrogant political class that has no regard for voters.

Suggestive? I believe that America's 'ruling class' has left little doubt they hold the citizens of this nation in total contempt. "No regard" is as much of an understatement as "suggestive." What is sad is that it is nearly as accurate a summation of the attitude of conservative judges as it is of liberal judges. The entire judiciary is pretty arrogant and indifferent to the rights of the 'great unwashed' . They see themselves as ruling over our nation in a judicial oligarchy where they are the supreme power.

Constitutional Sovereignty: Will States Use It Or Lose It?

by Alan Keyes - August 6th, 2010 - World Net Daily

In a post published earlier this week at my website, I draw attention to and argue in support of the observation made in an article at Canada Free Press regarding the case challenging Arizona's immigration law. Bylined Publius Huldah, the article cites part of the above quoted language of the U.S. Constitution to make the point that the case must be heard and decided in the first instance by the Supreme Court of the United States. On Wednesday, I read a WND article reporting the views of two experts who disagree, asserting that "the full text of the constitutional provision needs to be noted, because it does not provide the Supreme Court with 'exclusive' original jurisdiction."

This assertion is demonstrably incorrect.

Alan Keyes debunks the progressive assertion that clear language in the Constitution can be misread to permit the legislature to overrule that very language.

This premise is key to the war against activist judges and their abuse of the social contract of our nation. The idea that lawyers and judges can decide, independent of a nation's citizens, what the social contract means is tyrannical. We are not a judicial oligarchy. Judges and lawyers cannot go off and construct a social contract of complex concepts subject to exclusive lawyer dominated litigation which they insist are beyond the grasp of the average citizen. Such a premise destroys the social contract and leaves no alternative but revolution and bloodshed to restore the people to their rightful place as supreme power in the land.

The Constitution is our social contract. It is a contract between the people, not between lawyers and judges. Progressives are arguing that if you disagree with their attempts to alter this contract they can use Alinsky techniques to call you an idiot for failing to accept their logic. Such ridicule is itself fueling the growing contempt for the 'ruling class' in Washington and the legal system which defends their power. It also fuels contempt for those among us (not me I assure you) who defend this arrogant 'ruling class'. This is the major element in the growing divisiveness in politics.

I currently hold no great hope for most elected Republican officials. They are often as accepting of the 'ruling class' logic as progressive Democrats. We are going to find out whether we are still a Constitutional Republic of free citizens or have become a mob dominated pure democracy of socialist tyranny. This showdown is fast approaching.

Michigan Man’s 24th Lawsuit Threatens Family Business

by Staff - December 2009 - Faces of Lawsuit Abuse

Richard & Dick Singer · Acra Cast, Inc. · Bay City, MI

In 2006, one the company’s neighbors – who had filed 23 previous lawsuits in the county – sued Acra Cast, the Singer family business. Acra Cast, with about 15 employees, is a small foundry, which designs and creates precision metal castings ranging from sculptures to machine parts. The plaintiff alleged that emissions from the foundry had contaminated his cars, his carpet, and the siding of his house.

Singer’s business has always been in full compliance with all environmental regulations. As the case proceeded, Singer learned that the plaintiff did not even own some of the cars for which he wanted compensation, and he had disposed of the carpets and cleaned the house siding before any evidence could be collected. From the samples they could collect, Singer explains that he and his lawyers eventually discovered that the gritty material on the plaintiff’s car could not have been caused by the wax burned at Acra Cast.

The web site where this article is posted is one of the most important sites on the Internet. It continuously exposes the American Court system for the corrupt hypocrisy it is. There is no protection for such frivolous lawsuits as the one described here because the courts want the legal fees that are extorted even when the final ruling proves the case was a joke.

In the last week, a case that (according to the Constitution) had to be tried in front of the Supreme Court as court of 'original jurisdiction' was allowed to be tried in front of a single federal district court judge. I am talking about the lawsuit by the ACLU and Attorney General Holder against the State of Arizona. Arizona is a state. The Constitution is clear. Trials involving states MUST be tried in the Supreme Court. Why does the Supreme Court do nothing about this?

Last year the bondholders of General Motors and Chrysler had their wealth seized and given to a politically favored union. Where was the Supreme Court? Why have they done nothing to fix this injustice?

The American court system is a complete sham. It has become a system of extortion and blackmail for lawyers, their corrupt clients and the corrupt judges who allow the injustice to continue. It is a left wing kangaroo court where favored constituencies destroy their enemies with illegal politically biased rulings that make a farce of the rule of law.

When will American citizens demand our court system be purged of these corrupt judges and returned to a system that embraces the rule of law?