1) from patriotupdate.com: 'Concealed Weapon Law Tossed By Fed Appeals Court' - Feb. 13 - orig. posted on foxnews.com
kibitzer3 • a minute ago (Feb. 14)
Excellent majority decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
There's hope yet for the nation, under the Constitution's rule of law. Not under the rule of men.
Kenyan Mocker • an hour ago (just gone Feb. 14)
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
- kibitzer3 Kenyan Mocker • a few seconds ago (early Feb. 14)
- Or a constitutionally ineligible candidate holding an office, which by definition he is not entitled to hold. Thus, all the actions that BHO has taken and will take while illegally in the presidential office - all the legislation that he signed into law, all the executive orders he issued and all the executive actions he took, including appointments (including to the SCOTUS) - are null and void.
And with his removal from that office - and with the incarceration of all those responsible for his illegal occupancy thereof; which includes the Vice President and the Democrat Nominating Convention Chairman - we get back to the rule of law in this country.
2) from politicaloutcast.com: 'GOP Had To Cave On Debt Limit So Now Crisis Draws Near'- Mark Horne - Feb. 13
battle • 17 hours ago
This is a problem that will only be fixed by martial law. The Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they dont by the media. The media's lies need to be stopped.
- Clint battle • 14 hours ago
- I think what you are talking about is a "coup" not martial law.
battle Clint • 14 hours ago
- I'm suggesting that the elites are creating a situation that will enable them to order martial law
- Clint battle • 10 hours ago (Feb. 13)
- I don't think we need to quibble. My understanding is, those in power (Administration) would be the ones to declare martial law, suspending the rights and freedom of Americans and that certainly would not fix our problems in the nation. If the citizens rose up in rebellion and had enough power to overthrow the Administration and oust them, that would begin to right this ship of state and that would be a "Coup".
kibitzer3 Clint • a few seconds ago (Feb. 14)
- It doesn't have to be. Obama is illegally occupying the presidential office. (Is not a natural born citizen; which category needs to be born of two U.S. citizen parents. We have been hijacked.) It would be a righting of the ship of state to remove him from office.
Since the military are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders, they should be the ones to remove their faux Commander in Chief, before he does any more damage to the Republic. That's not a coup.
They could even do it in conjunction with the Constitutional Sheriffs & Police Officers Association.
…and to prove that I'm not after just the Obama hijacker:
John Lear is the highly experienced pilot son of the inventor of the Lear Jet, who, in this affidavit to a court case, proves that there could not have been jet airliners involved in the 9/11 false flag op. This puts the NeoCon administration of George W. Bush right in the sights of those looking for the whole truth about that atrocity:
my post on the Comments thread:
kibitzer3 on February 14, 2014 at 5:41 AM said:
Thanks much for posting this, slider1313.