I have researched court rulings on the constitution.
It seems though Congress and the President may pass and sign federal laws, any that are unconstitutional (like NDAA, FISA, a gun ban, etc) are in reality null and void. The constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and all states can easily nullify them. They already have that right, they just have to use it.
The courts, especially the Supreme Court has to rule by the constitution. They are required to hold the constitution up as the supreme law and then interpret any laws passed by Congress and the Senate using the Constitution as the standard of the law. They then can nullify federal laws as unconstitutional. The suits have to be filed and be heard by them of unconstitutional laws.
That means there is no way that the NDAA is in any form constitutional, even though the U.S. government wants to say it is for all the "domestic terrorist", which they think everyone of us are. This means spying on us without warrants and reading our emails and listening to our phone calls etc is completely unconstitutional. Needless to say arresting and holding a U.S. citizen without rights to a trial and so on are completely unconstitutional.
This also means that the state legislators need to have the balls to stand up for the citizens of their states and nullify all federal laws that do not abide and follow our constitution.
It seems they have been able to get by with all the unconstitutional laws due to all of our inactions and ignorance of the laws. That is what they have counted on and of course all those smart phones, T.V., etc keeps the people in "dumb down" mode.
I believe this gun grab may have been a catalyst to wake people up.
The point with this is... instead of getting ourselves worked up over what they have been doing, we simply need to stand up and give it back to them by the Supreme Law of the land that they can not change. Once we have the knowledge, we also have the power to stop it. We just have to do it smart without violence.
**Edit to add. After I did this article I found that others are writing about the same thing. Here is a great article from Market Ticker - Karl Denninger about our constitution and it being the Supreme Law of the land and over rules all other laws **
Here are links proving what I have said above:
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification, is the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional or exceeds Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.
- Despite the fact that the Court seemed to agree that Marbury was in the right, they ruled against him, because they found that they didn't have the power to hear the case.
- Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the court system and gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus.
- Although, to be honest, the Judiciary Act of 1789 should be read to say that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in mandamus cases. Most legal scholars feel that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the law. Section 13 talks about the Supreme Court's Appellate jurisdiction, so it's wrong to read that it gives original jurisdiction.
- However, Article III of the Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction only in cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, and those in which the state is a party". In all other cases, the Supreme Court only acts as an appellate court to 'inferior courts'.
- Article III is talking about representatives of foreign governments, not US Ambassadors and Ministers.
- Article III also has an exceptions clause which states, "...with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make." This can certainly be interpreted to mean that the Judiciary Act of 1789 augments Article III, as opposed to being in conflict with it.
- Therefore, the Court found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicts with the Constitution.
- The Court found that in cases of confliction, the Constitution, by right of it's being the basis for the entire government must take precedence. It is superior, paramount, and is unchangeable by ordinary means.
- Article VI could be read to show that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (aka the Supremacy Clause). Or, you can read it to just say that all laws passed previous to the Constitution no longer count.
- The Constitution is very clear on how it is to be changed (and it's purposefully hard). If Congress can unofficially change the Constitution through normal transitive legislative means, then what's the point of making it so hard to officially change the Constitution?
- The Court found that they have a duty to say what the law is. Therefore, the Supreme Court has the right to say that a law enacted by Congress (or anybody else) is invalid, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The judicial power of the US is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
- Since the Constitution is defined to be a supreme law, somebody has to take on the duty of striking down laws that conflict with the Constitution. And if that isn't the Supreme Court, then who? Court says, "Given the structure of the government, there must be someone whose job it is to say the legislature has done wrong... that power shall flow to the judiciary."
- So basically, the Court found that they were being asked to uphold two laws that were in conflict, one saying that they could issue a writ of mandamus and one saying they couldn't. Since the Constitution trumps any law Congress makes, the Court is forced to follow the Constitution and find that the conflicting law is not applicable (aka unconstitutional).
- So they told Marbury that even though he deserved a writ of mandamus they had no power to grant one.
- Ironically, the ruling significantly increased the power of the Supreme Court by ruling Congress had no right to increase their powers!
- This case established that Article III of the Constitution is the maximum jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Congress can't give them more powers by just passing a law.
- They would have to pass a Constitutional amendment in order to give the judiciary more powers.
- This case also established that the Supreme Court has authority for judicial review of legislative acts.
- This ruling gave one supposedly co-equal branch of government oversight over another co-equal branch of government!
What this fully means is that We the People of the United States can have the Federal Laws that are completely unconstitutional nullified. It is time for us to take actions. I don't know constitutional lawyers. Maybe someone who is reading this can pass it on to lawyers that are willing to stand up for the constitution. Also, I believe our military needs to start standing up to the oath they all took which is for the constitution and enemies that are foreign and domestic.
The enemies of this land are not the ones screaming and shouting about unconstitutional laws, the enemies are the ones who are committing treason and passing unconstitutional laws.
It is now time for us all to stand up on an intellectual basis and not a violent one. All we have to do is demand that our states rule and nullify by the constitution. If they will not we need to start filing in Federal Courts all across the land lawsuits against all the unconstitutional laws/bills passed by those who are in Washington D.C.
We need to do this through intelligence not through violence. We would never win being violent. The way to win is through what we already have we just have to start having it applied! No more fear! Stand up for what our rights are right now. The Supreme Law of the land is the Constitution!
LETS DO THIS THE SMART WAY AND LETS LIVE TO TELL ABOUT IT AND TO ENSURE WE HAVE A FREE COUNTRY FOR OUR CHILDREN!
ALSO WE CAN TAKE ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE AS HAVING DEBT AS MONEY AND HAVING A PRIVATE BANK AS THE RULING ENTITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL! IN FACT TAKING US OFF THE GOLD STANDARD WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Our 2nd amendment is there to protect us against a government that over steps it's bounds of our freedoms. Due to the government having bigger and badder weapons it is only correct that the U.S. citizens keep up with what could be used against us through tyranny.
I got an email this morning and I believe it makes a strong argument.
Here is the email I received:
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.
“I'm going to be putting forward a package and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it,” said Obama in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I'm going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”
Obama on Sunday repeated those calls and said he would meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisles to see action.
I'd like to get it done in the first year. I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden's task force is putting together as we speak. And so this is not something that I will be putting off."
But the push for heightened gun control will likely face tough political opposition, with the nation’s largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), saying they will oppose any new restrictions.
The group earlier this month held a press conference calling for national program to place armed guards in the nation’s schools, a move they said would be more effective at preventing future tragedies like Newtown.
Obama on Sunday said that he hoped to involve all “stakeholders” in the national debate over gun violence, but expressed unease with the NRA’s proposal.
“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” said the president.
Obama said that he expected even firearm owners to understand the need for new regulations in the wake of the Connecticut shooting.
OH.... here is a picture of the guards where Obama and the "elite" including the media personalities send their children to school in Washington D.C ....hhhmmm... is that the height of hypocrisy? 11 armed guards at that school!