Audio of My Friend asking Supreme Justice Scalia about Taxes at University of Tennessee. Scalia said "Perhaps you should Revolt" if it reaches a certain point.

Supreme Justice Scalia was here in Knoxville on April 15th 2014 to speak at the University of Tennessee for the annual Rose Lecture.  At the end of his speech he took questions.

One question has been covered by Fox news and other MSM outlets.  It was about high taxes, his answer is what has made the rounds, where even Rand Paul was asked about Scalia's answer on Fox news.

It just so happens it was a friend of mine from the Liberty movement is the one who asked Scalia the question.

He sent me the audio recording of his question and answer from Scalia, besides the exact transcript.   He also sent me the full lecture that Scalia did at UT, which he recorded.  I will put that on youtube too.

 Here are some of the Media's coverage of Scalia's answer for people to 'revolt' if they reach a certain point.

Washington - CBS article
Politics USA
Huffington Post
Christian Post


The transcript of what is being said is in the video as it is being said.

Most important case ever - DOJ is Arguing to the Supreme Court - UN Treaties Trumps U.S. Constitution. Arguing against U.S. Sovereignty would essentially hand the U.S. over to the UN

We have entered very dangerous grounds.  The case the DOJ (Department of Justice) is arguing to the Supreme Court would in effect take away the Sovereignty of the United States and our laws.

The U.S. government is trying to argue that UN Treaties trumps and over rules the Constitution of the United States.

I want everyone to think about this.  It is very serious.  If the DOJ wins this case, the United States would essentially be a nation  under the rulings and laws of the UN.

This is not a joke and this is a back door forming the New World Order under the United Nations.

We would no longer have the rights to our local and state laws including the rights to Bear Arms.

Remember John Kerry signed the UN small arms treaty, which the Congress was against.  But he did it anyway.

We have people in the government that are giving away the country and every single right and law, we the U.S. citizens believe we live under.

Portion from article:

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

If the UN at any time wanted to abolish our 3 levels of government that could happen too.  We could immediately go into a complete dictatorship without a Congress.

I would hope the Supreme Court realizes they too could lose their jobs.  The Supreme legals decisions could become the 'World Courts' compared to our Supreme court.

For those that don't know.  The U.S. handed over our national parks to the UN already, though people do not know this.  They are considered UN Biospheres and World Heritage Centers. 

Our Sovereignty as a nation literally is in the Supreme Courts hands right this moment, with this administration arguing against our Sovereignty as a Nation and against our Constitution! 


Besides that Here is Obama's "behind the scenes working on gun control" solution. He shut down the last lead smelter manufacturing business in the U.S. Now the Small Arms treaty makes even more sense... all ammo controlled shipped from one country to another. All ammo will have to be made outside the U.S. now.

http://www.libertyfederation.com/have_we_had_an_endrun_around_the_2nd_amendment


A case in front of the Supreme court in 1957 was  Reid v Covert where the Supreme Court first ruled against the Constitution in regards to a foreign treaty signed by the Senate.  But it was petitioned for a re-hearing and changed their ruling for the Constitution. 

I do not have full faith in the Supreme Court to rule for our Constitution at this time due to the direction this country has been headed for the past few decades.  If they always ruled for the Constitution, then we would have a dollar backed by Gold and the Federal Reserve would not exist.  

Rand Paul's Filibuster - Powerful. Revealed: George Bush tried to give Sovereignty of our courts to the UN. Damage Control in works.

I have gone to various websites of both the "left and right" and have read the comments about the Filibuster.

It is so sad to me that people are so divided and so blind, they will stand by their "man/party" and not the country as a whole and one.

Those who control have done an excellent job at getting people divided and hating one another due to their party lines.

I don't have a party line, I am neither left or right anymore.  I am independent.  I believe in the freedoms and our rights not in a party.  I believe in truth and all people are created equal.  I believe the power should be in the people's hands not the D.C. hands or two party hands.

Those on the left are standing by Obama and his rights to murder citizens with drones at his will.  Those on the right are trying to stop Obama and his drones.

I watched the filibuster until 11pm and it was still going on as I turned it off.  It was the most captivating T.V. in years.

I believe every U.S. citizen should listen to it.

Senator Cruz got up around 10:30 Pm and revealed some very interesting information I was not aware of previously.   Besides that he said "If the tables were turned and this was Bush wanting the power to kill people at will in the U.S. we would have a whole different dynamics happening here."

Think about that.   If it was Bush, all those that are defending Obama right now on the left would be yelling and screaming.  The right would be defending the drones.   Though Cruz did say, he believed Rand Paul would still be up there doing a filibuster as it is about our Constitution.

It was refreshing to hear an elected official actually Stand Up for the American People and the Country.  It was sad that other Republicans were having dinner out with Obama while someone of their "party" was standing up for the America our forefathers created of freedom and liberty.

It is sad that we don't have elected officials who do what is right for the people and don't give a sh** about the people or the country or our freedoms.   I sincerely believe that all the elected officials in D.C., except for a very few, don't do anything for us and our freedoms their jobs are now to take away our freedoms little by little but steadily.

Rand Paul would have stopped the filibuster if Obama would simply say "He would not use a drone to murder U.S. citizens that are not being combatants."

What Senator Cruz revealed regarding George W. Bush, is the fact that George Bush as President tried to subvert our state courts to the UN World Court. The case George Bush tried to have the UN world court take over the Texas State court is Medellin v. Texas, but it would affect all courts in the U.S.   The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they ruled Bush was unconstitutional in March of 2008.  Here is their ruling on the case. 

Here is the video starting at 10:30 min mark Cruz begins speaking about Bush and if the tables were turned with a republican in office wanting to fly drones, how the other side would be standing up. He starts to talk about the case Medellin v, Texas and what it involved. He mentions how the World Court tried to have the power over the case at the 13 min mark. He says 94 nations said the U.S. court was subject to the World Court and United Nations. At the 14 min mark is when he reveals Bush tried to subvert the State Court to the UN World court. It was the first time in history that any President had ever tried to assert a power no where in the Constitution. Listen to this.. to understand what the past Presidents have tried to do against the U.S. Sovereignty and the citizens.






My point is..... it does not matter the left or right in office.  They are all puppets and have all been undermining our Country's Sovereignty and Constitution for decades.  It will only happen if "We The People" allow it to happen.  They can not take away our rights, we can only "give up" our rights.  I personally will continue to Stand Up and I will not relinquish my Freedoms and Rights.

McCain needs to GO! What an Old man who is nothing but a tool for the NWO. He disrespected Rand Paul on the Senate floor the next day, by reading liberal rag newspapers opinions about Rand Paul's filibuster. Remember McCain is the one who stripped protection of the U.S. citizens from the NDAA bill.  McCain's last sentence in this video "Rand Paul made people believe they are in danger from their government and they are not."  What a laugh!  We are considered the enemy in the government's eyes!  That right there shows what a liar the man is.  I think they are all upset over Truth being revealed during the Filibuster!



McCain had dinner with Obama while Rand Paul was Standing Up for America and all the citizens. He was ignoring Rand Paul and obviously showing disrespect for him during the filibuster by having dinner with Obama. Since then he has come out a number of times criticizing Rand Paul. He was on Piers Morgan saying it was ridiculous about the drones and what Rand Paul did.

The tools are really working hard to try and cover what they are doing and damage control from Rand Paul's Liberty Stand for America and all the Citizens!

We have Constitutional Law on our side - We simply have to enforce the nullification of Unconstitutional Laws by Congress

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:

Supremacy Clause

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.^[2]

The First Supreme Court ruling declaring a federal law being unconstitutional was in 1803:

A portion of the ruling:

• 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:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. 

I am the man who keeps you free.

I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. 

I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

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.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

    FYI - Obama was on Meet the Press this morning 12/29/12, from my understanding  portions of what he said:

 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.

So he wants a bill passed immediately and he doesn't think armed guards in schools as the answer to the problem. 

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!

 

One other thing.  In Israel they arm the teachers.  Just as some states are looking at doing today.  Here is an article about that.

Supreme Court ruling of Washington State (Fraud) Foreclosure victims can sue the banks via "Consumer Protection Act"

A Supreme Court -Washington State ruling has now put MERS Fraudclosures in the line of fire for all previous fraudclosure victims.  

They can sue the banks for previous Fraudclosures through the "Consumer Protection Act."

The state Supreme Court yesterday called into question numerous foreclosures that have been done in this state, and opened the door for lawsuits by homeowners given the boot. Just how many foreclosures are we talking about? "Hundreds if not thousands," says Melissa Huelsman, a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Huelsman points to another aspect of the ruling that she finds highly significant. It opens the door for homeowners who have faced MERS foreclosures to sue under the state Consumer Protection Act. "Characterizing MERS as the beneficiary has the capacity to deceive," the justices opined, adding that homeowners would have to prove they were damaged.

 We need all the state courts of the U.S. to begin ruling correctly and rule by the law!

Another news bit.  It seems BOA is not holding up to the agreement they made with the AG's.  They are blocking homeowners from getting the relief they are suppose to get through that agreement.

Supreme Court Ruling For Obama Care - Another Tax on the People and Mandatory Chips in Everyone Upheld!

With the Supreme Court ruling this morning that Obamacare is legal and the mandate will stay, shows the Supreme Court ruled yet again for corporations.

The facts are, they ruled to make people give money to insurance companies and they ruled that the people are going to be Taxed on the mandate.  So we won't just have to give all we make to corporations but of course to the government too.  They seem to be where they don't want the people to have any left over money at all.  They want to keep the people as slaves to their taxation and corporation profits.

What I am concerned about also is the fact that in the Obamacare, every single citizen has to be chipped by March 30 2013.

I also have a question about this.

All those illegal immigrants who are not having to pay mandatory taxes and paying insurance corporations, are they still going to get free medical care?  What will be put in place to make sure they pay?

We have now just gotten another nail in the coffin of the U.S.  and I don't believe there will be millions of Americans willing to go along with this.  Will this be the "straw that breaks the camel's back?"  in the form of people rising up and saying "Hell NO."


Are they going to come to houses with Swat teams if you refuse a chip?  I WILL NEVER GET CHIPPED!  Yet it is mandatory!

Supreme Court of Iceland convicts Two Bankers for the Collapse. Another banker yet to be put on Trial.

Don't cha just Love Iceland!  If only Greece, Spain and the other European countries would take Iceland's lead and put the Bankers on trial and tell the ECB to "F off" like Iceland did. 

The Supreme Court of Iceland convicted two bankers this week with regards to the collapse of Iceland. 

From article:

Managers of Byr Savings Bank Guilty in Exeter Case

The Supreme Court of Iceland convicted former CEO of Byr savings bank Ragnar Z. Guðjónsson and former chairman of the bank’s board Jón Þorsteinn Jónsson for breach of trust in the so-called Exeter case yesterday—thereby reversing an earlier verdict of Reykjavík District Court—and gave both of them a four-and-a-half year non-suspended prison sentence.

These are the longest sentences that have ever been announced because of economic crimes in Iceland, Fréttablaðið reports.
The case of the third defendant, former CEO of MP Bank Styrmir Þór Bragason, was referred back to the district court.
This is the second verdict announced by the Supreme Court in cases filed by the Special Prosecutor’s Office in connection with the 2008 banking collapse.
The first verdict was announced over former undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance, Baldur Guðlaugsson, who was sentenced to two years in prison for insider trading.
In both cases the prosecutor’s demands of maximum punishment were agreed to.
The Exeter case involves a more than ISK 1 billion (USD 7.7 million, EUR 6.2 million) loan that Byr granted to Exeter Holding during the banking collapse to buy founders’ capital shares in Byr from select parties, including Jón Þorsteinn and a company owned by Ragnar and MP Bank.
Thus, the total risk of the collapsing value of the founders’ capital shares was shifted to Byr. Ragnar and Jón Þorsteinn are said to have decided to grant the loan to Exeter Holding in violation of the savings bank’s regulations.
Reykjavík District Court had determined that Ragnar had been authorized to violate the regulations and didn’t consider it proven that his intention had been to cause Byr financial damage.
One district court judge submitted a dissenting opinion, concluding that both Jón Þorsteinn and Ragnar should be convicted but Styrmir acquitted. Styrmir was charged with having been party to the others’ violations in addition to money laundering.
Because the district court didn’t take a position on Styrmir’s part in the violations, the Supreme Court decided to refer his case back to Reykjavík District Court.
Prosecutor Björn Þorvaldsson said he had expected the district court’s verdict to be reversed. “It is a very clear and concise verdict and it will likely affect other cases involving similar loans.”
Click here to read more about the Exeter case and here to read about a similar case that is ongoing.

ESA

One case linked at the bottom goes to this article about insider trading, in that a banker knew what was coming and sold off his shares months before the collapse:

From Article:

A charge was filed on suspicion of internal trade at Glitnir Bank at Reykjanes District Court on Monday. It is the second case of this kind taken to court by the Special Prosecutor’s Office since the banking collapse in 2008.

According to the charge, Friðfinnur Ragnar Sigurðsson, a former middle-manager at Glitnir, sold his shares in the bank for almost ISK 20.2 million (USD 156,000, EUR 125,000) in March, April and September 2008, in all cases while having access to insider information on the bank’s poor liquidity position, Fréttablaðið reports.
Friðfinnur is said to have had access to the information through his position at the bank, which he mainly obtained through a number of emails from his coworkers where the bank’s liquidity position was discussed.
Friðfinnur maintained his innocence before the court.

The other internal trading case launched by the Special Prosecutor ended with conviction of former undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance, Baldur Guðlaugsson, in February. He has now appealed his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Now - All other countries should be putting the Bankers On Trial for all the Fraud they are committing upon the people of the world.  But I won't hold my breath because the bankers actually rule all the governments of the world, except for Iceland.