THE CONSTITUTION, STARE DECISIS AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The Constitution specifically calls for officeholders to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

It is a judicial policy based on the belief that security and certainty require that accepted and established legal principle, under which rights may accrue, be recognized and followed, even though later found to be not legally sound.

The policy is to require lower courts to follow higher courts, which makes sense, and to encourage the highest court to stick with a mistake rather than to admit and correct it.

Would you want your physician to continue to treat you in a way that once was considered suitable but later was determined to be dangerous?

Should a person continue to smoke because he or she once decided to do so, or stop if possible, because he or she comes to believe that smoking is hazardous to his or her health and living longer is better?

here's the kicker. the constitution they are "supposed" to take an oath to is titled, "Constitution for the united States of America a.D. 1791". If you start checking oaths you will find they (they meaning so called public servants) take an oath to the "U.S. Constitution". Same one you say? If words have meanings then the answer can only be no. There are over 47 different constitutions published in federal law books. The million dollar question is "Which of the 47 different published constitutions have you taken an oath to, sir?" In addition, you will see most oaths worded, "I swear (or affirm) to support the U.S. Constitution to the best of my ability". BEST OF MY ABILITY? Perhaps my ability isn't too good on Wednesday but it is pretty good on Tuesday. Again, which of the 47 published constitutions are being sworn to? Also, look up the word "constitutor" in a good law dictionary or type it in on google - the answer may surprise you.

It simply is not clear that ANY Supreme Court judge presently sitting has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If they have not the decisions render are (or should be moot).

If there is assertion that any of the present Justices have been duly sworn, someone needs to provide documented proof. All I can find is that they took the "judicial oath" which does not require support or defense of the constitution. Further, If there is no proof available, and since such an oath (support and defend) is required by the Constitution Article VI, something is sorely wrong with the SCOTUS and all past decisions of the present justices.

http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Zhold/Correspondence/WhatOathTakenBySupremeCourtJustice.html

The Constitution for the united States of America talks about something called the "Supreme Court of the united States". the current one is titled, the "U.S. Supreme Court" The original organic 1791 Constitution for the united States of America speaks of the "Congress of the united States", today it is called the "U.S. Congress", or how about the "Treasury of the united States" vs. "Department of the Treasury" and on and on it goes down the rabbit hole, do you want the red pill or the blue pill? I know this steak isn't real but it sure tastes REAL (which version of reality are we talking about?????). It would appear that the "Congress of the united States" ceased to exist when the thirteen southern states seceded (or tried to secede) and the law books I read state that it is "sine die" (without day). There was no more quorum. In otherwords the "Congress of the united States" is extent. Lincoln reconvened a new government three days later and titled it "U.S. Congress" (take a guess what "U.S." means, according to the United States Style Manual printed by the United States Printing Office anything that is initialized means an acronym).

If we are to honor the Constitution as it presently exists, maybe we should enforce it's demand that all judicial officials take an oath to support the Constitution. It seems pretty clear to me that no sitting SCOTUS Justice has taken such an oath. Where does that leave us? With a SCOTUS having no perceived duty to defend the Constitution... It's no d@mn wonder they think they can re-write it's meaning. Whaddacountry! BTW, Lincoln is not favored in our household and that has nothing to do with his position regarding slavery.

How about "commonly accepted"? Obviously we are on different points. Most,I think, are willing to concede the version published to members of congress will do in a pinch. That version contains the operative Article VI that should control the oath of the Justices. Do any of your 47 versions omit Article VI? Do you have a view on whether the justices are duly sworn or not? Arguments that the whole government is improperly structured aren't going to make much headway in returning some modicum of justice to the country. It is what it is IMHO. Plus we (the south) lost "the war" so we must live with the government that Lincoln saddled us with. We can complain or try to make it better or just insist that it operate as it says it should.

I said 47 different published versions. Some researchers have located as many as 50 different published versions of the "U.S. Constitution". Article VI notwithstanding, which PUBLISHED version are they taking an oath to? When I step into court I require that they take an oath to the organic 1791 "Constitution for the united States of America" of which there is only ONE. If one penny is taken out of their pay checks they are NOT in compliance with the "Constitution for the united States of America" which states that the Judges Pay shall NOT be diminished.

In a nutshell they cannot and will not take an oath to the original organic "Constitution for the united States of America" due to the fact that it represented a republican form of government, something we lost a long time ago. The best they can do is pledge allegience to a defacto (not dejure) form of government. Quite simply stated the bare fact is this:

1. Fake Money
2. Fake Government
3. Fake People

Roosevelt declared it illegal to privately own gold (he called it "hoarding") thereby rendering it impossible to pay one's debts. Nixon took us off the gold standard (check the constitution, states no state shall make anything except gold or silver lawful payment of debt) which allowed the "paper" to float. Check out the definition of "Federal Reserve Note" and "Money" in Black's 6th Edition Law Dictionary. Under "Federal Reserve Note" the word MONEY is not to be found! Under Money, it states that money is not a "note". Therefore there is no "money" today. Pull that one dollar federal reserve note out of your pocket and ask an oldtimer this question. DOES THIS REPRESENT A LIABILITY OR AN ASSET? Thomas Jefferson always referred to the money, he said if you ever turn this country over to the central bankers you are finished. too bad he isn't around to see his prophecy come to pass. Look up "Federal Reserve" in the blue pages (government listings) of your local phone book. Can't be found because the "Federal Reserve" ain't federal and their sure as heck aren't any "reserves".

Charles, (member since August 5, 2005) you just aren't a happy camper are you? You need to come to grips with a reality you can hope to change. Welcome to Free Republic if your intent is to contribute and not to confuse the issue. You do know you live in a different world, right? To be happier here I suggest you focus on the issue of the thread and not try to revise history all at once. You have heard of amendments right? The 16th allowed taxes to be levied on ALL income...(including Justices). Have a nice day.

Fake people?...really, Charles..get some rest.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I somehow live in "another world". It appears that you believe that the 16th amendment applies to a branch of government that was supposed to be above reproach (nowadays the judiciary branch answers to another master, HE WHOSE BREAD I EAT HIS SONG I MUST SING). If I Pay you, who is your allegience to? The slave always answers to the master (the guy issuing the pay checks) NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THE FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE INTO THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE JUDGES PAY SHALL NOT BE DIMINISHED? If you don't understand that then I rest my case, there is no hope. As Benjamin Franklin came from the constitutional convention, one of the citizens asked, "What kind of government did you give us?" He replied, "A republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT". For a short time she was a republic until the powers that be got a hold of the ship and rearranged her into a democracy (mobocracy).

Alright then, welcome kids to Mr. Roger's neighborhood. Can you say "Republic"? Can you say "Democracy"? Do you know what the difference is?????

Historical Fact: Rome prospered as a republic and FELL as a democracy, study your history, we are following the Fall of the Roman Empire as if there was a script written for the U.S.

FACT: The Romans allowed foreigners to serve in their military. The foreigners then proceeded to kick their A**.

I live near one of the largest navy bases in the world so I am in touch with a lot of navy people. A young man who is a GERMAN CITIZEN and has NO DESIRE to become a citizen of this country served TWO years in the German Navy. The U.S. Navy is accepting him as a sailor in the UNITED STATES NAVY and he only has a VISA and NEVER intends to become a CITIZEN.

There are foreigners here on green cards who get better tax breaks (sometimes a five year moratoriam on business taxes) than you or I will EVER have. Many (the green card carriers) are attending our colleges and universities on UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PELL GRANTS with plans to return to their home countries after graduation. Alright, I am out of here, not to cast the pearls before the swine anymore.......

NOTE TO FORUM ADMINISTRATOR: PLEASE TERMINATE MY ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY - The admonition which is on the outside of a local library, "Read, Learn, Think, Do" is not followed within this forum. Whoops, where's my Blue Pill? I know this steak isn't real but it tastes so good!

Now that we are on the constitution, one more point. The constitution states that "All treaties which have been made and all treaties which SHALL be made shall be the supreme law of the land and EVERY judge in EVERY state shall be bound thereby." What is the net effect of this? One, the treaties with England which were in force and effect PRIOR to the ratification of the Constitution for the united States of America continue right up to this very day. Now for the good part. The U.S. Senate ruled that the 1941 treaty with the United Nations is currently the supreme law of the land. Think about it, this clause of the constitution actually allows a new treaty to SUPERCEDE the constitution ITSELF! When we signed up to be a protected country under the U.N. we surrendered sovereignty. The United States is no longer a sovereign country it is a sezrein (think I spelled that right, don't have my law dictionary handy) country. That is why today's military wear the United Nations emblem. We take orders from the guys in white. here's how I see it, the UNITED STATES, INC. has preferred shareholders of which are the U.N., the IMF and the World Bank. I could be all washed up on this, but evidence seems to indicate that this is how it is set up.

you are correct, it was the Charter with the U.N. that became the supreme law of the land. Witness this web site and read carefully as an expert talks about the U.S. relationship to the U.N.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0405-03.htm

that means the U.S. is subject to the whims of the U.N. under it's peace keeping doctrine. The U.S. Congress can no longer declare war.

Speaking at the U.N. Church Center last week, Ginger reminded civil society leaders that Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. constitution says that, ”A treaty is the supreme law of the land.”

”That means the mayor of New York City is GOVERNED by the U.N. Charter, which is a treaty,” she said (notice she doesn't say the mayor of New York is governed by the New York State Constitution OR the U.S. Constitution). ”That concept is not familiar to most conservatives. John Bolton (the ultra-nationalist nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador) surely doesn't understand it.”

John Bolton (the ultra-nationalist nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador) surely doesn't understand it.”

I don't know what Bolton understands and what he doesn't. I doubt that Ginger knows that either. If he is of the caliber of most of those who argued the 1787 Constitution, then he probably understands very well. In any case, the UN is a league of sorts without sovereign power, although there are those in the UN, and outside, who are trying to remedy the deficiency. If the UN acquires taxing authority as well as a self-administered military, then it will acquire sovereign power that same day. Such power cannot be a republic due to the vastness of the earth and the varied interests of the various peoples. Therefore, it must be a despotism, which however well it begins will degenerate into a common tyranny. This would not be tolerated for long, and the withdrawal of the US and other western states would commence immediately.

Look up Sovereign Immunity in Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition. It says that the Federal and State Governments have ALL surrendered sovereign immunity through the Tucker Act and various other acts. The state of Idaho's web site says that they set up "Division of Risk Management" because the State of Idaho is no longer sovereign. If a government is no longer sovereign then by logic they must be "subject to" something or someone else.

One other definition 1985 or earlier Funk and Wagnell's dictionary, definition of "Terrorism" and I paraphrase, "What a government does to it's citizens". Nuff said.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.