Replies

You may think it’s unconstitutional, and I may think it’s unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. So unless you are advocating an overthrow of the government, stamping your feet and yelling is about all you can do

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court authority over the Constitution. In fact the Supreme Court's constitutional authority is VERY limited - only individual cases and controversies (Art III, Sec 2). The power of a Supreme Court decision reaches only the parties in the individual case and any other parties whose case has the same questions of law and facts. As we all know, or should know, the Supreme Court simply is not constitutionally authorized to legislate from the bench or make national law. National law is expressly reserved by the Constitution for Congress.

But Congress is bound by the Constitution as well. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which are made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land (Art VI, Cl 2 - the "Supremacy Clause").

This means that if Congress does not legislate according to and within the confines of the Constitution, then their legislation is NOT the law of the land. What then? The Constitution is silent. But to those whose hearts are for the rule of law of the Constitution could reasonably infer a right of any federal branch to call out an unconstitutional federal act. There is no constitutional "judicial supremacy".

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment X.

The tenth amendment confirms that any power not delegated to the feds by the Constitution or prohibited to the states belong to the states and the people of those states. So any federal act that is clearly assumes unconstitutional power (there are many) are ACTUALLY powers of the states. So constitutional state sovereignty confirmed by the tenth amendment includes nullification and voiding unconstitutional federal acts because those acts impinge upon the constitutional powers of the states.

It shouldn't be a question of "if" but of "how" to validly and reasonably challenge unconstitutional federal acts either by another federal branch or by a state. I have suggested one way to do it. If you can build on that or have a better way, great. But most of the Supreme Court decisions in the last 50-75 years have not been constitutionally based and the Constitution does not mandate that we must live with that.

Our FORM government is a Constitutional Republic. It rests upon the supremacy of the Constitution as the law of the land. Overthrow is being advocated and implemented by those in governmental POSITIONS who daily ignore and erode the Constitution, and therefore, overthrow of our form of government. This is advocating the overthrow of those people and acts that repeatedly and wantonly violate our Constitution. This is defending our government against those IN governmental positions who want to overthrow our form of government.

Challenging an act of a government official or officials with clear and convincing constitutionally-based reasoning is not overthrowing our government. It is defending our government against the corruption and treason of twisting or voiding the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.

Roberts is a tin horned dictator who should have been impeached within the hour. He has brought nothing but disgrace, shame, and disrepute on the court.