Thread: Obama/Pelosi: Screw consent of the governed when it comes to

Originally Posted by johnwk

This is absolutely amazing! Such an important issue and such little interest across the nation. Seems that a large number of Americans are comfortable keeping silent and have no problem with the federal government entering their State and assuming a despotic and absolute regulatory power not authorized by our federal Constitution.

I wish more people would learn what law truly is. I know that common knowledge is a big issue in Tort law (my field). But common knowledge of "knew or should have known..." thinking is that the government and law is for and protecting the people.

I was in shock when I learned (around 1982) that judges cannot rule on their knowledge but must rule on what is presented to them. Even if they know it to be wrong! It makes no common sense...they are judges and should be able to rule on their superior knowledge. Why have a superior court if there is no superior logic and knowledge of law... All you do is sharpen your act in lower courts for a win or an appeal to the next court. Welcome to Orly Taitz world.

I was further stupefied when a judge called me to the bench...right after I got my ass handed to me Pro Se...and said "...if it matters to you and I know that it does...morally you won your case hands down. But in a public court right and wrong do not matter. You left me with nothing to protect you. Now please...never come into my court again this unprepared." He was mad at me for losing! This was the beginning of my legalese training in case law.

Today I think that people have no clue as to what has and is happening to the Constitution. I think common knowledge is that the Constitution must be...at least for the most part...still in rule and force. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

When you study the old original Tort law books they read like a bible in there protection intent of the public. Now it is a maze of legalese to protect corporations. It takes a team of Attorneys to decipher what the books say now.


How can this message be adequately and quickly shown or taught to the normal populous who blindly disbelieve.

This vid will shake you to your roots.
UNITED STATES is a Corporation - There are Two Constitutions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

I appreciate reading this all.

Psalms 91

So do I...powerful string...

What I don't understand is that Presidential order #11110 is still active. So why is it not being utilized? Was it because the author was shot?

The Feds do not need to be disbanded or shut down. They are a legal banking corporation. The USA just needs to pull its account.

This has been attempted a few times by Lincoln and Kennedy. We know the outcome.

Many do not know that all the silver certificates were printed in the Kennedy admin days.


President Kennedy, The Fed

And Executive Order 11110
From APFN By Cedric X 11-20-3

Web site: http://www.rense.com/general44/exec.htm :

Executive Order 11110 gave the US the ability to create its own money backed by silver. …
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/…..r11110.htm

Kennedy Executive Order 11110 ***NEW HIDDEN TRUTH***:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWWO-FZKscY

The Speech That got Kennedy Shot? (Guess who he was talking about…I give you a guess…it starts with an F…)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWm05l5X ... re=related



Please share with others…

If this federal health insurance bill is approved of by Congress an injunction which puts the Act on hold can be filed in Court upon the President’s singing of the Act. Considering the far reaching effects of the Act and the countless constitutional issues involved, a few I have touched upon, the issuance of an immediate injunction should be no problem to obtain. If the court refuses to grant an injunction, then it’s time for the real men in this country to give their wife and kids a big hug and pay a visit to Washington and take back their country.

In addition, every single member in Congress who votes in favor of this subjugation of our Constitution, needs to be voted out of office and when returned home, must be punished for their un-American assault upon our system of government, especially their failure to obtain consent of the governed to exercise a new power as outlined under Article V --- no appropriate punishment to be left off the table befitting a domestic enemy!

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

Thanks johnwk. I keep calling my non-representing- representative and asking is it constitutional? So far no luck, just form letters with no mention of the Constitution.

Remember Linda Thompson?

Originally Posted by johnwk

If this federal health insurance bill is approved of by Congress an injunction which puts the Act on hold can be filed in Court upon the President’s singing of the Act. Considering the far reaching effects of the Act and the countless constitutional issues involved, a few I have touched upon, the issuance of an immediate injunction should be no problem to obtain. If the court refuses to grant an injunction, then it’s time for the real men in this country to give their wife and kids a big hug and pay a visit to Washington and take back their country.

In addition, every single member in Congress who votes in favor of this subjugation of our Constitution, needs to be voted out of office and when returned home, must be punished for their un-American assault upon our system of government, especially their failure to obtain consent of the governed to exercise a new power as outlined under Article V --- no appropriate punishment to be left off the table befitting a domestic enemy!

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

Who files the injunction and in what jurisdiction? I want to help out or at least lend my support.

I also think when a complaint is made it would be expedient to offer theory providing information pertaining to both constitutions. That would be an historic approach.

This vid will shake you to your roots.
UNITED STATES is a Corporation - There are Two Constitutions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0

Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist

Who files the injunction and in what jurisdiction? I want to help out or at least lend my support.

I also think when a complaint is made it would be expedient to offer theory providing information pertaining to both constitutions. That would be an historic approach.

In regard to the issuance of an injunction see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 1952


Obeying the Secretary's orders under protest, the companies brought proceedings against him in the District Court. Their complaints charged that the seizure was not authorized by an act of Congress or by any constitutional provisions. The District Court was asked to declare the orders of the President and the Secretary invalid and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining their enforcement. Opposing the motion for preliminary [p584] injunction, the United States asserted that a strike disrupting steel production for even a brief period would so endanger the wellbeing and safety of the Nation that the President had "inherent power" to do what he had done -- power "supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions." The Government also contended that, in any event, no preliminary injunction should be issued, because the companies had made no showing that their available legal remedies were inadequate or that their injuries from seizure would be irreparable. Holding against the Government on all points, the District Court, on April 30, issued a preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary from "continuing the seizure and possession of the plants . . . and from acting under the purported authority of Executive Order No. 10340." 103 F.Supp. 569. On the same day, the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's injunction. 90 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 197 F.2d 582. Deeming it best that the issues raised be promptly decided by this Court, we granted certiorari on May 3 and set the cause for argument on May 12. 343 U.S. 937.

And, in regard to some documented arguments with historical documentation see:

Steny Hoyer perpetuates lie about ``general welfare``

And

Pelosi: health care reform is regulating commerce!

JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon the federal government for its subsistence, (Obamacare) we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.

Some where around here I have seen that figure. So...

338,000,000,000,000 x10 (so add a zero)=

3,380,000,000,000,000 If my math is correct this is about 3 times the health care money that everyone is so freaked out over.

Is this right? I am not a math whiz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z0xtvSMvDQ

The creation of a federal insurance regulatory board to regulate insurance companies now regulated under State authority is one of the major cornerstones of ObamaCare and is intended to be used by our progressive domestic enemies to close down private insurance companies and force people into buying Obama’s insurance.

But Congress has not been granted any authority by the Constitution to enter the various united States and regulate the business activities of businesses granted corporate charters under State authority and who conduct their business activities in question within the State‘s borders.


The important case to recall is SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N et al. No. 354. , Decided June 5, 1944.

The pertinent question involved in the case revolved around the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and an insurance company conducting a substantial part of its business transactions across state lines, which was the specific subject matter under question and Congress regulating those transactions.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was intended to [b][i]“bring within the Act every person engaged in business whose activities might restrain or monopolize commercial intercourse among the states.â€

I wonder what has inspired the Democrat Party leadership to suddenly want the Congress of the united States to have power to control the American People’s bodies.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a progressive majority vote in Congress!