This week's mainstream media news has been dominated by two sagas that have gone on...and on...
The arrest and continuing investigation in the death of Trayvon Martin, and the goings on in Colombia that has led to the resignations of several of Mr. Obama's Secret Service detail.
No surprise this is an election year. With these two cases also politically reported, for the most part, on all national cable and news stations.
The media spins and politicalization of the Trayvon Martin case is being used to propagandize and challenge American's Second Amendment rights, and also a law passed in the Florida legislature upholding the common law and a citizens right to bear arms and protect his life and property.
This case continues to be one of the fact that there were no clear eyewitnesses to what occurred, and only telephone conversations with both a girlfriend, and the 911 operators prior to the death of Mr. Martin.
It is also being used to facilitate the "hate crimes" legislation recently passed by the federal government - a law which makes basic human emotions when committing a crime also a crime in and of itself.
Not merely motivation at this point, but a crime for any American to have any ill feelings or act upon those feelings in any manner whatsoever a federal crime.
No matter what the origins or "mitigating circumstances" for that emotion might "justifiably" be.
I mean hate is wrong in and of itself. Humans definitely MUST NOT hate anything or anyone.
Although God was a little partial in his wisdom as far as his tolerance levels.
He definitely did have a bottom line.
It is a criminal matter to hate based upon gender, race or sexual preference.
Of course, legislating emotions is now also within the purview of "the State."
Not simply any crimes which may be committed upon those emotions as evidence of motivation.
The handling of this case also bears a great deal of scrutiny and questioning.
The Fifth Amendment provides:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Where is the Grand Jury indictment here?
Well, the prosecutor decided to petition the court in order to have a "bench indictment" issued in this case, bypassing the Grand Jury (or people) of the State of Florida.
Of course, this will also drag out the case for months, or possibly years...since all those motions and bail hearings and other legal maneuvers can now be ruled upon and sanctioned merely by a judge.
When a Grand Jury would be charged with determining whether or not there was enough evidence to even bring Mr. Zimmerman to trial, thus saving the taxpayers the costs of a trial if it was determined by the Grand Jury that there wasn't.
I understand and can empathize with Mr. Martin's parents...truly...to loose a child in such a way in any circumstances must be devastating for them.
But we have a Constitutional process here that, for all intents and purposes, is being ignored which is also feeding the media frenzy, not to negate the efforts of Mr. Sharpton also to get his face time before the cameras, rather than simply calling for the "will of the people" in the proscribed manner to be carried out here.
And I continue to wonder...just why is it that so many of these highly publicized and high profile crimes or incidents seem to happen in Florida?
As far as the second story, what happened in Colombia obviously isn't going to remain in Colombia.
Nor should it.
I just wonder why Mr. Obama was in Colombia to begin with...since we do have a Secretary of State and ambassadors to handle all those global conferences that seem to increase by the year.
Tune in next week.
I'm sure it will be more of the same.
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Madoff Suicide Highlights U.S. Criminal Justice System Gone Awry
The recent headlined news story of the apparent suicide of Mark Madoff, the son of Wall Street wheeler dealer Bernie Madoff who is now serving a 150 year prison term in North Carolina for securities fraud, serves to remind many Americans of a U.S. criminal justice system gone astray.
A tragedy, and one in which the media and government most likely had a hand in this young man's fall, although the complete details and coroner's report has yet to be revealed.
Mr. Madoff senior bilked thousands of investors in his Ponzie scheme of a great deal of their wealth, from all reports, and was the mastermind of the scam and whose actions and activities were actually reported to authorities by his very own sons, although little has been revealed insofar as whether there was pressure also exerted on them to so do from governmental sources prior to his arrest.
Mark Madoff, from all reports, profited from his father's schemes, and was thus also then in the end targeted for investigation even after having been instrumental in his father's conviction.
The comments on most of the websites by the public have not been sympathetic, to say the least.
Which just goes to prove just how many in this country have truly lost their way in their understanding of the intent of our founders with respect to crimes such as these, which although heinous for the absolute thievery which occurred has not been adjudicated according to the "common law" provisions behind our criminal justice system in "letting the punishment fit the crimes," and in the government acting on behalf of the victims and not its self-serving ends since the punishments in so many crimes at both the criminal and civil levels are now statutory determined, rather than determined by juries of American citizen's peers.
The Madoff's, and all who profited from such schemes in this writer's view should have been henceforth precluded from ever serving in any fiduciary capacity with respect to other people's money from this day forward, and the spoils of their crimes seized and redistributed with interest to the victims of their greed and avarice.
Not the taxpayers having to now pay to jail and house Mr. Madoff in federal prison, and his son then "investigated" for the past several years, rather than concentrating on the crime itself and its victims and all parties' right to justice in a criminal fraud action, although by its very nature investing in Wall Street or the stock market clearly are risky ventures at best due to its "global" focus and composition again contrary to the intent of those founders for a "sovereign" U.S. economy.
Justice would mean recompense and precluding the perpetrators from ever being placed in such a position of trust and temptation ever again - since by their own actions proved through the "evidence" that their positions of trust were criminally abused.
Having to seek work in this now depressed U.S. economy in other fields of endeavor outside the financial sector, and losing all that they have gained at the expense of others with punitive damages added due to the nature of their crimes would have been the "legal" and "lawful" punishment called for.
Not years and years of "investigation," and subsequent media hounding - or innuendo without due process.
It was reported that Mark Madoff was found dead with his two year old child and his dog in the home where his body was discovered, with his true guilt or innocense still left undetermined although purportedly was still living a rather lavish lifestyle as a former employee of one of his father's commercial ventures, with authorities alerted by his wife who lived in another state and who had petitioned the court for a change of name for she and their son due to the continued ramifications of the crimes committed by Mark Madoff's father.
The press has been unforgiving. And the American public, most of whom were not even directly impacted by the senior Madoff's activities, just as unforgiving and brutal, although fundamentally all Americans have been impacted by the loosey goosey federal government's oversight of the Wall Street banks, bankers and profiteers.
Which governmental policies and practices in sufficient oversight of these Wall Street profiteers have remained for the most part unchanged fundamentally even since Bernie Madoff's arrest, and conviction.
Wake up, Washington. A two year old has just lost his father, and there is another Bernie Madoff trading his grandchild's future for a yacht.
Or just maybe, eventually, THIS grandchild might.
A tragedy, and one in which the media and government most likely had a hand in this young man's fall, although the complete details and coroner's report has yet to be revealed.
Mr. Madoff senior bilked thousands of investors in his Ponzie scheme of a great deal of their wealth, from all reports, and was the mastermind of the scam and whose actions and activities were actually reported to authorities by his very own sons, although little has been revealed insofar as whether there was pressure also exerted on them to so do from governmental sources prior to his arrest.
Mark Madoff, from all reports, profited from his father's schemes, and was thus also then in the end targeted for investigation even after having been instrumental in his father's conviction.
The comments on most of the websites by the public have not been sympathetic, to say the least.
Which just goes to prove just how many in this country have truly lost their way in their understanding of the intent of our founders with respect to crimes such as these, which although heinous for the absolute thievery which occurred has not been adjudicated according to the "common law" provisions behind our criminal justice system in "letting the punishment fit the crimes," and in the government acting on behalf of the victims and not its self-serving ends since the punishments in so many crimes at both the criminal and civil levels are now statutory determined, rather than determined by juries of American citizen's peers.
The Madoff's, and all who profited from such schemes in this writer's view should have been henceforth precluded from ever serving in any fiduciary capacity with respect to other people's money from this day forward, and the spoils of their crimes seized and redistributed with interest to the victims of their greed and avarice.
Not the taxpayers having to now pay to jail and house Mr. Madoff in federal prison, and his son then "investigated" for the past several years, rather than concentrating on the crime itself and its victims and all parties' right to justice in a criminal fraud action, although by its very nature investing in Wall Street or the stock market clearly are risky ventures at best due to its "global" focus and composition again contrary to the intent of those founders for a "sovereign" U.S. economy.
Justice would mean recompense and precluding the perpetrators from ever being placed in such a position of trust and temptation ever again - since by their own actions proved through the "evidence" that their positions of trust were criminally abused.
Having to seek work in this now depressed U.S. economy in other fields of endeavor outside the financial sector, and losing all that they have gained at the expense of others with punitive damages added due to the nature of their crimes would have been the "legal" and "lawful" punishment called for.
Not years and years of "investigation," and subsequent media hounding - or innuendo without due process.
It was reported that Mark Madoff was found dead with his two year old child and his dog in the home where his body was discovered, with his true guilt or innocense still left undetermined although purportedly was still living a rather lavish lifestyle as a former employee of one of his father's commercial ventures, with authorities alerted by his wife who lived in another state and who had petitioned the court for a change of name for she and their son due to the continued ramifications of the crimes committed by Mark Madoff's father.
The press has been unforgiving. And the American public, most of whom were not even directly impacted by the senior Madoff's activities, just as unforgiving and brutal, although fundamentally all Americans have been impacted by the loosey goosey federal government's oversight of the Wall Street banks, bankers and profiteers.
Which governmental policies and practices in sufficient oversight of these Wall Street profiteers have remained for the most part unchanged fundamentally even since Bernie Madoff's arrest, and conviction.
Wake up, Washington. A two year old has just lost his father, and there is another Bernie Madoff trading his grandchild's future for a yacht.
Or just maybe, eventually, THIS grandchild might.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Luis Ramirez Case Demonstrates Criminal Justice System Gone Awry
The highly publicized ongoing "hate crimes" case in the death of Luis Ramirez at the hands of a group of white American football players/teenagers in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, a mostly blue-color small town northwest of Philadelphia, appears to this writer to demonstrate how the American criminal justice system has truly lost its way.
Primarily also due to the inconsistent reporting also that has occurred throughout the nation on the case.
With the first inconsistency being just whether or not the victim was a 25 year old American citizen of Mexican descent, or an illegal immigrant.
Sources in the news media have portrayed him as both, and his initial trial was in state court in which the teens involved were convicted of criminal assault in the beating death of Mr. Ramirez, who they encountered in a park where the victim was out with his 15 year old girlfriend late one evening.
Apparently, the group of teens had had too much to drink and were spoiling for a fight, and from all reports insults were hurled prior to the eventual encounter in both directions. I wonder if the proprietor of the establishment who sold those kids the alcohol has also been brought up on charges, since they were, after all, 16 and 17 at the time of this incident and apparently it occurred after a football game.
The teens were also charged with "ethnic intimidation" under state laws at the time of their trials, but apparently those charges were either dismissed or they were found not guilty on those counts.
Much, of course, has been made that an "all white" jury was involved in the state action, and apparently there are also charges that local authorities were involved in some cover-up of the investigation then thereafter, some of whom are scheduled to be brought up on those charges at some later point in time (although this incident occurred more than two years ago).
The community, of course, has been adversely impacted as this is a town that is a magnet for the claimed "Hispanic community" due to the draw of jobs in the agricultural and industrial (factory) sectors. Of course, Pennsylvania's major industrues are in the coal/steel/industrial sector, with many during this recession also hard hit and out of work.
The uncertainty of this young man's immigration status as reported in the media does bear scrutiny as the prosecution in the subsequent federal case has also inconsisgtently been reported as under the "hate crimes" bill recently signed by Congress (about the same time as this incident occurred, it appears, but that also bears scrutiny). Even more strange is that the federal case is actually being prosecuted against the teens as a violation in affording the victim fair housing under the "Fair Housing Act."
Say, what?
Apparently, since the state dismissed the charges against the teens under the state provisions for "ethnic intimidation" the federal government is barred from then bringing an action under the "hate crimes" legislation passed in 2008, or it was an ex-post facto law in any event passed after this particular incident. Or to then proceed and charge the teens with violation of the federal Hate Crimes Act would, in effect, be double jeopardy since the state prosecutor or the jury had dismissed those charges at the state level.
But now prosecuting them under the "Fair Housing" Act?
MALDEF, a federally funded "educational" group, of course, is involved in the prosecution of the case. Another group that stands to benefit from any and all actions which can in any way be deemed a "civil rights" matter - apparently whether brought on behalf of an actual American citizen or not, since the status of this man's citizenship has been reported, at least in the Boston papers, as an "illegal immigrant."
Although one of the Washington news sources reports him as an "American, of Mexican descent."
But I guess if MALDEF is involved then he must be a Mexican-American. Or the federal statute providing for those legal fee awards makes no distinction, since the words "civil rights" are being used quite liberally by the federal prosecutors for this now Fair Housing case.
A tragic incident, and while the state has actually got the technicalities correct in at least the fact that "ethnicity" just may have been a factor, the federal government is using the "racial" discrimination label - when Hispanic is not actually a "race" at all any more than being of German, Irish or Russian descent.
I wonder when those cases will be brought under the Fair Housing Act?
Alcohol and teens do not mix, but then neither do hormones and teens.
When I was growing up in Arizona during even the grammar school years, the "big tree" outside the schoolyard was famous as the site where any and all fights between the pre-teen boys occurred. Although they were equally matched in most cases, at least one-on-one.
But instead of charges of "bullying" as would occur in any other such incident due to this young man being outnumbered at the outset, and by a group of high school teen football players at that, we are charging them under the Fair Housing Act, after they were already convicted of criminal assault?
It seems to me this new "hate crimes" legislation is going to result in an increase in our adolescent jail population also progressively, and of course our deficit for all those legal fees to all these special interest groups on the illegal immigrant gravy train, when if our borders were secured and then the immigration process also then simplified and made less costly for all those from poorer countries especially who wish to immigrate such cases as these just might also progressively decrease.
I just wonder also, will the ACLU be there for the next European-American young male who is beaten by some Mexican gang members in one of the border state neighborhoods in order to protect their civil rights?
I guess that question is rather rhetorical, since the Fair Housing Act doesn't apply to that "ethnic" group.
And with all the demonstrations and unrest that the illegal immigrant and border situation has resulted in these past few years, and actually since the Reagan amnesty in the 1980's as reported in the media night after night, and being used by the politicians for political purposes most of all each and every election, and in this ever spiraling economic tsunami with more and more Americans continuing to be homeless and jobless by the month, is it any wonder that such a mentality would filter down to especially the adolescent males in a small mining town in Pennsylvania.
I mean, this does appear to be another case of federal negligence at the eventual cost of the public at large, and increasing the tensions over this issue.
This community, far from the border, it also has been reported has been "at war" ever since this incident took place.
Which does not excuse what obviously occured and the "mix" of the circumstances, alcohol, and hormones which eventually led to the death of this young man, but is it any wonder?
And call me somewhat a formerly "overprotective" mom of teens, but just what was this 25 year old young man doing with a 15 year old girl out in a park late at night anyway who it was reported also was a father and had children?
The Fair Housing Act violations seem a stretch, since I wonder if those teens even knew about the Fair Housing Act.
And I wonder what MALDEF's bill will be eventually for this one, since there is also a "Justice" Department lawyer involved in prosecuting this case?
Primarily also due to the inconsistent reporting also that has occurred throughout the nation on the case.
With the first inconsistency being just whether or not the victim was a 25 year old American citizen of Mexican descent, or an illegal immigrant.
Sources in the news media have portrayed him as both, and his initial trial was in state court in which the teens involved were convicted of criminal assault in the beating death of Mr. Ramirez, who they encountered in a park where the victim was out with his 15 year old girlfriend late one evening.
Apparently, the group of teens had had too much to drink and were spoiling for a fight, and from all reports insults were hurled prior to the eventual encounter in both directions. I wonder if the proprietor of the establishment who sold those kids the alcohol has also been brought up on charges, since they were, after all, 16 and 17 at the time of this incident and apparently it occurred after a football game.
The teens were also charged with "ethnic intimidation" under state laws at the time of their trials, but apparently those charges were either dismissed or they were found not guilty on those counts.
Much, of course, has been made that an "all white" jury was involved in the state action, and apparently there are also charges that local authorities were involved in some cover-up of the investigation then thereafter, some of whom are scheduled to be brought up on those charges at some later point in time (although this incident occurred more than two years ago).
The community, of course, has been adversely impacted as this is a town that is a magnet for the claimed "Hispanic community" due to the draw of jobs in the agricultural and industrial (factory) sectors. Of course, Pennsylvania's major industrues are in the coal/steel/industrial sector, with many during this recession also hard hit and out of work.
The uncertainty of this young man's immigration status as reported in the media does bear scrutiny as the prosecution in the subsequent federal case has also inconsisgtently been reported as under the "hate crimes" bill recently signed by Congress (about the same time as this incident occurred, it appears, but that also bears scrutiny). Even more strange is that the federal case is actually being prosecuted against the teens as a violation in affording the victim fair housing under the "Fair Housing Act."
Say, what?
Apparently, since the state dismissed the charges against the teens under the state provisions for "ethnic intimidation" the federal government is barred from then bringing an action under the "hate crimes" legislation passed in 2008, or it was an ex-post facto law in any event passed after this particular incident. Or to then proceed and charge the teens with violation of the federal Hate Crimes Act would, in effect, be double jeopardy since the state prosecutor or the jury had dismissed those charges at the state level.
But now prosecuting them under the "Fair Housing" Act?
MALDEF, a federally funded "educational" group, of course, is involved in the prosecution of the case. Another group that stands to benefit from any and all actions which can in any way be deemed a "civil rights" matter - apparently whether brought on behalf of an actual American citizen or not, since the status of this man's citizenship has been reported, at least in the Boston papers, as an "illegal immigrant."
Although one of the Washington news sources reports him as an "American, of Mexican descent."
But I guess if MALDEF is involved then he must be a Mexican-American. Or the federal statute providing for those legal fee awards makes no distinction, since the words "civil rights" are being used quite liberally by the federal prosecutors for this now Fair Housing case.
A tragic incident, and while the state has actually got the technicalities correct in at least the fact that "ethnicity" just may have been a factor, the federal government is using the "racial" discrimination label - when Hispanic is not actually a "race" at all any more than being of German, Irish or Russian descent.
I wonder when those cases will be brought under the Fair Housing Act?
Alcohol and teens do not mix, but then neither do hormones and teens.
When I was growing up in Arizona during even the grammar school years, the "big tree" outside the schoolyard was famous as the site where any and all fights between the pre-teen boys occurred. Although they were equally matched in most cases, at least one-on-one.
But instead of charges of "bullying" as would occur in any other such incident due to this young man being outnumbered at the outset, and by a group of high school teen football players at that, we are charging them under the Fair Housing Act, after they were already convicted of criminal assault?
It seems to me this new "hate crimes" legislation is going to result in an increase in our adolescent jail population also progressively, and of course our deficit for all those legal fees to all these special interest groups on the illegal immigrant gravy train, when if our borders were secured and then the immigration process also then simplified and made less costly for all those from poorer countries especially who wish to immigrate such cases as these just might also progressively decrease.
I just wonder also, will the ACLU be there for the next European-American young male who is beaten by some Mexican gang members in one of the border state neighborhoods in order to protect their civil rights?
I guess that question is rather rhetorical, since the Fair Housing Act doesn't apply to that "ethnic" group.
And with all the demonstrations and unrest that the illegal immigrant and border situation has resulted in these past few years, and actually since the Reagan amnesty in the 1980's as reported in the media night after night, and being used by the politicians for political purposes most of all each and every election, and in this ever spiraling economic tsunami with more and more Americans continuing to be homeless and jobless by the month, is it any wonder that such a mentality would filter down to especially the adolescent males in a small mining town in Pennsylvania.
I mean, this does appear to be another case of federal negligence at the eventual cost of the public at large, and increasing the tensions over this issue.
This community, far from the border, it also has been reported has been "at war" ever since this incident took place.
Which does not excuse what obviously occured and the "mix" of the circumstances, alcohol, and hormones which eventually led to the death of this young man, but is it any wonder?
And call me somewhat a formerly "overprotective" mom of teens, but just what was this 25 year old young man doing with a 15 year old girl out in a park late at night anyway who it was reported also was a father and had children?
The Fair Housing Act violations seem a stretch, since I wonder if those teens even knew about the Fair Housing Act.
And I wonder what MALDEF's bill will be eventually for this one, since there is also a "Justice" Department lawyer involved in prosecuting this case?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
NeoCon Lindsay Graham To Back Sotomayor Appointment
Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina, has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.
Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.
Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.
I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.
It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.
Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.
So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.
The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.
Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.
And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.
The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.
Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.
Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.
The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.
Between Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.
Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.
I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism. John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.
It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings. When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.
Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution. Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.
So the question was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as the Mr. Kyl's understanding of the "Rule of Law." Which it fundamentally is not.
The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it. Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.
Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering. None whatsoever. In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility. If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.
And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court. I beg to differ.
The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions. The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power in off the wall interpretations, even now in redefining the English languge, and inventing additional parties toit such as "corporate personhoods" almost before the ink was dried.
Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.
Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports. Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.
The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
U.S. Constitution is De Facto Law of the Land
Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is a contract between the federal and state government and it's people, and the defacto Law of the Land.
As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification."
As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
