“There is no truth existing which I fear, or would
wish unknown to the whole world.” Thomas Jefferson
The concepts expressed on this web site are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1997 as applying to the Internet.
Table of Contents
NEW WORLD ORDER, UNITED NATIONS, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN SOVERIGNTY
Fair Use Notice
|CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Some Interesting and Important Cases
National ID Card/Driver’s and Other Licenses:
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago , 169 NE 221;
The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v Dulles, 357 US 116, 125;
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Federal court decision: “A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right.”—Murdock vx. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)
Supreme Court Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional.—Gollett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944).
Our God-given natural rights cannot be subverted by government:
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v U.S. 230F 486 at 489;
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v Cullen, 481 F 946 and,
“Where rights secured by the Constitution involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 491
Any government functionary may be held personally liable under the causes of action defined by 42 USC 1983 or Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents 403 US 388 (1971). Furthermore, if they act in a manner which is violative of clearly established constitutional rights, they are not immune from suit as an individual, Harlo vs. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 (1982)
Gun Free School Zones:
Lopez v. United States case involved a gun brought into a school “zone.” Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court:
“In the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense “for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V).
“The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress “[to] regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . .” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3″
Obama’s spirituality is largely private, but it’s influential, advisers say
Washington Post ^ | February 4, 2010 | Anne E. Kornblut
Posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:50:03 AM by Zakeet
Every morning, sometimes as early as 5:30 a.m., a short religious passage comes across President Obama’s BlackBerry, sent by one of his aides.
At other moments, Obama prays privately, his advisers said. And when he takes his family to Camp David on the weekends, a Navy chaplain ministers to them, with the daughters attending a form of Sunday school there.
More than a year into his presidency, Obama has not chosen a church in Washington, and has attended services just four times. No single figure has assumed the role of spiritual adviser — publicly, at least — or filled the vacancy created when Obama disavowed his former Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
When Obama appears at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on Thursday morning — a regular presidential ritual — it will mark the rare occasion when he puts religion in the foreground. In that appearance, he will discuss “the need for civility in the public square, and how Americans can work together in a spirit of goodwill,” a senior administration official said.
Yet close advisers to the president said the role of faith, while subtle, has been noticeable in and around the Obama White House. One senior official described the president as “a prayerful guy.” Another said that Obama has consulted religious leaders less often for his own personal guidance than for help walking through major public decisions — such as during the Afghanistan review process, when he sought advice on the ethical implications of war.
Using information gleaned from the blatantly set-up underwear bomber patsy Umar Abdul Muttalab, intelligence chiefs have assured us that their bosses will stage another terror attack in the U.S. within the next three to six months.
A Concurring Opinion For Secession, Part 1
Let us be clear on this: some of the most well-recognized intelligent and articulate statesmen and patriots throughout America’s history have advocated the right of States to secede from the union, both under the Articles of Confederation and United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 22: “[t]he doctrine of [secession] itself has had respectable advocates.” Likewise, Justice Joseph Story notes that the principles of secession represent the…….
- Prison Planet.com – http://www.prisonplanet.com -
The True State of the Union: We Have No Rights Whatsoever
Posted By admin On February 4, 2010 @ 5:20 am In Commentary | 3 Comments
Campaign For Liberty 
Thursday, February 4th, 2010
It has been almost a week since President Obama gave his first State of the Union address, and it has been analyzed from the left, right, center, front, and back. Of course, the speech is really about the performance of the federal government, particularly its wonderful accomplishments under the leadership of the sitting president. This is not peculiar to the Obama presidency. As far back as Jefferson, presidents have used the Constitutionally-mandated stump speech to do a little self-promotion, although what they promote has certainly changed quite dramatically.
However, if the speech is supposed to reflect the accomplishments of the federal government, then we should expect that it will contain specifics about how that government has fulfilled its purpose, which is, as we all know, to secure our rights. At least that’s what our founding document tells us. Therefore, if a president is going to do a little bragging about what a great job he has done, it would be logical to assume that we would hear particulars about the way in which he has secured our rights. Logic, however, has little to do with the machinations of leviathan.