IPFS News Link • Constitution
OPTIONS, ANYONE?
|
December 2, 2010
This article is only for those who care if the Constitution is being honored and obeyed by their elected officials. If you have little regard for our Constitution, and do not care if it is obeyed as written, then please skip this article. If, however, you care enough to want to know what you can do in defense of constitutional governance carried out in decency and good order, then read on. On Monday of this week, the Supreme Court of the United States entered the following orders: Case 10-560 Both cases were controversies involving subject matter critical to the primary governmental functions and intent of law set forth in the Constitution for the United States. Kerchner was defending his individual Right to a President that is a natural born citizen. Schulz was defending his individual Right to a government that does not give or lend public funds to private corporations for definitively private purposes (i.e., the $700 billion AIG and TARP financial bailouts), a power not inherent in the People, much less transferable or granted by the People to the Government. The Judicial Article III of the Constitution guarantees Kerchner and Schulz that the merits of their cases would be heard by the independent, federal courts (“the judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution ….”). However, the lower courts violated Article III, summarily dismissing the cases for “lack of standing,” on the (erroneous) ground that because the injuries to Kerchner and Schulz were no different from the injuries suffered by the rest of the people in the country, neither Schulz nor Kerchner’s Petitions to cure constitutional torts could proceed. By dismissing the cases on “lack of standing”, the courts essentially suggest that Kerchner and Schulz should have directed their Grievances to Congress - as if the issues raised were political questions and America was a pure democracy with rights granted by the will of the majority, rather than a Republic with unalienable, individual, Natural Rights, guaranteed by written Constitutions, enforceable through an independent Judiciary. Kerchner and Schulz had Petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to overrule and reverse the “no standing” rulings of the lower courts and send the cases back to the lower courts for a hearing on the merits of the constitutional challenges. In denying both Petitions for Certiorari and avoiding a judicial examination of the merits for no other discernable reason than political eagerness, the Supreme Court added a ruthless sneer to the Grievances. About all that can be said about the Kerchner and Schulz cases is we can add “presidential eligibility” and “corporate welfare” to the dung heap of other desecrations of our sacred Charters of Freedom, including but by no means limited to violations of the war, money, taxes, privacy, property, immigration, petition and sovereignty clauses -- all of which have been the subject of repeated Petitions and court challenges that have been either ignored by government officials or tersely dismissed by abuses of one judicial doctrine or another. Unfortunately, this leaves us – the People - with but one irrefutable conclusion: the Constitution is NOT now serving any meaningful purpose. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man and whim. The Constitution has become a mere menu of words, phrases and ideas which the government may choose to define or ignore at its sole will and discretion. The way the system is working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. Ignoring Article V’s prescriptions for orderly change, our elected and appointed officials are now doing whatever they think best, literally unrestrained by either the written words of the Law itself or the intent behind those words – i.e., the set of principles, prohibitions and mandates proclaimed to govern them – the Constitution for the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land. Rather than three independent, co-equal branches of
a highly-limited federal Government, each designed
to be a check and balance on the other two, keeping
them in their constitutional places, with the People
possessing the ultimate Power, we now suffer the
branches cooperating in decisions to deny the
People their creator-endowed, unalienable Rights to
life, Liberty, property and the pursuit of
happiness. OPTIONS, PLEASE! The following question is for those among us who know that the Constitution is a set of principles to govern the government and is all that stands between the People and oppression, who know what the Constitution has to say about such current events as war, money, taxes, privacy, property, illegal immigration, and sovereignty. What should a free People do when faced with the realization that their Constitution is being dishonored and disobeyed by their elected officials and judges, and that their creator-endowed Rights have been whittled away by elected servants who are taking over the house that the Founding Fathers designed “with reliance upon Divine Providence”? As a point of departure, to get the ideas flowing, we suggest a late January, 2011 Liberty Summit, in Washington D.C., attended in person by those with a proven passion for the Constitution, with the proceedings webcast, live. The attendees would also to be opinion leaders of fairly large groups of adherents. Their purpose would be to see if they could agree on the content of a Liberty Matrix and a course of action for the Free to restore constitutional governance. What say you? Please, please pass this message along. Our next update will detail the darkest and most outrageous example of the three branches having a secret share in a scheme to forbid the People from claiming and exercising their First Amendment Right to hold the government accountable to the Constitution. At the close of the next update we will
provide a web site where interested parties will be
able to post their comments regarding the
desirability of the suggested Liberty Summit. Stay tuned!
|
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Telegram
1 Comments in Response to OPTIONS, ANYONE?
Kerchner and Schultz "lack standing" because they work for the government. They are "federal personnel".
The proof in their wallets - "property of the SSA" (Social Security Administration) which "must be returned upon request" - is evidence of their "entitlement" to "retirement benefits under...(a)...retirement program of the Government of the United States"; an "entitlement" that defines them as "federal personnel".
As "employees", their "standing" would be in conflict with their Master's.