There comes a time when it is apparent that there is no longer a rule of law in a state, or a nation. That time usually occurs right about when a law that is in the process of being passed, and in fact passes one house of a legislature by a 28-2 margin, and it then magically "disappears" without being considered by the other house and is replaced with something entirely unrelated.
When that happens within a State, it is then incumbent upon The Federal Government under Article IV of the Constitution to immediately intervene:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Should The United States Federal Government fail to do so, it will have, by its refusal, admitted complicity after the fact. That is, The United States no longer has a functioning Constitution nor does it follow the Rule of Law - by its own hand.
It is not an accident, I'm sure, that the bill in question in Arizona would have simply required that anyone foreclosing on a home prove that they are in fact the lawful owner of the debt in question and therefore that they have the right to foreclose. That this bill, which was clearly by the vote in their Senate about to become law, was deemed "unacceptable" by certain people who have not been identified is further proof that we no longer live in a Republic, and that neither Arizona or the United States has a functional Constitution - or the Rule of Law.
Update: The original sponsor of this bill, Ms. Michele Reagan, was sued in 2010 by her lender over her mortgage when she tried to find out who actually owned it. It appears that in order for a "Striker" amendment to be passed in Arizona the sponsor of the bill must concur. Therefore, the obvious questions arise: Is Ms. Reagan still being sued, was the case previously settled, and is there a quid-pro-quo - or perhaps even something more overt - going on here?
Why would a lawmaker who was sued for simply trying to find out who actually owns their mortgage drop a bill that would require documentation of ownership before foreclosure?
I smell a big, fat, stinking rat.
Join us on our
Share this page with your friends
on your favorite social network: