![[Shelbyville Times-Gazette]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
Shelbyville, Tennessee ~ Sunday, September 7, 2008
| Blogs | 
|
|
The Bill of Rights -- Amendment X
Posted Sunday, January 13, 2008, at 3:40 AM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Ok, this one is HUGE, even though it's the last of the Bill of Rights. This Amendment is about as straight-forward as it gets. If the Constitution did not give a power to the United States (federal government), nor specifically prohibit the individual states from having a power, then that is something that the individual state and/or the people have the right to make their own decisions on.
My apologies for being delayed in posting this one. This concludes my series on the Bill of Rights. I hope that it has enlightened some of you as to the rights that the founding fathers decided that YOU, as a citizen of the United States of America, should have. That these rights are granted not only for the good of this great nation, but for your protection FROM the government, and from tyranny. As a veteran, I have taken an oath (as every Soldier, Sailor, Marine, and Airman do upon enlistment or commission) to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you, as a CITIZEN are not aware of your rights, then you will not enjoy these rights. Please, for the sake of our nation, do not let anyone strip you of these rights. Thank you. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Health Care in the U.S.A.(59 ~ 10:50 PM, Aug 28)
Here's your sign...wait, where'd the sign go?
The House has solved all of our country's problems
Our tax dollars at work - your opinion?
Go VOTE!
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
How then, is our armed forces defending the Constitution when they didn't follow the necessary steps in the Consitituion to start this so-called war on terror? Thus making this war illegal, by way of the United States Constitution.
Thanks Thom for this series and thank you for your service to our country.
It's so sad to see so many people who are reaping the benefits of our wonderful nation, criticize it so vehemently.
But that's what's so great about the United States! Even those who hate it are allowed to stay here and say what they please, without fear that they'll be hauled off to prison or even worse, executed for treason!
What a great country - one that I love and am proud to call home!
But that's what's so great about the United States! Even those who hate it are allowed to stay here and say what they please, without fear that they'll be hauled off to prison or even worse, executed for treason!
What a great country - one that I love and am proud to call home!
-- Posted by puppydinks on Mon, Jan 14, 2008, at 1:22 PM
Don't bet on it, the Patriot Act pretty much makes everyone a terrorist..
By the way, it is the duty of the citizens to speak out when injustices are so frequent. I choose to speak out before it effects me, you'll be wishing you did when it starts to effect you.
How then, is our armed forces defending the Constitution when they didn't follow the necessary steps in the Consitituion to start this so-called war on terror? Thus making this war illegal, by way of the United States Constitution.
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 9:57 AM
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. (From Wikipedia)
So, since the current conflict was authorized by a Congressional Resolution, why is it not Constitutional? Not right or wrong - Constitutional?
When Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan, that is the function of the President. Then Congress is supposed to asked their state delegates etc to find out what the people thought of the idea.
The problem now is, they don't ask anymore, they just think that is what the people want and in reality, they are lazy.
I don't see any thing that references any approval beyond a Congressional vote. Taking these issues to the people would require a referendum.
devan,
Our delegates are supposed to be canvassing us with answers to those questions asked by congress.
devan,
The resolution passed by Congress states:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
This is not a declaration of war because it does not state whether we should go to war or not. It gives the president the power to go to war "as he determines". I don't believe the president has the authority under the Constitution to make that decision. Congress should have voted to go to war or not, yes or no. They didn't do that. They gave that responisibility to the president. The president decided to go to war, and then went back to Congress to ask for funds after the war already started. This put Congress in the bad position of either going along with the war, or refusing to provide funds to troops already fighting. It's all backwards and rips the constitution to shreds.
Congress has the power to declare war. They gave authorization to the President by a relolution to act. He went to war. I don't see your point. You may not like it but I don't see a Constitutional problem. There certainly may have been a problem in Congressional use of due diligence in giving the authorization, but that's another issue.
My point is that the resolution itself was unconstitutional, not how the president acted on it. The resolution transferred the power and resposibility to declare war to the president, allowing him to do as he wished.
The authors of the Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress because it more widely represents the people than the president. They wanted to assure that there was broad support for any war. A formal declaration of war on Iraq would have never passed Congress.
Amen Richard...
You know, all those folks who support this illegal war should really support our troops by enlisting. I think, if those who really support war had to act instead of speak, the numbers wouldn't be as impressive.
And that INCLUDES the men in the air condition room! It's really easy to wish for a war, that the president himself, nor any member of Congress will ever have to personally fight.
If all the world's leaders really wanted world peace, the simplest way to achieve it would be by making the leaders who vote for war, actually have to fight it.
Richard I understand your reasoning on this. Congress took the easy way out by abdicating their responsibility and giving free rein to the President. This is a practice (war by resolution instead of declaration) that has developed of the past few decades and needs to be challenged.
When Franklyn D Roosevelt was elect as President, he immediately (March 6, 1933) introduced proclaimations 2038 and 2039. In these proclaimations Pres. FDR declared a banking holiday, included the citizens of the United States as the enemy to the United States any time this country was "at war" or "in a state of emergency" (for the purpose of removing the gold and gold certificates from the people).
Congress was called to a specal session to approve them. Congress approved them without knowing what they really meant. After they were approved -
On March 9th, 1933, FDR issued Proclamation 2040. Here is an excerpt.
"Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President."
12 USC 95(A) and 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes".
This Act originally excluded Citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
It was here that every American citizen "allegedly" became an enemy to the United States government under declaration and the president could act without the concent of congress.
It has been assumed that Sovereign Cititizens of the United States are the enemy also but... THIS IS NOT TRUE!
If you will read Title 12 USC 95(b) you will see that this Act originally excluded Citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Within the United States means: Washington D.C. and the U.S. territiories and possessions and all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
This does NOT include the 50 sovereign states nor the Sovereign Citizens of the states.
The enemy would only include:
The President of the United States, Congressmen, Legislators, Judges, All Politicans, Government employees, our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers who are enlisted in the military because they are ALL within the United States or in places under its exclusive jurisdiction and of course, all 14th amendment citizens because they are under the exclusive jurisdiction of our U.S. Central Government
How Stupid and anti-christ is that? We waive our Sovereignty to serve in the military to defend our country and that makes us an enemy to the country we are defending.
Now this is contrary to the U. S. Constitution so it is by law Null and Void and dates back to its inactment on March 4, 1933.
Congress only has to acknowledge this fact and repeal everything that was done.
Getting back to the tenth Amendment or tenth Article of the Bill of Rights you will find the powers delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 thru 18.
These powers are given to our Central Government and are very limited. Inspite of what Gov. Agencies and/or Agents think, the US Gov is limited in what power they have over us. All Federal laws apply only in federal territories:
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo 336, U.S. 281 (1948)
The Sheriff has more jurisdiction over any federal agent in his county.
Powers not delegated to the government goes to the state if it isn't prohibited by the constitution, then all remaining rights go to the people.
So what rights are prohibited by the constitution?
The 9th Article of the Bill of Rights says the rights listed in the constitution are not our only rights. Our rights are not limited by the constitution. We have a right to do anything we feel is okay and proper to do as long as we do not injure anyone or do property damage.
In fact here is what the Supreme Court says about it:
"...While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom, all government exists and act." Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 .
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law for it is the author and source of law;" Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopins 118 U.S. 356 .
"It is doctrine of common law, that the Sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without his consent." The Siren vs U.S. 74 U.S. 152 .
"A SOVEREIGN IS ANSWERABLE ONLY TO GOD AND CONSCIENCE"
The following definition of Sovereignty is from Bouvier's 14th Edition Law Dictionary (Quoting from 4 Wheat, 402)
"It has been justly thought a matter of important to determine from what source the United States derives its authority...The question here proposed is whether our bond of union is a compact entered into by the states, or whether the Constitution is an organic law established by the people. To this we answer: "We the people...ordain and establish this Constitution"...The government of the state had only delegated power (from the people) and even if they had an inclination, they had no authority to transfer the authority of the Sovereign People. The people in their capacity as Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the state governments without the state's consent. The United States, as a whole, therefore, emanates from the People and not from the states, and the Constitution and the laws of the states,whether made before or since the adoption of that Constitution of the United States, are subordinate to the United States Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it.
The People are the fountain of Sovereignty. The whole was originally with them as their own. The state governments are but trustees acting under a derived authority, and had no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. BUT THE PEOPLE, AS THE ORIGINAL FOUNTAIN, MIGHT TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY HAVE LENT AND INTRUST TO WHOM THEY PLEASE. THEY HAVE THE WHOLE TITLE AND AS ABSOLUTE PROPRIETORS HAVE THE RIGHT OF USING OR ABUSING. -jus utendi et abutendi.. IT IS MAXIM CONSECRATED IN PUBLIC LAW AS WELL AS COMMON SENSE AND THE NECESSITY OF THE CASE THAT A SOVEREIGN IS ANSWERABLE FOR HIS ACTS ONLY TO HIS GOD AND HIS OWN CONSCIENCE...THERE IS NO AUTHORITY ABOVE A SOVEREIGN TO WHICH AN APPEAL CAN BE MADE."
Anything the people (people who were born in the 50 states) have a right to do is prohibited to the states by the constitution.
If you don't know your rights then the state can assume it has those rights over you and take you to court for anything ... YES, Anything.
I hope I helped clear that up.
Unique...unfortunately, the "monster from Jekyll Island" will never be taken down. It will take an act of Congress (a better Congress than we, the American, people are capable of electing). Also, the people of this country have allowed so much federal interference in their lives that they have given up their rights in lieu of governmental interference...err...assistance.
Thom -
the "monster from Jekyll Island" could very well be the "Beast". We know what happens to the beast.