US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 - Enumerated Powers
US Constitution Article 3 Section 3 - Treason
US Constitution - First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What if the ‘right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’ or ‘freedom of speech’ was MERGED with the definition of Treason?
Vaccine Schedule
With reference to the merging of the definition of Treason with the ‘right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’ or ‘freedom of speech’ - example was made of the US having 72 childhood vaccines:
The presentation noted the U.S. recommends 72 childhood vaccination doses targeting 18 diseases, while Denmark only recommends 11 doses targeting 10 diseases.
FBI Labels Mothers 'Domestic Terrorists'
People labelled 'Domestic Terrorists' for questioning vaccines.
Representative Massie: Let's not let the FBI label mothers 'Domestic Terrorists' because they think their 5 year old doesn't need a vaccine.
Construction of the Constitution
In performing the delicate and important duty of construing clauses in the Constitution of our country which involve conflicting powers of the government of the Union and of the respective states, it is proper to take a view of the literal meaning of the words to be expounded, of their connection with other words, and of the general objects to be accomplished by the prohibitory clause or by the grant of power.
Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827)
Repugnant
early 15c., repugnaunt, "hostile, opposed; contrary, inconsistent, contradictory," from Old French repugnant "contradictory, opposing" or directly from Latin repugnantem (nominative repugnans), present participle of repugnare "to resist, fight back, oppose; disagree, be incompatible," from re- "back, against, in opposition" (see re-) + pugnare "to fight" (from PIE root *peuk- "to prick").
The meaning "distasteful, objectionable" is from 1777; that of "offensive, loathsome, exciting aversion" is by 1879.
Marbury v Madison - Supreme Court
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
‘No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.’
From the National Archives website.
Intention of the Framers
Constitutions are made for practical purposes, and not merely for the exercise of critical gymnastics, and in the construction of them we are to take into consideration the conditions which confronted the constitution-makers, and we are, if possible, to give the instrument such construction as will carry out the intention of the framers, and malee it reasonable rather than absurd. State ex rel. Covington v. Thompson Supreme Court of Alabama 142 Ala. 98
984 Unconstitutional Laws
Table with 984 laws held to be unconstitutional in whole or in part by the Supreme Court.
American Jurispudence - Legal Encyclopedia
Within Vol 16 of American Jurisprudence (2nd Edition), a legal encyclopedia, is a passage that is itself reference to four separate cases. It states:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
Pretend Laws
Flashback to 1942 in Australia. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia (the equivalent of the United States Supreme Court) had the following to say:
A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour – but such a decision is not an element which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it – and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio.
Supreme Court - Difficult Definitions
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., questioned Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Senate Judiciary Committee continued its Supreme Court confirmation hearings March 22.
"Can you provide a definition for the word 'woman'?" T.C 17:20
See also Tim Walz attempting to answer the question 'What is a woman?'. Provided in the context of a lack of confidence that institutions like the Supreme Court can make a determination between the different systems of value if they cannot differentiate between a man and a woman.
Henry Ford - My Life And Work 1922
But money should always be money. A foot is always twelve inches, but when is a dollar a dollar? If ton weights changed in the coal yard, and peck measures changed in the grocery, and yard sticks were today 42 inches and tomorrow 33 inches (by some occult process called "exchange") the people would mighty soon remedy that. When a dollar is not always a dollar, when the 100-cent dollar becomes the 65-cent dollar, and then the 50-cent dollar, and then the 47-cent dollar, as the good old American gold and silver dollars did, what is the use of yelling about "cheap money," "depreciated money"? A dollar that stays 100 cents is as necessary as a pound that stays 16 ounces and a yard that stays 36 inches.”
Those who believe that the people are so easily led that they would permit printing presses to run off money like milk tickets do not understand them. It is the innate conservation of the people that has kept our money good in spite of the fantastic tricks which the financiers play and which they cover up with high technical terms.
Book within the Library of Congress.
Charles Binderup - Attributed to Henry Ford
It was Henry Ford who -said, in substance, this: "It Is perhaps well enough that the people of the Nation do not
know or understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did I believe there would be a revolution before to-
morrow morning."
Record from Vol 81. Part 3 - House Pages 2499-2533. Page 2528.
Supreme Court - New York Times v. Sullivan 1964
Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.
Case on the Justia website. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan :: 376 U.S. 254 (1964:
Unknown Parent: I am quoting to you now from the United States Supreme Court 1964 case New York Times vs Sullivan. This is constitutional case law in this county.
— Lzzy (@ElizabethPDove) September 16, 2024
This nation is founded on the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues shall be… pic.twitter.com/T8YCvVW7PS
Slump Ahead in Bonds - L.L.B. Angas
Lawrence Lee Bazley Angas was born of a British banking family on the 22nd of February, 1893. His great grandfather, George Fife Angas, who founded the National Provincial Bank, one of the five largest banks in the British Empire. He wrote in his book Slump Ahead in Bonds in 1937:
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented.
Money, Whence It Came, Where it went - John K Galbraith
The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.
Book.
Interview Yuri Bezmenov with G. Edward Griffin
The goal was to ‘change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent, that despite an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their family and their community and their country.
Documentary - Finding The Money 2024
Money always has two sides. And so the currency itself is the Government’s debt. [and]
Because there is no such thing as money without debt.
Referenced in the context of there always being two sides to money... but is that the case during creation? Who does one owe when something is created?
Still today… when the government receives tax dollars they are destroyed. [and] That’s the nature of IOUs, when they come back to the issuer, they are just destroyed. [and] The government is no longer in debt when it receives back its IOU, so it burns it.
Relates to the next reference with Mike Maloney:
Mike Maloney - Repaying Debt Destroys Currency
Whether you are making a payment on loan or paying tax to make a payment on a bond, the portion of the payment that goes to pay off the principal extinguishes that portion of the debt. But the debt also extinguishes the currency currency. Currency and debt are like antimatter. When they meet they annihilate each other. If we just pay off the principal only on all the loans and bonds that exist, the entire currency supply just vanishes.
Robert Hemphill in 100% Money
Foreward to the book 100% Money by Irving Fisher by Robert Hemphill, former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank, of Atlanta:
If al bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation.
Regarding the monetary situation:
It is so simple that business men largely over- look this fundamental situation and continue to search for some economic "fourth dimension" to explain our distressing situation,
Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce
Further confirmation repayment of debt destroys the currency:
Mr Tucker: Supposing a one million dollar bond is falling due. Yes. If the government pays that off it decreases the deposits by $1,000,000? If the making of a loan or an investment creates a deposit the paying off of one destroys a deposit. Yes?
Mr Towers: Yes.