The Supreme Court does not have the “Power” to make anything “Constitutional”.

Apparently the Supreme court will be ruling shortly. on Obamacare and the advance word is that they are upholding it.

Apparently the Supreme court will be ruling shortly on Obamacare, and the advance word is that they are upholding it.   I’ve heard their “reasoning” this season is INCREDIBLE with lots of twists and unexpected characters.  Maybe even some nudity.  Yeah, nudity!

I want to talk about the supreme court’s “Power” to rule that Obamacare OR ANY OTHER piece of legislation “IS” constitutional. We all learn in government schools growing up and through countless media injections into the culture, and thus into our minds, that we have a constitutional system where there is a separation of powers between the branches. And THEN we learn that under our system it is the job of the supreme court to decide whether something IS or is not constitutional. Some especially bright people may even remember some vague details about things called “judicial review” and a case called “Marbury v. Madison”.

Of course the people have been misled, but Lawyers may actually be WORSE off when it comes to the brainwashing in this area. They had to undergo courses in “constitutional law” and civil procedure where a nonstop propaganda machine poured information into them that they “had to learn” if they wanted to graduate so they could get a government issued license to practice law in the government courts. Get it?

Most peoples’ eyes glaze over at this point but people SHOULD pay VERY close attention. Because this entire subject is a lynchpin of how the system CONTROLS you.

In general, people today, have been convinced that you have to be an “expert” in order to have a valid opinion about much of anything. News flash, you don’t. You just have to be able to think and to KEEP your mind open. But think how convenient it is for that “expert” concept to be in the peoples’ heads. It is put there by those in power so you won’t ever feel entitled to QUESTION the experts they put in front of you. The self serving nature of the whole concept is both obvious and absurd, yet still people don’t see it.

I hired this marketing firm to expand my reach and to improve my focus group attraction.  They had some pretty great ideas. That stuff is serious science.

I was having some trouble getting people to “take me seriously” as an “expert” because I like to joke around.  So I hired this marketing firm.  Here I am using their techniques.   What do you think? I look really credible don’t I?  Those guys are geniuses.   

First let me say that you don’t NEED to know much of anything in order to get the point I am going to make. In fact I assume people don’t know much of anything, lol. I am not going to discuss the details of Marbury v. Madision or the many PROBLEMS with that case. I am not going to discuss stare decisis, or any of the other myriad of somewhat more complex topics. I am going to make a much more fundamental point.

For purpose of this article I will ASSUME the standard TALE of what the constitution IS and the powers the court has. In other words, I am ASSUMING the generally accepted “read” of Marbury v. Madison and what we are told about what the framers intended is true. Got it?

While it is true that there was disagreement about what should be in the constitution when it was being drafted, there was agreement in many areas. The argument between federalist and anti-federalists was generally about HOW to accomplish the following goal.

THE FRAMERS AND THEIR OPPONENTS WERE SEEKING A CONSTRUCT THAT MADE THE COURT STRONG ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT NOT SO STRONG THAT THE COURT WOULD OVER REACH AND THEREBY THWART THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

These ideas are generally how the court, in Marbury v. Madison, justified its “right” to engage in “Art. III Judicial Review” and to THEREBY STRIKE DOWN acts by the other two branches. Of course it goes without saying that in any case where the court has a POWER to strike something down, they must also have the ABILITY to choose to uphold it, otherwise they would not be free to resolve the controversy. And here is where the mischief and confusion begin.

Justice Brennan is shown here early in his tenure on the Court. He was just beginning to learn the benefits of exercising his new found powers.

Justice Brennan is shown here early in his tenure on the Court. He was just learning all the benefits of exercising his new found powers.

THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POWER EXERCISED BY THE COURT WHEN STRIKING DOWN ITEMS THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE OPINION ISSUED BY THE COURT WHEN IT UPHOLDS ITEMS ASSERTING THAT THEY CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTION.

The distinction can not be emphasized ENOUGH.

The main POINT of making the court independent and for CREATING a “separation of powers” was to provide for a way to keep the other two branches IN CHECK. Here is Federalist 78, the “bible” of the strict constructionists, discussing how the judiciary will work.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

And here is just a bit more from the same Fed 78:

the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

… the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.

Do you see? The court was given its power in order to protect the rights of the people by keeping the other branches within the EXPRESS limits of the constitution. The reason for this is simple and practical. When the people were forming the Feds they only gave the Feds LIMITED and EXPRESS powers.

What were the people to do if the Feds overstepped and started taking advantage of people? Well if there is no court from which to get justice, then the people are abused, and ultimately, when they have had enough, they will have no choice but to dissolve the union to avoid the tyranny. A dissolution, like the one they had JUST finished in the revolution and had gone through with the Articles of Confederation.

Dissolution is a messy process. It is inefficient. Better to have a system in place to protect the people from overreach as much as possible. Thus the court is there to SERVE the people, and it was given the POWER to strike down acts that OVER REACHED in order to protect the peoples’ rights.  

Justice Robert's transitioned to the law after suffering a career ending knee injury.  He is shown here performing his famous "double strike of justice" move. His supporters who had hoped to see him use this move on the court have been quite disappointed. He has become much more of a grab and hold kind of guy now.

Justice Robert’s transitioned to the law after suffering a career ending knee injury. He is shown here performing his famous “double strike of justice” move. His supporters who had hoped to see him use this move on the court have been quite disappointed. He has become much more of a grab and hold kind of guy now.

The government’s education system, and the legal education system the government MANDATES everyone undergo before anyone can get a law license issued by the same government to practice law in the government courts, creates the illusion that the supreme court has A mirror image “POWER” to “DECLARE” something Constitutional to its POWER to DECLARE something unconstitutional and then STRIKE IT DOWN. They act like they are flip sides of the SAME POWER. But they are not.

The only time the COURT can EXERCISE any actual POWER in a constitutional sense, is by STRIKING down an act of one of the other two branches.

Think about it. Whenever the COURT approves conduct by the other branches, the Court is not actually exercising any POWER at all. It is just issuing an OPINION.  The OPINION doesn’t actually DO anything. Really it is more accurate to say that it saw no need to USE ITS POWER over something that was done by one of the other branches. The law is already passed.  Nothing happens after the court “rules”.  The court just steps aside. Get it?  Here is how to think about it.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO STRIKE DOWN ACTIONS BY THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES WHEN THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT;

THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO “POWER” TO MAKE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT CONSTITUTIONAL BY ISSUING AN OPINION OR BY DOING ANYTHING ELSE.

READ those statements again. That is the whole shebang my fellow inmate that they have screwed you and me with.  Understanding the distinction and the IMPORT of those statements exposes the great con they have run regarding the court’s “power”.

There is no FLIP side to the SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE. because there is no POWER being exercised on the flip side.  The money power has done one hell of a job confusing people and conflating those two distinct ideas.  But they are not a mirror image of each other. They are totally different.

One is a POWER that operates AGAINST the other branches of the government on BEHALF of the people to STOP them from DOING SOMETHING to the people. The other is merely an OPINION that sets up a consensus or Union with the acts of the OTHER BRANCHES of the government AGAINST the PEOPLE. It doesn’t DO anything. Do you see the difference yet?

Top law students hoping to get a Supreme court clerking job are seen here on vacation. The intense competition for the few coveted openings means they have to practice seeing the world like a S. Ct. Justice whenever they can.

Top law students hoping to get a Supreme court clerking job are seen here on vacation. The intense competition for the few coveted openings means they have to practice seeing the world like a S. Ct. Justice whenever they can.

There is NO evidence, and there never could be, and there is NO line of rational thought, and there never could be to to SHOW that the people GAVE the COURT THE POWER to make unconstitutional acts Constitutional by simply issuing its OPINION. That turns the entire system ON ITS HEAD. It makes NO SENSE.  The people would have put themselves at the mercy of the the unelected untouchable branch of the government.  The court would be the OPPOSITE of what it was intended to be.

There is no flip side to the “Art III” Marbury v. Madison POWER to strike down acts. None. If the branches work together to take the freedoms of the people and grow the power of the FEDS outside its constitutional limits all of that conduct is lawless. The framers were well aware of this danger. Again, Federalist 78:

“…. liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments;

Do you see?  There was no “arguing about that issue” between the Federalist and the Anti-federalist because IT was self evident that there was a problem if the court got into bed with the other branches, i.e. started “approving” and “finding” powers the government didn’t have.

And of course that is what we have had now for many many decades. The court has been  doing nothing more than running cover, providing “plausible deniability” and the APPEARANCE of a check to DUPE the people. It has been rubber stamping the EXPANSION of the government by expanding and explaining made up “constitutional powers” that IT CREATED ITSELF, lol. When it does that it is NOT exercising ANY constitutionally based “power” derived from the “separation of powers” or its authority to engage in “judicial review”, it is simply conspiring to violate the constitution. Nothing more and It is not entitled to any shred of support by the people. It is entitled to the CONTEMPT of the people.

I want to ask you a very simple question.

When is the last time the supreme court struck down any piece of legislation that was even ARGUABLY CONSTITUTIONAL? Has it EVER happened?  I means Jesus H. just look at Art. 1 Sect. 8, the Feds don’t have the power to DO JACK, yet they do EVERYTHING. Limited government  is a complete sham BECAUSE of the court.  Yes the court has struck a few items down, but the items WERE LAUGHABLY unconstitutional to begin with.  BUT let me let you in on a secret my fellow inmate.  The only reason they even do that is because if they NEVER struck anything down, the people might have seen the fraud a long time ago.

Here is some of "justice" Marshall original issue S. Ct. equipment he used to draft the opinion in Marbury v. Madison.  The equipment looks silly to us today, but it was STATE OF THE ART at the time.

Here, from the Smithsonian is some of “justice” Marshall’s original issue S. Ct. “Poker” equipment.  He had a reputation as quite the card shark.  It turns out he wasn’t so much lucky as he was “prepared to win”. The equipment looks silly to us today, but it was STATE OF THE ART at the time.

You have to throw a few hands if you want to reel in the MARK! lol

A HUGE portion of the problems we experience are because the COURT HAS EITHER APPROVED OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION OR IT HAS LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH AND CREATED NEW OBLIGATIONS FOR THE PEOPLE.

Neither of those issues are addressed IN the Constitution. They can’t be. Those are problems with CORRUPTION, not the form of the government!! AND Neither of those issues are an “outgrowth” of the court “exercising ANY power under the separation of powers doctrine.”

The government has been ever so careful in its schools to condition the People to ACCEPT whatever the court says as, “the final answer”, be it Obamacare or anything else. The people now clearly believe that the court has the power to in effect make an unconstitutional act Constitutional by simply issuing its opinion no matter how absurd the reasoning. No matter how much it bootstraps on bootstraps some made up standard that the court itself CREATED.

And the legal minds in this country, after being intentionally misled for years in “law schools” running controlled “curriculums” and prepping students for “the bar” , now actually believe that this power is “part of the structure of our government” and  is derived from the separation of powers and judicial review. But now you can see the great sleight of hand with which the PEOPLE have been fooled.

Considered the elite of the elite, Top level "educators" and "legal professionals" are shown here in a "Breakout session" at the annual joint D.O.J. Harvard Law school conference where cutting edge S. Ct. legal issues are debated.  It is by invitation only, so yeah, I don't get to go.

Considered the elite of the elite, Top level “educators” and “legal professionals” are shown here in a “Breakout session” at the annual joint D.O.J. Harvard Law school conference where cutting edge S. Ct. legal issues are debated. It is by invitation only, so yeah, I don’t get to go.

“Our fellow citizens have been led hoodwinked from their principles by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves.”Thomas Jefferson

The court’s power comes FROM THE PEOPLE. So does the legislatures. If the court is approving unconstitutional nonsense put in front of it by the legislature and the Prez then they are all just conspiring to grow the government.  If the people then go along with it, who is really to blame?    THE PEOPLE.

“The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union.”Thomas Jefferson

It is UP TO THE PEOPLE to protect themselves. The government, including the Supreme Court, doesn’t protect the people. Of course the court is acting without any LEGAL authority AT ALL when it “approves” obviously unconstitutional nonsense. That is called corruption.   It is called being power hungry. IT IS CALLED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR GOVERNMENT. Lol It is a lot of things, but it isn’t a separation of powers problem.

The PEOPLE should demand the justices be IMPEACHED immediately.  When the master allows the servants to run amok, well, the servants will run amok until brought under control, lol.

The man the myth the legend.

         The man the myth the legend.

If the situation is not what the people want then THEY must change it.  But the people have become sheeple. And sheep get slaughtered.

Step one to changing things is understanding the deeply imbedded mental constructs they have placed into the peoples’ minds to control them.  That is what this site is for.

I hope you learned something today. I hope the next time you hear some schmexpert from “Harvard law” or a “former federal prosecutor” discussing “Obamacare” or any other S. Ct case, and the court’s “POWER” under “Art III” to in effect make something “constitutional”, that you will just laugh at them for what they are. Obvious propagandists.

It matters not if they do it knowingly. The effect is the same on the people. In all likelihood they are just useful idiots of the power structure being richly rewarded for doing something they don’t even ultimately understand. They probably actually BELIEVE what they are saying. It is almost sad that people can be so easily fooled.

I hope your eyes have been opened to YET ANOTHER way the power structure takes something that is true and then turns it a “quarter of an inch” so that it is crap, lol. THAT IS THEIR METHOD, lol.  Once that is done they can step aside and let the people drain off time and energy arguing with EACH OTHER on issues that DON’T matter and never were DISPUTED. It is always the same game my fellow inmate.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

10 thoughts on “The Supreme Court does not have the “Power” to make anything “Constitutional”.

  1. AGoyAndHisBlog

    Seeing lots of echoes of my own thoughts here, Legalman. Bravo!

    http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/2014/08/07/so-just-to-reiterate/

    Ultimately, as Jefferson also noted, the problem comes down to whether or not the federal government can reliably hold sole authority over the limits of the federal government’s authority.

    Jefferson maintained that if this circular arrangement were allowed to stand, we would ultimately succumb to rule by oligarchy. Another perfectly prescient observation.

    …to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes, the Anti-federalist papers were right. And thus only the Federalist papers are taught. lol. Glad you’re here my fellow inmate. We have to stick together. — L

      Reply
  2. James (TD)

    For it’s purpose, as far as it goes, this is an excellent, useful article which explains much that otherwise is but opaqueness.

    Two related things I’d like to point-out however, the first being that The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were never rescinded, altered, canceled nor taken back by any documents of rescission, made by any States ever. (Experts please, tell us of the whereabouts of such supposed ones?)

    Over-laid only they were by The Constitution.

    No thing along this or any similar line exists; assertions that The Articles were somehow made of no effect were born of pure, taught surmise. On the contrary, actually, as the Constitution’s Preamble serves to make crystal clear – that it was made FOR the then-existing and quite alive Confederacy styled “The United States of America”.

    In The North West Ordinance, made law well before the Constitution’s advent, the full and complete title was therein used: “this Confederacy of the United States of America.” With the ratification of the later, second Constitution, term “Confederacy” was to be omitted because applicable no longer.

    (And, not “Confederation.” This confusion is to-purpose manufactured by the present ‘Federalist Saint Machine’ tenders. They were at it then as they continue to be. Said confusions – these so as to blend into unwary minds what the C.S.A. was actually some seventy years later – are but purposeful deceit, and of equivalent worth.)

    It might be of some utility to consult THE OBJECTIONS to the Constitution as made by the Anti-Federalists, all of which predictions of direness have now come-to-pass and far, far worse still.

    As First Patriot Henry exclaimed upon examining the Federalists’ handiwork then new

    “. . . that RAG!”

    Indeed, just as he had said!

    Yes, obviously from the very first the Constitution was CREATED to BE subverted, which now has come-to-pass just as the Anti-Federalists WARNED it was and would be, as the ever-devious Federalists and their bastard traitor Hamilton had planned.

    The supposed, greatly-vaunted checks-and-balances were made not QUITE sturdy enough from lesser men’s predations ‘just coincidentally’, huh? and, the grammatical utter nonsense about their proposed Union made somehow “more perfect”?

    Well, a thing made more perfect cannot exist, the state being one absolute ab intio so, WHY all the written foolishness put there so prominently? (The answer-true asserts itself.)

    How do you Federalistas all like your glorious Administrative State construct, IT and it’s so-called “laws” that act and effect as if they were such but, having not any of it’s protections??? (WHAT a work, and to this all are well-inured – the perfect shake-down machine all according to “law”!)

    “Let the punishment fit the crime.” – Maxim of Law

    Understand well:

    Necessity is the very Goddess of Federalism; Law is not law anymore while Necessity rules.

    They chewed-up and defecated-out your Constitution and it’s protections and Rights Bill long ago!

    On this account the only remedy left being our Declaration of Independence from tyranny, and this so no matter WHAT the source or perfection of it’s mad, rabid viciousness.

    Chewing about this or that decision or whatnot, gets you but PRECIOUS TIME WASTED.

    “TIME – the most precious coin of Man.”

    As you were . . .

    James (TD)

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes of course and thank you. There was a LOT left out by necessity of space. At some point people simply stop reading. Plus smaller pieces are easier to take in. I wrote on the Constitutional Convention. They really put the Con in Constitutional convention. You might want to look at that. As I said in the article, I was assuming the standard line of reasoning and ACCEPTING the standard founding line for the article. I do not accept it for many reasons. I think it was probably a scam as well. It has been sold as something it is not. I always enjoy people who actually care about their freedom, and you clearly do. Glad you’re here, hope you come back and tell your friends who might be open to the truth. –L

      Reply
  3. T.J. Thomas

    This may be a dense question, but I am wondering, and I don’t mean to sound snarky if it does:

    Federalist 78 says “(The Constitution) therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.” If they have the power to declare a law “null and void” because it violates the Constitution, then how is it overreach that their not declaring a law null and void would, by default, mean they’ve declared it constitutional?

    A literal interpretation of 78 would seem to indicate that the Supreme Court could declare a law unconstitutional based on the court’s own initiative, rather than having a case brought before them, but then that treads on what we would now call being activist judges.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Yes I understand that the court must, by necessity, of course rule on its meaning IN THE COURSE of determining whether it is Constitutional. My point was a difficult one to make I believe. I did my best. The concept is not that they couldn’t in effect uphold a statute or act, of course they can. It is more that just because they refuse to strike it down does not mean it is not unconstitutional. It only means that the system, like EVERY system has limits. The court rules. Okay, it ruled. That does not settle it FOR THE PEOPLE. It only settles it WITHIN THAT CONSTRUCT. But the CONSTRUCT gets its total authority FROM the people. Taking the question you pose out to its logical conclusion, then there IS NO LIMIT ON THE GOVERNMENT SO LONG AS ALL BRANCHES AGREE TO EXERCISE THE POWER. And that of course is not what the concept it. The problem is corruption. The problem is the people allowing it. My only point was to try and shift the focus people have from imagining that the POWER lies with the GOVERNMENT at all. It does not. It is with the PEOPLE. The people allow it to act.

      As to the court, my point is that it is not actually ACTING at all when it approves. It is simply agreeing with AN ACT. As long as the people believe the con job that the feds can put up laughable nonsense like Obamacare, and the PEOPLE THINK that their PROTECTION comes from the court. Well, they will have no protection. How dare the congress and the prez put up garbage like Obamacare or gun control, or campaign finance or the department of education or anything else. Of course they are way out of line as well. But as long as the people buy the idea that the issue is “settled” once the court rules, and that the only thing we can do is to wait 25 years for justices to die and be replaced and then hope we can get another case in front of them etc. etc. Well, we’re cooked. You know Obamacare could just be REPEALED. lol. But the politicians have worked out this scam where they are free to put whatever garbage they want up there and see what sticks at the court. Of course the issue is much more complicated than could ever be explained in one or two posts. It will take many many posts because the thinking of the people has been so intentionally and fully corrupted by the money power who benefits.
      I hope this clarified a bit. Glad you’re here. Hope you tell your friends. It is a process. — L

      Reply
  4. Bjorn Rafto

    Concerning your comment above about government licensing “lawyers” to practice law:

    First, there are NO “lawyers” in the corporate hocus pocus fictional American dysfunctional legal system. Do a word search of all Business & Professions codes and you will only find the word “attorney(s)” which of course is related to the word “attorn” or to twist. Ergo attorneys is the American hocus pocus dysfunctional legal system ONLY have the privilege to “represent” as an “actor” fictitious entities such as “persons”, corporations, etc because ALL such “persons” have no ability to “appear” – LMAO. On the other hand a “lawyer” is one who is “learned in the law” and was the individual the slave owners who wrote the Constitution had in mind in their “right to assistance of counsel” – NOT “representation” – in a criminal matter wording found in said document.

    Second, with one exception attorneys in the hocus pocus corporate system do NOT have any “license to practice law” issued to them by the American government and in fact NEVER have. Around the turn of the last, last century there was circulated an idea to raise a revenue by “licensing” attorneys, however, this notion was quickly shouted down as it would be blatantly un-Constitutional. The exception is attorneys practicing before the inferior “Supreme Court” (so called) are vetted by the Supremes before they may cross the inferior supremo “bar”.

    Lastly and speaking of the aforementioned “bar”, what attorneys generally need to have to “practice” in the hocus pocus American corporate courts is a BAR card with a BAR number. And this is OBVIOUSLY NOT a “license” issued by any American government (or what passes for such these days) agency. It is alleged the BAR is a foreign (British) chartered corporation which, if true (and it may well be) would require all such member attorneys practicing in America to register as Foreign Agents under the Foreign Agents registration requirements found in Title 22 USC (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/612). In any event you do not even need a BAR card with a BAR number. On several occasions I have prepared papers for folks and, since they were so intimidated with the situation, I merely went up with them and argued their “case”. And ya the cupcake – I call them that because these cross dressers in black do NOT sit as judicial officers (even if they do have an oath of office as such) – knew in those several situations I was not a bar member. But then you have to remember they make it ALL up as they go along as they attempt to frisk the ignorant sheeple.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I am familiar with the arguments about the theories and arguments about the royal basis for lawyering etc. I know that there are theories about the war of 1812 being involved in this whole matter. I would say that most of those theories and discussions require a LOT of background and information people don’t have. Plus people associate it with “conspiracy theory” etc. There is only so much time and only so many things to cover. I do my best to prioritize. I’m glad you’re here. I hope you tell your friends who might be open to hearing the truth. — L

      Reply
  5. Publius

    There are rules the courts must follow called American Jurisprudence and they all need to study book 16 on Constitution law and one of these rules is! “There are no degrees of Constitutionally” there is also one written after the Marbury Vs. Madison Ruling, “No provision within the Constitution is designed to be without effect, anything in conflict is without effect and null of law”. There is much to book 16 of American Jurisprudence and comes off like the courts are servant of the people rather than that of the political system and to protect the citizen from the over reaches and abuses of the legislative and executive powers of state, much like whats written in the Virginia Bill of Rights on June 12, 1776.

    Reply
  6. GeorgiaCracker

    Legalman, you are your best when you explain how our legal system has been corrupted! Sadly, the truth about the courts is depressing. Hopefully, your explanation and knowledge will help us overcome the corruption. Thanks for what you are doing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *