What do you call a situation where the law is ignored? Tyranny.
What about where the law is turned on its head? Fraud.
What about where the government steals the rights of the people to expand its own powers? Corruption.
I think those are fair answers to those questions. Now let me ask you this. If I tell you that you have A Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances to protect yourself against things like I just set out, and that the government cannot make any law abridging that right, does that leave you with the impression that you in fact have that right? Of course it does.
Well, the first amendment gives everyone of us exactly that right. People don’t know this because all they ever hear about the first amendment is free speech and religion and press. And when you finish reading this article you will understand why that is all they know. So let’s get started. Here is what the first amendment says:
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.
Do you see it now? That is a HUGE right. “To petition” is a legal term. A petition is something that you file in court. So clearly, the peoples’ right to legally hold the government to its deal, through the courts, is enshrined in the holy CONstitution itself. You have a RIGHT to petition the government, i.e. to sue the government for a redress if it steps out of line.
And how would you exercise this right”? Well you would take advantage of the supposedly brilliant system of checks and balances that includes a supposedly “independent” judiciary that is supposedly there to oversee and be sure the other branches stay within their constitutional “authority”. Here is the language from Art III from the CONstitution, setting out the kinds of cases the court can hear.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, …to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;…
That language is pretty clear. So taking the first amendment language and the Art. III powers together, you now should have a right to petition the independent court for a redress of grievance if the legislative or executive branch gets out of order.
Think how powerful that right could be if properly used.
In fact the combination I just showed you is one of the key pieces that supposedly “demonstrates” that we are a country “of laws” and not of men. That the government is NOT above the law. That it must answer to the people!
And thus the freedom machine is born! All hail the freedom machine! Where’s my American flag T-shirt? I feel like putting it on!
This entire system of a “right to redress” is the opposite of many other “tyrannical” systems where the rule is that the government can only be sued if it chooses to allow itself to be sued by its subjects. That type of system operates on what is called the rule of “sovereign immunity”. The governments operating in a “sovereign immunity” system are free to abuse the people without any fear of recourse.
Obviously sovereign Immunity does more than just “abridge” the right to redress grievances with a government that asserts it. It completely eliminates any “right to redress”. You only get whatever “redress” the government decides to allow. And that by definition is not a RIGHT. “Sovereign immunity” is the OPPOSITE of what we the people set up in this country under our freedom machine with our “right to petition for redress” and our “Art III” independent judiciary.
And so is your “right to petition the government for redress of grievances” the reality?
Sadly, as usual, no. The reality is far removed from the fantasy they teach the poor saps in their mandatory indoctrination centers.
In Cohens v. Virginia, in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall, without any analysis at all of the UNAMBIGUOUS language I just showed you in the 1st amend, simply “announced” that, “the universally received opinion is that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.” So he imposed the “sovereign immunity” rule on us basically from the get go. Which is the OPPOSITE of what the constitution actually says.
Marshall, the supposed genius. The brilliant jurist made it “our law” by announcing that it is “universally received”. In order to do that, he had to completely IGNORE the universe that includes the 1st amendment. And so he did. He didn’t explain how the amendment fit in with his analysis. He didn’t discuss how it didn’t apply. He just didn’t mention it.
And now that you’ve seen how clear the 1st Amend language is against what he “held” it’s easy to understand why he ignored it. Because there is no way to actually form a coherent legal argument to support what he imposed on us if you have to actually address it! So, like any other “brilliant jurist” he ignored it.
Do you understand the immense power and abuse here? This the real face of the system. You will be confused by things like this “reasoning” so long as you continue to imagine that the system is something it is not. Once you let go of that fantasy, then it all makes sense.
Later, in United States v. Clarke, the same “august” justice Marshall made it CLEAR once again in case there was any remaining doubt, that our country was going to be one of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, where the people HAVE NO RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievance except whatever the government chooses to give them. Despite what the 1st amend obviously says. The United States is not “suable of common right, the party who institutes such suit must bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress, or the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.” Again, zero analysis of the 1st amendment. Nothing. Just imposing sovereign immunity on us despite what our supposed fundamental law says.
Make no mistake. The right to petition a government for redress which is what the constitution states, and the concept of governmental immunity from redress, which is what Marshall is imposing, are direct contradictions. There is simply no way around that glaring fact. Do you see that?
So I ask you people. Can they make it any clearer? You don’t have rights! How can I have a “right to petition for redress” only if the government chooses to give it to me? It is nonsensical. It is double talk. It turns the concept of a right on its head.
I will discuss one more supreme court case on the off chance that there is still any doubt. Despite the 1st amendments “Right of Petition” never having been directly discussed or explained at all in the sovereign immunity context, the court nonetheless in 1882 in U.S. v. Lee, “concedes” that sovereign immunity is “the established law of this country, and of this Court at the present day.” Established? How does something that directly contradicts the unambiguous language in the constitution become “established” without ever even being addressed?
Simple, it is “established” in the courts’ opinions by just repeating and referring to “maxims” and “settled law” and “long established traditions” and citation to other cases that all do the same thing and that all ignore the constitutional language DIRECTLY ON POINT. This is the system they use.
It’s the same thing I showed you for “executive privilege”. The court just makes its up and poof. That’s that. How can you complain? Who do you complain to? They are the final say.
Let me try and explain it like this. If the Congress passes “a law” even though the Constitution says it shall pass “no law” and the Supreme court “upholds” the law by creating an “exception”. Then what happens? How do you check them? PROCEDURALLY what is the mechanism??
Remember, the difference between legal procedure and legal argument is, Legal argument is the battle plan, legal Procedure is the logistics. It matters not how great your battle plan is, i.e. your 1st amendment argument, if you can’t get the troops to the battle because you don’t have any trains or planes that run, i.e. if the supreme court is going to IGNORE IT.
So now that the supreme court has screwed everyone, despite your “brilliant 1st amendment legal argument” what can we actually do “procedurally”? Well, nothing but a constitutional amendment. And as a practical matter, how is that ever going to get off the ground? It won’t. And thus PROCEDURE, is the unseen hand of screwing the people.
And now think about this. In this situation, even if we were going to try and get a “constitutional amendment” what would it say? WE ALREADY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD WANT IT TO SAY. They just ignored it! So what exactly would the new “amendment” designed to “fix the problem” say? That we weren’t kidding the first time?
The reason for all of this is SIMPLE. The two branches ARE DESIGNED TO GROW THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TOGETHER. They are a team. They are no different than the wrestlers. They are FAKE opponents! All the blather about checks and balances is a distraction to trick you. And it WORKS! lol
The idea that “Chinese walls” between two branches of the SAME ENTITY can act as a “check” on the growth of that SAME ENTITY is absurd on its face. It will never work. Over time the ENTITY will grow. And THAT was the plan all along! The only way to check the growth of ONE ENTITY is with a truly SEPARATE ENTITY. Not a different BRANCH from WITHIN the same entity. That makes no sense.
And once you understand that the REAL CHECK on the federal government is supposed to come from the STATES THEMSELVES and from the people. Then you can start to understand what the CIVIL war was really about. Spoiler alert, it wasn’t slavery. And now you see why the court cut the peoples RIGHT to check the government from the get go.
Do you see the absurdity? The futility? The utter naivete of believing that a single entity can ever check itself?
Nonetheless that is what they tell us is so UNIQUE and brilliant about OUR SYSTEM! lol. They hold up the holy constitution and point to the freedom machine in schools and in movies and on “news shows”, but the whole thing is a scam. When the branches of the government work together, there is no solution UNDER the constitution. And THAT is the situation we have been living under for 200 years.
Do you see why “getting back to the constitution” is virtually a meaningless phrase? What possible “constitutional” ambiguity exists in this situation? None. Yet the constitution and the system it sets up provides NO protection.
My friend government IS power. That is all it is. Those who rule you know this. But they tell you it is benevolent and controlled. Of course they do. Would you voluntarily submit otherwise? Of course not.
They roll out the control and abuse slowly enough so that each generation only sees a small part. Then they mis-educate everyone with lies in mandatory indoctrination centers about what’s going on and where we came from and it becomes almost impossible to see the reality. You are lied to so they can exercise the greatest power with the least resistance. It is devious and brilliant.
99.99% of the population have never even heard of these cases and what I have just told you. And 99% of the lawyers don’t have a clue about this topic either. They don’t teach it. I wonder why? lol
The government Always grows in power. Always. Do you honestly think that happens by Accident? lol
Everyone thinks they are so free because they have been told they are. No other reason. And if you still don’t believe me then why don’t you head on down to your nearest federal district court and demand your constitutionally protected right to redress of grievances and see how far you get with that. lol
The strong take what they will and the weak suffer what they must. It has always been the case.
I hope you learned a little sumtin sumtin about your 1st amendment “rights”. Remember, the only protection the people have from tyranny is vigilance and knowledge. You must LEARN to be strong.
That’s it for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.