Most read Articles this Week
Top Articles of the Year
All Time Top Articles
Articles by John W. Wallace
RSS-Feed
Become an Author
Advertise with us
    Home   Image Gallery   Archive   Register New   Our Authors   About Us   Advertise   T&C   Contact Us   
  
Overview (7921) :: USA (6385)

5 Images in category USA



USA :: Constitutional Issues   ::   Print this Article
ARIZONA vs U.S., THE GLOBALIST AGENDA AND CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
06-28-2012 9:09 am - Richard D. Fry - Patriot Coalition
The recent Supreme Court (S.Ct.) decision in Arizona v. U.S. regarding Arizona’s immigration law (SB1070) is yet another example of how “We the People” are being played by the globalist and their lackeys like Charlie Daniels plays the fiddle.

On one hand we have the bad guys like Justice Kennedy and the majority who completely ignore the States’ sovereignty (and the S.Ct’s own precedence) to come to a globalist satisfying ruling that implies the States are not sovereign at all but simply inferior subunits of the federal government (which is in the process of implementing the globalist agenda. ) On the other hand we have the controlled opposition who rail against the majority and correctly point out their folly but in reality do nothing or suggest anything to correct the problem. The message is “You are being screwed but you must accept it, there is nothing you can do about it, the federal government is supreme [or at least invincible].”

This is the exact same strategy that has worked so far with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Senators McCain (Status Quo Conservative Republican (SQCR) – Globalist), Graham (SQCR – Globalist) and Levin (Progressive –D) push provisions that eviscerate our Bill of Rights. Others such as Senator Feinstein (D) and Reps. Garamendi (D) and Landry (R) propose amendments to “correct” the problem that do nothing and still others such as Reps West (FL. -SQCR?) Pompeo (KS- SQCR), Yoder (KS-??), Jenkins (KS –SQCR) Sen. Roberts (KS-??) and Moran (KS-SQCR) deny there is any problem at all.

I found it most interesting that Justice Kennedy miss quoted the Constitution in support of his globalist opinion. He states that:

“From the existence of two sovereigns [the states and the federal government] follows the possibility that laws can be in conflict or at cross-purposes. The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law…”

This is patently incorrect although widely believed by federal and state legislators as well as ignorant citizens. In actuality the Constitution provides:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding….”

Only the Constitution is the unqualified “law of the land”. Before a federal law is the “supreme law of the land” it must be made “in Pursuance” to the Constitution. States including judges, legislators and executive offers need only follow such federal laws that meet this criterion. Shame on Kennedy and the majority for trying to perpetuate this myth and the dissenters for not pointing this fact out.

Kennedy and the majority fail to note that the federal government is a government of limited powers and in fact assert it has “inherent” powers as a sovereign which is absolutely incorrect it has no “inherent” power. Even the dissent seems to take this position. The federalist papers indicate otherwise as do early S.Ct. case but the implication by the entire court is that the Constitution is an evolving document. This of course is inconstant with the position of the Founders.

Both the majority and the dissent would have you believe that the federal government can take any power if it says the magic words to conjure up such authority. The majority would have you believe the “magic words” have been spoken and the dissent would have you believe the “magic words” were not spoken in this case. Nothing is farther from the truth. As to the sovereignty of the States (those powers not specifically delegate to the federal government) the States reign supreme.

The primary responsibly of any government, so says the Declaration of Independence, is to protect the fundamental rights of the sovereign citizens. The obligation is to protect such from all those who would violate such whether foreign or domestic and that includes from States and the federal government. Of course the final line of defense is “We the People”.

The dissent indicates that the majority postion is contrary to the rights of the sovereign citizens and the sovereignty of the States. With that part of their position I agree. Unalienable rights are unalienable and are not subject to change by a democratic vote of a majority of the Supreme Court. Democracy was despised by the Founding Fathers as “mob rule” and noted by communist leaders as a step toward fascism which would eventually lead to communism. I reject both fascism and communism as immoral and inconsistent with Americanism.

I note that Kennedy even cites a brief from a foreign government and before he cites the Courts's own presendence.

As to this decision the Supreme Court has one again shown its globalist influences. We can only hope the states will not fall for this sophistry.

This case was unconstitutionally filed in a federal District Court.

For the sake of Liberty.

Richard D. Fry
November Patriots
General Counsel
Patriot Coalition
fry8413@sbcglobal.net

To write a comment you need to be registered
Register New