In looking backward through history, there have been many eras that have been dubbed “historic times” — the War for Independence, aka the American Revolution; the War of 1812, where Britain attempted to reclaim the “colony”; the War to Enslave the States, aka the War of Northern Aggressions or the Civil War; and both World War I and II. But, since the American Revolution, the united States of America, under our Constitution, has enjoyed an air of freedom and liberty for all citizens that had not been brought into question until the War to Enslave the States, when Lincoln’s ideology of a “mandatory” union came into fruition. No longer were States, a sovereign entity able to decide its own destiny, free to join or leave the cooperative “federation of states” enjoined into being by the Articles of Confederation, then the Constitution for the united States of America. Any state in the federation, or admitted thereafter, the War to Enslave the States affected, were bound to the federal government, made sovereign over the several states, without so much as a by your leave choice to depart upon any violation made by the federal government against the States or the people of the several states.
In the movie, Amistad, John Quincy Adams, played by Anthony Hopkins, stated before the Supreme Court, while arguing the case of the Mende, that if war was to come, it would be the last battle of the American Revolution. War did come. And, in that last battle, the union known as the united States of America, that won its independence from the tyranny of the King of Great Britain, lost the independent sovereignty of states to decide their own destiny regarding joining or leaving the federation. For while history would like to maintain the issue in totality was slavery, it was not; it was the right of each state to choose whether to continue in a union created by them or to depart and create a new union because of one part of the federation being destructive to the other. In other words, it was a battle testing the tenet of the Declaration of Independence — “To secure these rights [unalienable rights] governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” No war since has had such an impact upon this republic.
Yet, as we are witness, no times have as embitterly embroiled a people since as what is occurring within our borders now. Call it what you wish — conservatism versus liberalism; left versus right; Trump supporters versus Anti-Trumpers; constitutionalism versus anti-constitutionalism. It matters not. For what is at stake is the very survival of the republic of the united States of America as an independent federation of sovereign States, instead of an instrument of globalism — a nation bound under the chains of slavery to a bureaucratic world authority. Just as loyalists in the colonies held allegiance to the King of Great Britain and in essence, were considered enemies of those seeking independence , those who hold allegiance to anything other than our republic’s Constitution hold much in common with those loyalists.
Underlying every issue faced by this republic today, the common denominator is freedom and liberty; it is the freedom and liberty to exist as a sovereign body with its own culture, laws and traditions. And, those seeking to subvert our right to exist as a sovereign body use our very own law, the Constitution, to do it through deception, invention and antagonism. Alexander Hamilton called the judicial branch the weakest of the three. His reasoning for such rests in the conviction that “that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.” (Federalist No. 78)
But, Hamilton also said in Federalist No. 78, “For I agree, that ‘there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’2 And it proves, in the last place, that as 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; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; ….” Another jeopardy found in the judiciary is the members of the judiciary themselves who adjudicate not according to law or the Constitution, but to ideology or invention of “rights” that run antagonistic to a sovereign republic. As we have come to witness, the judicial branch at all levels have sought and attained the ability, through rendering of decision only, powers of the legislative and executive branches. How did they do this? By the people, along with the States and federal government, submitting to the “rule” of the judiciary when the rule conflicts with the Constitution, invents rights, and subverts powers not authorized the judiciary by the Constitution.
In this interesting report from David Knight at Infowars.com, the Ninth Circuit Court ruling of the “right” of foreign aliens to immigrate highlights the subversive nature of a part of the judicial branch.
To whom does the “constitution” of France apply? To whom does the “constitution” of Great Britain apply? In these questions, constitution refers to the document that organizes their government, beginning the laws of that nation. Naturally, the answer would be France, to the first question, and Great Britain, to the second. So, if one were to ask, “to whom does the ‘constitution” of the united States apply,” what would be the answer. Well, it would be the united States. Yet, the judiciary seeks to apply the Constitution for the united States of America to those individuals who are citizens of other nations as it relates to immigration, creating a “right” to immigrate. It is not the Constitution that grants rights or establishes rights nor is it man — it is God that established rights known as unalienable rights and it is those rights that are recognized and guaranteed in the Constitution. There is no such “right” as immigration. Immigration is a privilege granted by nations composed of men. And, no other nation on the face of this planet extends such unalienable rights to its citizens as the republic of the united States of America. Yet, immigration is not an unalienable right, nor is it a right period.
Being that France has “speech laws,” would it be feasible to say that those laws apply to the citizens in this republic? No, it would be preposterous. It is just as preposterous to say that the laws of this republic apply to citizens of foreign nations. Those exercising the inherent right of freedom of speech as a citizen of France can face prosecution if their speech violates the speech law of France. While we here may disagree with the government of France in its restriction of speech, our laws are not applicable to the nation of France. It is the same with the Netherlands, where Geert Wilders was brought to trial for violation of the speech laws in the Netherlands. Despite God’s inherent right to freedom of speech, which also includes speech that is offensive, hateful and obscene, France and the Netherlands chooses to deny a portion of those rights to their citizens. The people of these nations agree to the limitation upon their inherent rights, granted by God; therefore, it is not within our purview to tamper with those who empower their government by their consent.
Within our own borders and under our very Constitution, a branch of the government, dubbed the weakest, is intent on rewriting for all the Constitution through invention of “rights” subverting the authority of the executive established by the Constitution. If the citizens of this republic “consent” by their attrition to decision, based not in law or principle, but ideology, then, the court derives its power from those who submit to its flawed decision, negating the power of the Creator to establish rights and instilling in men the power to grant and rescind rights that are not theirs to portion out to the masses.
Yet, it is not only the judicial branch which has usurped the power to establish rights from the Creator — it extends to the executive and legislative as well. Citizens of this republic have seen attacks and suspension of every recognized and guaranteed inherent right contained in the Constitution. Now, the all important and overlooked Ninth Amendment comes into play. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America proclaims, “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The right to privacy, to own property, to keep the fruits of one’s labors, and to determine our own destiny is contained in this little recognized, but all important statement.
Should we not, as a group of individual people, be afforded the right to choose with whom we allow into our republic to safeguard our very right to exist? Would this not be considered a tenet of the Ninth Amendment? And, would it not be upon this right to exist that the people empowered the federal government the authority to establish and administer immigration and naturalization law, meaning immigration is a privilege bestowed by citizens of this republic onto those citizens of other nations? It is with these questions in mind that one can say these are historic times critical to the survival of this republic.
If a court can declare an imagined “right” as real, what else can it do? Could it declare our borders somehow null and void based upon some imagined “right” or interpretation of a tenet of the Constitution or other law?
While it is debated by scholarly lawyers, the executive, news personalities and the like, the citizens are rooted to the news to see who and what prevails. But, the appropriate response to this subversive, insurrectionist containing court would be to ignore its preposterous ruling not based in law or on the Constitution, and to respond by telling the court that it is outside its authority. And, in those States who jumped so quickly to establish standing in support of individuals who are not citizens, residents of those States should quickly ask the governors and legislators where were they in standing against unconstitutional encroachments against the citizens by the federal government. Simplistically, the States were made subservient, enslaved, to the federal government by the War to Enslave the States so valiantly fought by a portion of the States under the guise of morality, invoking emotion while obscuring the true nature of the conflict. States refuse to stand against their master — the creature they created.
It now becomes a question for the citizens of this republic whether to acquiesce, consent, to the rule of the judiciary in usurping an authority not given it by the Constitution or not. Again, this leads us back to the beginning. But, this time the fight is not against tyranny of a foreign nation, nor is it against some guise of morality, invoking emotion obscuring the true nature of the conflict.
As John Quincy Adams stated before the Supreme Court in arguing the case for the freedom of the Mende, “The charge I make against the present Executive administration is that in all their proceedings relating to these unfortunate men, instead of that Justice, which they were bound not less than this honorable Court itself to observe, they have substituted Sympathy! —sympathy with one of the parties in this conflict of justice, and antipathy to the other.”
The charge against the Ninth Circuit Court is they substituted sympathy, as did the States who jumped quickly to support individuals who are not citizens, for justice. They extended sympathy to one party, the non-citizen individuals of the united States, while exerting antipathy to the others, the citizens of the united States. Where the court of emotions sits in session, there can be no justice, for the blindfold of Lady Justice has been removed and the scale tipped out of balance as the law is disregarded. Let’s take a statement from John Quincy Adams himself, with a little revision, and apply it to this situation.
For I inquire by what right, all this sympathy, from the Ninth Circuit Court and the States asserting their standing, as it were, to the nation, was extended to the non-citizen individuals exclusively, and utterly denied to the citizens and victims of the united States. By what right was it denied to the citizens who exist in freedom, and secured to non-citizens? Now, if the government and people of the United States interfere at all, they were bound in duty to extend their sympathy to them all; and if they intervene at all between them, the duty incumbent upon this intervention was not of favor, but of impartiality—not of sympathy, but of JUSTICE, dispensing to every individual his own right.
The prior administration committed an egregious act against the citizens of the republic by unscrupulously ignoring the law, importing individuals en masse outside the immigration system, and jeopardizing the safety of the citizens within the borders of the republic. In accordance with the prior administration, certain States exerted “sympathy” with those under no allegiance to their jurisdiction. Would it not therefore be feasible the court, being an impartial body, would hold sympathy with those who have been violated by those who perpetuated the violation? But, sympathy and favor flowed in one direction with antipathy being directed in another. Yet, neither should have been dispensed. Instead, impartiality and justice was the duty incumbent upon the court. The court failed in its duty. The court, in essence, became an instrument for continued lawlessness.
What is to become of a republic when its own judicial system negates impartiality, justice and equal application of the law to all those existing under the law? What is to become of a republic when its own judicial system invents “rights?” What is to become of a republic when charlatan politicians and “lawyers” perpetuate falsehoods to secure assumed power of the different branches of government that usurp them from others?
Historic times, indeed. The conflict now exists between lawfulness and lawlessness, as it relates to the founding of this republic, first under the Declaration of Independence, moving through the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitution for the united States of America. Several “battles” have been waged and lost, resulting in a republic whose government violates the very rights recognized and guaranteed each individual in the Constitution. The last to fall will be the very “right” to exist of this republic, which that battle is coming sooner, rather than later, if there is a battle at all.