Part 3: Structure of the Constitutional Republic > 50 Sovereign State with Article IV, Section 4 guarantees
(media.greatawakening.win)
CONSTITUTIONAL WARFARE
Comments (24)
sorted by:
ty mods. Much appreciated visibility for the rest of the anons.
Who enforces the law when everyone refuses to follow it? The answer appears to be the individuals [LEFT SIDE] OR the military [RIGHT SIDE], not necessarily in that order, when the Sovereign States have either been usurped or co-opted by Commie Governors and legislatures. In the very [CENTER] each State Assembly needs to re-take control one state at a time, county-by-county.
Deep State is attempting to neutralize State General Assemblies by bribing and co-opting members who are elected via rigged elections, and then using Commie Governors to veto anything they cannot stop in the General Assembly.
Note the following costs for Individuals suing in Federal Court over Constitutional violations: $402 filing fee Federal District Court, $505 filing fee Circuit Court/Appeals Court (also same cost for Writ of Mandamus instructing a State Judge, Legislator, or Executive to resign or face court-ordered arrest for contempt).
Exactly! This is huge. Most people aren't aware that the General Assembly should be a major focus. Hold your elected public servants accountable and you'll fix your slice of the country. It will be much more efficient to Fix our own pieces instead of head on altogether.
Check out constitutionstudy.com, he has great tools and knowledge of the constitution.
ty. Hotlink: https://constitutionstudy.com/
"The law" of the land was (de facto) officially extinguished in 1938 when TPTSB merged common law and equity into their now "in rem" jurisdiction known as "The rules of civil procedure" providing them unfettered power to do whatever they want with zero accountability under the man-made, fictional entity governing "legal" system.
Agreed. I tried to cover that a bit in Part 4. Please add this comment over there as well. I may paste in some of your previously posted content into there as well regarding this phase-out issue. https://greatawakening.win/p/16b5ze1Axd/part-4-structure-of-the-constitu/c/
I think most of the rules for civil procedure are actually unconstitutional per Congress "oversight" and review/approval/interference with the rules creation process which is supposed to be SCOTUS alone. All made possible by parts of FAILED Judicial Act of 1937 which likely violates Separation of Powers doctrine among other things.
They sure are as they apply only to fictional (dead) entities (your ALL CAPS NAME strawman trust) under the UCC and corpus juris secundum. The word "Civil" is the "tell".
Civil, i.e., law of the city as opposed to law of the land.
Hello there Mr. Corr
Don't forget about coulorable law because of coulorable money
.
Today, we have two competing monetary systems: The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States Notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income.
United States v. Berg, 636 F.2d 203 (1980).
Excellent citation!
Bingo! City -> Citizen
Ah ha! Never thought of that.
We the People can hold them accountable. To learn more, join your jural assembly within your county. Connect with the national assemblies on their weekly conference calls to speak with moderators from all states. Good luck, Patriots. https://national-assembly.net/
That would be an interesting GoFundMe...each state could have their own. Getting groups together to enforce the law of Constitutional Republic and the Constitution of the United States.
PART 1: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS https://greatawakening.win/p/16b5ze0cGO/part-1-structure-of-the-constitu/c/
PART 2: MILITARY TRIBUNAL COURTS https://greatawakening.win/p/16b5ze0cKY/part-2-structure-of-the-
PART 4: ARTICLE III SCOTUS https://greatawakening.win/p/16b5ze1Axd/part-4-structure-of-the-constitu/c/
PART 3 focuses on the power of the Sovereign States and Article IV, Section 4 guarantees. Note that guarantees are NOT suggestions or guidelines.
The Constitution (ratified 1788, effective March 4, 1789) is a "more perfect Union" created ON TOP of the Articles of Confederation (finalized 1777, effective March 1, 1781) which created a "perpetual Union". This "Union" was created by the original 13 States and is ultimately now controlled by the 50 State General Assemblies who are supposed to represent with delegated authority "We the People" from whom all authority derives.
The Federal gov't does NOT control or have any authority over the Sovereign States unless, of course, they usurp that authority through either overt of covert means. The Federal gov't was created by the States as a "service organization" and it has 19 specific enumerated duties with all other power retained by the States or the People (9th/10th Amendment NONDELEGATED authority).
-Article IV, Section 4
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv
Note that "United States" may be either that of the Constitution (RED arrows) or that of the Military (far right GREEN), imo. Domestic violence includes acts by the FBI and false flags being created by 3 letter agencies AND the media.
A corporate form of government is specifically NOT a republican form of government.
Allowing an invasion whether due to state policies or federal policies is clear violation of shall protect each of them against invasion.
Additional Article IV, Section 4 information: https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZDcaBLnR/every-state-is-in-violation-of-a/c/
Also notable are the other 3 sections:
Article IV, Section 1
Blue states going to have to abide by the law being enforced in red states, imo.
Article IV, Section 2
Part 2 regarding treason is going to become important as Deep Stater players try to hide in blue states, imo.
Article IV, Section 3
First part of Section 3 is relevant to Greater Idaho and New California initiatives and also reference West Virginia creation in 1863 from Confederate State of Virginia (1861).
ADDITION 1: Don't forget about the Surety Bond Claims to remove any and ALL state officials violating the Constitution or taking bribes or both: https://bondsforthewin.com/
ADDITION 2: And be sure to pile on a Tax Fraud report to the IRS for all of your favorite corrupt state officials, judges, and representatives who have accepted money/bribes/in-kind "donations" from the CCP/Drug Cartels and not paid taxes on it. And if you fill out the referral form, you get a cut of what is collected: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/how-do-you-report-suspected-tax-fraud-activity
Curiously, no one is talking about how to join an assembly. Maybe I missed it in the other posts? Anyway, here is an active site on joining an assembly; the Michigan General Jural Assembly and the Alaska Jural Assembly are the main ones that are most active and true to the Constitution. They do national conference calls weekly, and they can help you to connect to a general jural assembly in your area. This group is the legit deal (there was a bad DS actor within the jural assembly movement, who has been since removed in my understanding--Anna was her name). Anyway, you can just call into their conference calls and hear what the state assemblies are doing nationwide. The number is on this website. Cheers, patriots! Just remember, if there is no jural assembly in your county, they can help you make one. Once all of the counties are settled, then your state can be settled. This is how we take back our nation! https://national-assembly.net/
Thank you. This is key. Everyone get involved. Join an assembly!
If you want to see for yourself how deep and pervasive the hatred is for free people having unalienable Rights as recognized by the founding fathers and encoded in the Bill of Rights, look no further than the topic of 'Law Positive' versus Common Law.
Investigating this topic, you'll quickly learn why America is experiencing the Marxist takeover of government. 'Law Positive'; ius positum is a legal ideology based on man-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.
On the surface, it sounds good, but it's not. Instead, it is pervasive and evil. I'll go into this further, but it will require some background, so please be patient and your eyes will clearly see this.
The concept of 'Law Positive' (or Positive Law) is distinct from 'Common Law'. Common Law comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, Nature or reason. Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. In other words, it is based on legal ruling as precedent. This is the reason for the Marxists calling the United States Constitution a 'living' document. That is, a document that is continually edited and updated. The Bill of Rights is not editable nor update-able. It is immutable. So, why have I presented this. Here's why.
It's very unfortunate that most people don't understand what is going on regarding our Constitutional Rights. They can see what is happening, but they don't recognize the prevailing legal theory that has become the precedent in the courts across the land.
All law schools and all the courts in the United States have adopted "Law Positivism" as the guiding law of the land.
In legal theory, Legal Positivism (or Positive Law) is contrary to Natural Law. Our Bill of Rights is based on Common Law and is being increasingly ignored from the bench. All the graduating lawyers are being brain-washed and indoctrinated to follow Law Positivism. Seldom is Constitutional Law practiced in the courts today. In some cases, and it is becoming more frequent, a judge will brazenly forbid Constitutional arguments altogether.
If you wonder why your Rights are being taken away, it is because of this very reason. It is a well-known and acknowledged historical arument that the courts provide an appearance of justice. Indeed, this concept has long been known and accepted as a principle; ipso facto in the legal profession. Justice has admittedly been revealed to be illusionary for purposes of appeasing the masses.
If the masses ever found out that the courts are all a contrived act there would be rebellion. I know this sounds harsh. However, the courts only provide the appearance of justice in that justice must be weighed with the known facts.
What does the appearance of justice have to do with your unalienable rights?
Under Common Law, which in turn is based on Natural Law, from whence the Bill of Rights was derived, the appearance of justice is based on morality, fact, and truth. It is the closest real justice that can be served. Positive Law is based on rules, ordinances, regulations, and statutes. These are suppose to be imperative components to morality. However, Positive Law is based on a tortuous continuum of legal opinions that are rooted in ordinances, statutes, regulations, and rules. These are often government dictates that often have little to no public input. In other words, Truth and Fact need not apply for a conviction.
No one would deny you or I have certain unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (which derive directly from Natural Law). Yet today, the legal system has adopted the theory of Legal Positivism, which does not recognize you have these unalienable rights. Again, Fact and Truth do not often apply in the dark-robed chambers of today's courts.
In today's world the appearance of justice increasingly does not necessarily equate to real justice. Under Legal Positivism, the appearance becomes obvious.
Great stuff! ty.
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
It is further relevant to this Affidavit that any violation of my Rights, Freedom, or Property by the U.S. federal government, or any agent thereof, would be an illegal and unlawful excess, clearly outside the limited boundaries of federal jurisdiction. My understanding is that the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted as follows:
"The Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; And - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." [emphasis added]
and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
"The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
The definition of the "United States" being used here, then, is limited to its territories:
It does not include the several states themselves, as is confirmed by the following cites:
"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
This is further confirmed by the following quote from the Internal Revenue Service:
Federal jurisdiction "includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." - Internal Revenue Code Section 312(e).
Very nice. ty. Federal courts are also supposed to enforce the Bill of Rights, but the Federal judges do not seem too interested in doing that at the moment. This means they can be removed for violation of their oaths, assuming they actually have them on file.
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d.
** Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states. **
Although it goes beyond the scope of this memorandum, there is a distinction between the “United States District Court” designated by 26 U.S.C. § 7323 and the “district court of the United States” designated by 26 U.S.C. § 7402. The former is a territorial or insular possession court where the latter is an Article III court of the United States. Insular possessions ceded following the Spanish-American War (1898) were under the civil law system when they were Spanish provinces. Congress elected to leave the civil law system in place in the newly acquired possessions as the cession treaty did not incorporate them in the constitutional scheme – they were not destined to become States of the Union.
The civil law system is in many respects repugnant to the common law system of English-American heritage. See definition of “United States District Court” in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), and definition of “District Court of the United States” in Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938).
=============
[Federal jurisdiction] " ...must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624(1995).