it's so cute when you're angry. nice post.
In July 2004 almost 200 Americans filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Government seeking to have the federal Judiciary declare -- for the first time in history -- the constitutional meaning of the First Amendment Petition clause including the Right of the People to enforce the Right of Petition if Redress is denied.
We The People believes the Right to Petition is, in fact, the "capstone" Right of the Bill of Rights and that its effect is the direct exercise of Popular Sovereignty -- the First Principle of the Founding documents that declares government is the servant of Men
In addition to the property tax case, the Judges of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals are coming to grips with these truths now that all the briefs have been filed in We The People v United States.
This, of course, is the landmark lawsuit brought against the federal government for its failure to respond to our Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts regarding the war powers, tax, privacy and money clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America.
In its April response brief to the Court of Appeals the government argues most strenuously for, and relies completely upon, a claim of "Sovereign Immunity" against We the People. In short, the government openly asserts that it possesses absolute immunity from its own People -- even for the commission of constitutional torts. The government argues that because Congress has not authorized this kind of lawsuit via federal legislation, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
In our Reply Brief, the People refute these hollow and dangerous assertions and establish that in America, and under the Constitution of the United States of America, the concept of government immunity is, and by legal design, must be a myth. We argue that in a legal sense, sovereign immunity cannot exist without practically "upending" our Constitution and depriving the People of their most fundamental Right -- i.e., the Right to dominion over their servant governments and that any assertion by the Government to such sovereign immunity is an anti-constitutional and unlawful usurpation of power.
In sum, the Plaintiff's Reply brief to the DC Circuit asks the appellate court to recognize that sovereign immunity is a myth, that no act of Congress can trump the Constitution, and that the higher order constitutional questions of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the government under the Petition Clause must be determined by the Court before the Court determines the question of the obligations of the People and the limited privileges and immunities the government may enjoy under the Internal Revenue Code, including the Anti-Injunction Act.
Please, find out more and support the fight to defend the constitution! Get on board guys. I read a ruling that found the IRS's enforcement sections of the internal revenue code where found unconstitutional! They can't take any of your posesions for not paying taxes unless they take you to court and give you due process and get a federal court order! This guy is taking it to the MAN!
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP.../
InfoCenter.htm
http://www.wethepeoplecongress.org/
Just thought you would like to know!
Thanks for the clear explanation of what the President actually swore to protect, vs the military oath. I hope you don't mind I posted it and your comments about it on the MR blog.
Good Job...
So if the president's sworn job is to protect the Constitution then why don't they build a bunker to store it and place whoever is the current president down there with a machine gun to defend it. I don't remember seeing any paintings of George Washington standing guard over the Constitution, unless perhaps it was on the boat crossing the Delaware with him as he went into battle. I don't remember seeing any paintings of Thomas Jefferson guarding the Constitution at Monticello, perhaps it was buried under the building at the time. I don't remember any photos of FDR in a bunker guarding the Constitution. I seem to remember him going to war to protect us from the Germans and Japanese. If the sole purpose of the President is to defend the Constitution then just let the Congress pass all laws. Let the career polititians decide what's best for us. It doesn't matter if the United States is destroyed by enemies foreign or domestic. As long as a copy of the Constitution is buried somewhere on Earth and is defended by someone called the President then all is good. You people have no idea what the Constitution is about or what it's framers wanted for this country. They risked their property, their freedom, and their lives so we could be free from foreign tyrants and you all would let it all be destroyed because you don't like whoever happens to be President that you don't agree with. You are pathetic.
If some nut damaged the constitution document itself, he would go to prison. So why do we let G.W. get away with violating his oath of office? Is there a greater crime a President can commit? I don't think so.
Commenting by HaloScan
