Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court

26
Mar
13

REAL Marriage Equality

realequalityI see a lot of equality and M+F pictures on Facebook and this is MY rebuttal and my stance for some time.
 
WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO BE INVOVED IN ANYONES MARRIAGE?

This country was founded on the idea that all power was vested in the People. Any power not held by the People cound not be ceded to the government to control or regulate.

If this is true, then when did the People ever have jurisdiction to tell their neighbors that they could or could not marry whoever? We never had that right, yet here today we are demanding that the government afford us marriage.

The issue isn’t THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD LET ME MARRY WHO I WANT.

No.

The isssue is WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT REGULATING MARRIAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Until we realize that the government, especially the Federal Government, has no right to regulate marriage, we will NEVER have equality. There, I said it, now go love whoever you want and quit worrying about the damn government verifying your love.

27
Nov
10

Obama Eligibility: Will the SCOTUS have the Testicular Fortitude to see this out?

I doubt the SCOTUS will allow this case to go through, but we will see.

Original here.

Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the “writ of certiorari,” it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court’s decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the “death knell” for Obama’s legitimacy.

“Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it’s a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else,” Apuzzo told WND.

Apuzzo observed it is “undisputed fact” that Obama’s father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits “is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don’t know what that would show,” according to Apuzzo. “We might not even get to the question of defining ‘natural-born citizen.’ If he was not born in the U.S., he’d be undocumented, because he’s never been naturalized. We don’t even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that’s hearsay. We have not seen the root documents.”

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama’s presidency.

“If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office,” Berg told WND. “We would ask for a lift of Obama’s ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don’t spend that kind of money unless there’s something to hide, and I believe the reason he’s hiding this is because he was not born in the United States.”

“The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case,” Berg added. “If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office.”

“They’re taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens,” Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the “Vattel theory,” which asserts that the term “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution was defined by Swiss writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, “The Law of Nations,” was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term “natural-born citizen” has never been altered.

“The courts and Congress have never changed the definition,” said Apuzzo. “The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him.”

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel’s definition of “natural-born citizen” in “dicta,” or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1814 “Venus” case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel’s definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

“To me that’s false,” said Berg. “The 10th Amendment refers to ‘we the people.’ If the people can’t challenge the president’s constitutionality, that would be ridiculous.”

“My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president,” said Apuzzo. “Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients.”

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

“They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody’s life, liberty and property in the process.

“They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen.”

09
Sep
09

Obama Trial on 26 January 2010

UPDATE: It appears that the court case was actually dismissed shortly thereafter. I report on it HERE.

—-

This is an update to the post that was published on 06 September 2009, entitled Sept 8, Obama Eligibility Hearing.

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, also were restored to the case.

But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president’s still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz’ challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and “possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief.”

25
May
09

A Discussion Regarding Taxation on Private Sector Earnings

Taken from a college student’s paper regarding taxation. Author wishes to remain anonymous. I know that the subject of taxes is confusing and somewhat boring but I urge you to read through this and think about it. All sources are listed at the bottom if you want to see the sources used. Enjoy and thank you to the author of this paper.

Even though those whom disagree often site the sixteenth amendment as the law allowing the Congress to tax private sector labor as income, the taxation imposed on the pay of private sector workers is improper because Article 1 Section IX of the United States Constitution prohibits Direct taxation without apportionment, and numerous Supreme Court decisions espouse that trading labor for money is a natural right.

Taxes are a necessary evil. In order for Governments to function, they require a revenue stream – the debts of the government need to be paid, the members of the armed forces need to be paid, and the normal day to day operations of the Government need to be paid. The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to generate a revenue stream through the laying and collecting of taxes; this power is given in Article 1 Sec 8 Cl. 2, which states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” 

Then, in Article 1 Sec 9 Cl 4; “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” And in Clause 5 “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” The Founding Fathers, understanding the need of the Federal Government to have a positive inflow of Continue reading ‘A Discussion Regarding Taxation on Private Sector Earnings’

11
May
09

Ladies of America

Lady_LibertyFor most Americans, we are familiar with the Statue of Liberty. Lady Liberty stands on Liberty Island in New York and has for years welcomed people to The Land of the Free, The United States of America. From her left foot she has broken the shackles that held her captive – a representation of how Americans were to be free of oppression and tyranny. As an indirect symbol of America and her birth and therefore her Republic government where all people were to be represented, I cannot help but wonder what poor Miss Liberty thinks of what America has become. Has someone snuck up behind her and reshackled her feet or have we let our vampirous politicians clamp down on her neck and drain her of her liberty blood. I am afraid that like our Founding Fathers, Lady Liberty would be sad to see what we have become.

Lady_JusticeAmerica does have another lady in our lives, though. We don’t hear much about her but she is probably just as important. In our Republic we are great because we have the law on our side. Our government was designed to give the power to the people and have everyone represented. Yes, even better than [mob rule] Democracy as everyone purports (and America is not a Democracy). Representing this idea is Lady Justice.

Lady Justice is normally depicted with a sword in one hand, a scale in the other, and blindfolded. The scale is representative of Justice weighing both sides equally under law while the blindfold is to represent the law being carried out objectively and without favoritism or impartialism. (The sword I would presume would represent the ability to guard the law while justice is being weighed? Please comment if you know what the sword symbolizes).

I think it is amazing at how symbolic this single graphical depiction of justice is. It judges without fear or favor because it cannot tell who it is judging. Evidence is quite simply placed into the scale and she weighs them and decides what the outcome is in accordance with the law is. In essence, it is the scale that decides, not her.

Fast forward to 2009 and we now have President Obama saying that he wants a new Justice that holds the following qualities.

Obama said he valued the ‘quality of empathy’ and was hopeful of finding a new justice who would reflect on people’s ‘hopes and struggles’ in the process of arriving at legal decisions. (link)

I am sure that this does not alarm many people out there, but it does me. Essentially what this means is that when you step into a court room, you are stepping into room where they judge and rule upon how well you can emotionally move them, not how your situation applies to the laws on the book. In simple terms, you will not be convicted (or your defendant will not be found guilty) based on laws but rather flippiant emotions.

It is noteworthy to mention that the outside of the Supreme Court it reads, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” not “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER EMOTION AND EMPATHY.”

equal_justice_under_law

Maybe Lady Justice should put down her scale and just sit there and see who moves her emotionally instead of weighing the law.

Without law, we have nothing folks.

15
Apr
09

What Income Taxes Really Are

There IS an Income Tax . . .

HOWEVER

“Everything” you earn
IS NOT
“Taxable Income”

Did YOU earn your money by:

WORKING FOR…

DOING BUSINESS WITH…

INVESTING IN…

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ?

If not, then those earnings
ARE NOT “taxable income”

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general: Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

That’s not very helpful, what exactly IS “income” since THAT is what you are taxing…

US Supreme Court, US v. Ballard, 535 f2d 400, 404 (1976) “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code”

What does the Dictionary say “income” is?

in·come: The monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, such as rents or investments.

OK, “income” is all that I earn from my work and investments…just what I thought…

US Supreme Court, Southern Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918): “We must reject the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income…”

WHAT !?…….”income” is NOT “all” money that I receive !? What does the Constitution say about a DIRECT TAX upon my earnings?

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”

In response to the above Constitutional reference, your accountant or the IRS will probably refer to the 16th Amendment, commonly known as the “Income tax”. To which the Supreme Court would reply…

US Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103 (1916): The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…

Additionally… Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress Report No. 80-19A,“Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”:

Page CRS-5 (1979): “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White [the Brushaber ruling], first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.”F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department Legislative draftsman. March, 27 1943 Page 2580.

The income tax is, therefore, is not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

The “PRIVILEGE” you must participate in to earn “taxable income” is working for, doing business with, or investing in businesses majority-owned by the Federal Government or “Federal Instrumentalities”. If you make your money having nothing to do with the Federal Government, then your earnings are not “taxable income”.

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

(original)




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories