September 19, 2020

Article 1 Section 8

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

  • ~ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
What is “necessary and proper”? Anything they want it to mean. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional law because if it got passed it had to be “necessary and proper”.

===

The constitutionalists representing themselves arguments are in error. The government{s} know this. Thus bringing the wrong legal argument to the government concerning their grievances isn’t going to accomplish much. The only real good that is coming out of all of this is that, the environmentalists in government and outside of government are willing to slaughter protestors angry about the destruction of their livelihoods, and loss of property. This has been going on for years and its finally reached a bill over point. Just look at the WLNs commenters essentially calling for the “legal” force destruction of these protesters. The other thing being exposed here is the constitutional legal abuse against u.s. citizens via the necessary and proper clause in that COTUS these patriots all adore. Its Article 1, section 8.  “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

What is “necessary and proper”? Anything they want it to mean. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional law because if it got passed it had to be “necessary and proper”.
Whats the main element behind this; Various International Environmental Treaties.
Again Article 1 Section 8;
  • “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

“Do you know what the Offences against the Law of Nations are? If not, how do you know what your duties and obligations as a citizen are? I invite you all to ask around. Ask any of the Constitutionalists if they have ever read the Law of Nations. Because when the Framers referenced this book, by mere reference to it they incorporated the entire Law of Nations into the Constitution. Today, hardly any so-called constitutional scholars, Freemen, or Patriots have even heard of the Law of Nations much less read the book or discuss it because if they had, there would be nothing to complain about. There would be no political parties, there would be no Occupy movement, there would be no Tea Party movement, no “peaceful protesting”, and no welfare state, and most of all, — NO EXCUSES..”

What else does everyone have wrong including the environmentalist clique who support the DESTRUCTION of their fellow countrymen? 
 
Anybody seen the WLNs loving their neighbor and say well wait a minute we’re trying to trash people lives? Nope, because they are utterly wicked evil people.
 
Who is We The People: NONE OF YOU CITIZENS THAT IS A FACT;
 
“We the People” pertains primarily to the signatories, a deal they all went in on together. The United States of America is a British plantation formerly referred to as the American Colonies. Their reason for doing this was to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves (meaning them, the signatories) and our Posterity. (meaning their Posterity, their offspring) Posterity, all the descendants of a person in a direct line to the remotest gen POSTHUMOUS CHILD 920 POTENTIAL eration. [Breckinridge v. Denny, 8 Bush (Ky.) 027]  When they use capitalization it changes the meaning of a word. Thatcapitonym, that Capital “P” in Posterity, it’s for emphasis alright. It’s a “direct line” to a proper noun, a direct descendant, because in the language procedure if I capitalize the first letter in the middle of a sentence like that, then I am not referring the general definition. I can’t be, which only leaves what remains, a Bloodline.”
Congress has the “constitutional” authority to take lands, force out rebels via conquest.. They’ve been doing it all over the world now its our turn apparently. What I find interesting is they could pay a fair market price using their funny negotiable debt instrument money to remove ranchers. So, apparently they prefer a war. Apparently if you disagree with their Socially Engineered Collective you don’t deserve anything, no rights, not of compliant against the evil they do.
And even more disgusting about all of this land acquisition in the name of saving sage brush, lizards, jack rabbits, coyotes, sage grouse, and stink bugs, is the foolish belief that these Earth saving billionaires behind this environmental salvation are not interested in the treasure underneath the ground where the ranchers are being chased away from. Uranium, gold, natural gas, hmmm, and rancher hating environmentalists are so stupid they can’t sniff out an ulterior motive disguised behind their evil movement. All they are is duped controlled opposition.

 

In 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345 (1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

“The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

“This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state’s Constitution, said:

“Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

“This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review:”

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer Mr. Hege:

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution…”

“In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. …And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging

to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.” Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

“I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let’s say you give me a seat belt ticket. What law did I violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn’t. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

INFORMER

 

Share