ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

I call your attention to two articles outside the mainstream press this morning, the links of which you will find at the end of this post (You'll never find this stuff in the mainstream press anymore - real journalism is dead).

The first example of this topic involves the unconstitutional Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. After the unlawful use of the FBI and CIA by the Nixon administration to spy on President Nixon’s domestic political opponents, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. This statute outlawed all domestic surveillance except that which is authorized by the Constitution or by the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Courts are bound by the Constitution, just as are Congress and the president. Just because Congress says something is lawful does not mean it is constitutional. Secret courts are the tools of tyrants and lead to the corruption of the judicial process and the erosion of freedom. And courts that hear no challenge to the government and grant wh**ever it wants are not courts as we understand them; they are government hacks. They and the folks who have facilitated all this have undermined personal liberty in our once free society.

The whole purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government and to protect personal liberty. FISA and its enablers in both major political parties have done the opposite. They have infused government with corruption and have assaulted the privacy of us all.

In our second example, the Constitution ordains that the country shall not go to war without a declaration from the Congress. In fact the federals make war constantly with neither a declaration nor any reference to the will of people, draining their substance for purposes which are not theirs. If the Constitution is not binding on the central government, it is not binding on the states.

I'm sure other readers on OPP can cite numerous other examples where the provisions of the US Constitution are violated.

Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution says: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

The oath taken by all members of the House and Senate is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/03/andrew-p-napolitano/march-madness-washington-style/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/03/fred-reed/civil-i**********n-a-modest-proposal-for-ending-the-united-states/

zillaorange

pafret Loc: Northeast

Read both articles, Judge Napolitano was as usual, on point and carefully reasoned. He placed new light on the current issue and focuses on what is the graver danger -- secret courts. We should be agitating for repeal of the law which established these courts because their original purpose has been completely subverted. Instead of protecting citizens they are now being persecuted by these courts.

Fred Reed mixes and confuses the various actions going on, equating Colorado's legalization of marijuana to California's flaunting the i*********n l*ws when the Constitution specifically reserves the right to control immigration for the Federal Government, it is not a states right. Reed takes no cognizance that California's actions affect the rest of the nation, by altering our political process and in providing credentials for i******s which then permit them to wander through the country at will. If there were a border wall between California and the rest of the nation they might be justified in allowing as many i******s as they care to support into their state. Short of disenfranchising all Californians it will still not correct the political distortions these i******s cause.

Marijuana is an issue which is contested with the States claiming their sovereignty and the Federal Gov't claiming jurisdiction under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has not comprehensively addressed the constitutionality of marijuana use — because of the Court's relative conservatism on drug law in general, there has been no need. But one state supreme court ruling suggests that if a progressive Court ever does confront the matter directly, marijuana decriminalization may become a national reality.

Alaska Supreme Court: Ravin v. State (1975) upheld the right of adults to home-grow marijuana for their own use only. US Supreme Court: Gonzales v. Raich (2005) confirmed the Federal government's right to arrest medical marijuana users and their suppliers. The State court decision is applicable only to that state, the laws vary from state to state.

The law is not settled, it will depend on future decisions of the Supreme Court.