Jew World Order

An abbreviated list of broken laws includes:

• PPACA (Obamacare): Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March

• FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order
  from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC
  does not have the power to regulate the Internet

• EPA 1: GHG (Green House Gas) lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector
  General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own
  data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in
  February

• OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19
  states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for
  the first time in more than 30 years

• DOJ: South Carolina Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID
  statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court
  of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act
  which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to
  administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections
  passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South
  Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show
  photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the
  pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID

• DOJ: Arizona Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID
  statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court
  of the United States

• DOE: Yucca Mountain: In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke
  federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American
  history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain
  licensing application with prejudice.

– A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

14 more violations of law are listed in
the AG’s memo. At one time or another, many of these violations have
made the news, yet the full list is never presented to the public. When
complied, it is apparent even at a glance, that the federal government
as led by Barack Obama has no respect for law.

Clearly the Obama
government is acting as it deems fit. Much as a monarchy would. As if
the States did not exist. As if the Constitution of the United States
did not apply.

Indeed, when it comes to Obama and his government, the constitution is a barrier to be removed. As Obama stated in a 2001 interview with NPR, “generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties,”.  Undeniably, the Constitution limits
government negatively, it states what it cannot do.

From the point of
view of someone attempting expand government powers beyond that which
the constitution limits it to, it is extraordinarily negatively
limiting. It was designed that way. It is the keystone, the cornerstone,
the foundation of a free people; one freed and protected from
government tyranny.

The M-1/A-2 tank in the room…

If more evidence were needed to delineate the obvious disrespect coming from the Oval Office for the Law, on Monday, April 2^nd
2012 President Barack Obama attempted to erase 200 years of legal
history, stating in a press conference with world leaders, that the law
codified in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137) 1803 is not valid:

“Ultimately,
I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an
unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by
a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.” – Barack Obama 4-5-2012

Hundreds of bills have passed out of
congress and been found unconstitutional, overturned by the Supreme
Court, since Marbury V. Madison established in 1803 the Supreme Court’s
right of judicial review.

The Supreme Court has been the final
arbiter of law, determining the constitutionality of laws passed by
congress for over two hundred years. There is no Article or Section in
the constitution which specifically bestows this power within the court.

Instead, Marbury was the court’s interpretation of the constitution;
furthermore the legal precedent it set in that decision still stands as
good law today.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has
attempted to re-write history to his liking. The difference here lay in
the fact that the media is in a feeding frenzy over this one.

The day following this massive falsehood April 2nd, Obama’s Director of the Department of Justice Eric Holder, was ordered to address Obama’s statements by the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals; forcing the administration to publicly acknowledge the law established in Marbury.

Attorney General Eric Holder stated in the department’s court ordered response:

“The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation
of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider
or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the
constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Even the Attorney General of
the United States is hanging Obama out to dry on this issue.

Marbury V. Madison is not just an
elephant in the room; it’s more like M-1/A-2 tank running flat out, but
not for the reasons most immediately apparent. What is missing from this
conversation, so ravenously devoured by the press is this…

Marbury was
decided in 1803, it’s has been cited to hundreds of times. It has never
been overturned. The Attorney General of the United States affirms that
it is good law. There is absolutely no question it is binding law, so
commonplace it wasn’t even a discussion piece outside first year law
school until the president tried to undo it in a press conference.

So far so good, but what’s missing here?

If Marbury has never been overturned and
is binding law with decades of citable history behind it, what makes it
different from a case decided in 1875 which has also never been
overturned and has been cited to for decades?

Nothing. They are both still law.

Minor V. Happersett in 1875 decided Ms. Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. While originally a Women’s Suffrage
(voting) case, the Court in Minor interpreted the constitution
determining that citizenship itself did not give right to vote,
unequivocally stating in the final paragraph of the decision: “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” – Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162).

Constitutional Amendments against
discrimination preventing a person from voting based on race (15th), sex
(19th) and age (26th)., are taken for granted as being a constitutional
rights to vote, yet in reality, there is no constitutionally protected
“right” to vote, there are amendments against discrimination.

To restate this immeasurably important
distinction, there is nothing in the constitution which gives Americans
the right to vote; instead the constitution eliminates circumstances
such as gender and race from preventing voting. This is a legal
distinction perhaps only a lawyer can properly love, yet the fact
remains, the difference between the two is as great as the difference
between lead and gold.

This is why the Minor Case has never
been overturned; its conclusion is a statement of fact. Because it has
never been overturned, the basic definitions of citizenship made in
Minor still apply today because they are the independent grounds upon
which the court made its decision. 

To use a metaphor, ‘The light bulb
turned on because there is electricity. Electricity is the flow of
electrons in a current which heats a wire making a light bulb glow,’ the
definition of electricity is the independent ground upon which we can
say the light bulb turned on.

This is not an issue of dictionary
semantics, or the meaning of words changing over time. The Minor court
defined natural born citizenship as part of its independent ground for
deciding the case, making it a part of the ‘holding’ – for deciding the
case as it did. ‘Citizenship does not give the right to vote. Citizens
are…’. These definitions were codified in law which, like those made
in Marbury V. Madison, makes them inviolate.

The court in 1875 chose to define
through its specific wording what natural born citizens were and still
are today, just as in 1803 it decided the right of judicial review lay
with the Supreme Court and nowhere else.

Illegal governments do illegal things…

Why is the Minor case relevant in 2012 as it applies to the federal government breaking laws left and right?

The answer is not only insidiously
dangerous, but terribly simple. The man at the head of that government
is there illegally. How can this be? Because Minor V. Happersett is
still law, it has not been overturned any more than Marbury V. Madison
has.

“At common-law, with the
nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it
was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who
were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

These
were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or
foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens
children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the
citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been
doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case
it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for
everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen
parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162)

The Court did not need to decide if
Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was obviously a natural born
citizen, born in the United States to two parents who were its citizens.

The Minor case instructs clearly and concisely, those not born to two
citizen parents have doubts about their citizenship status which in some
circumstances, such as qualification under Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution, will demand answers. 

Simple logic tells us where there is
doubt about something proofs must be offered to confirm the status of
it.

The proof offered by Barack Obama of his Natural Born Citizenship
and placed by him on the White House website has been found to be a “probable forgery” by Sheriff Joe Arpaio
of Maricopa County Arizona in a legitimate law enforcement action
undertaken at the written insistence of the Citizens of Maricopa County
and presented to them in person on March 31, 2012.

The Sheriff is a five time, popularly elected law enforcement official who has served 20 years in that office.

This is the M-1/A-2 tank roaring through the room. If Marbury V. Madison is still law, so too is Minor V. Happersett.

If Barack Obama was completely wrong to
state:

“…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an
unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by
a strong majority of a democratically elected congress…”,

then he is
equally incorrect to claim Natural Born Citizenship because he was not
“born in a country of parents who were its citizens”. He has offered no
legitimate proof that he could be, his father was a British Subject of
Kenya and never a citizen of the United States. What proof Obama has
offered has been proven a forgery by law enforcement officials.

The simplest of conclusions is unavoidable…

Illegal governments do illegal things, expect nothing less.

Dianna Cotter – April 6, 2012 – Pravda.ru

Part 2 of 2

Barack Obama Foreign Student – American Media Threatened into Silence

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American
Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009,
a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities
and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She
has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media,
Family Security Matters, Post and Email, and English Pravda.

The author can be contacted at [email protected], or at DiannaCotter.com

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook