We have rant sign!
Jan. 21st, 2005 12:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gridlorecourtesy of the mouth-breather corps on alt.conspiracy..
Is a conspiracy by the Masons to take God out of government and our schools, and replace him with satan. We didn't have our children worshipping satan and committing mass murder when God was part of the curriculum. And have you noticed how they are being indoctrinated into Witchcraft with the "Harry Potter" books -- this is the religion of the Masons.
And why isn't the ACLU threatening to sue these schools? Could it be, because they are a Communist organization controlled by Masons.
It is common knowledge in the government, that you cannot get a "real" Christian approved for the Supreme Court, and why our courts have been taken over by Masons.
A study of Jefferson's letter shows, that he was assuring the Baptists that government could not interfere with their religous freedom, not restricting their "right" to the free practice thereof.
Incidentally, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Supreme Court: their job is to interpret the law, not create law; that would be a violation of the Separation of Powers of the Constitution.
Law enforcement should honor their oath to defend the Constitution, and not enforce court orders that conflict with the document.
REPOST
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it .... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an nconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the Constitution was written. -- Marbury vs. Madison
Is a conspiracy by the Masons to take God out of government and our schools, and replace him with satan. We didn't have our children worshipping satan and committing mass murder when God was part of the curriculum. And have you noticed how they are being indoctrinated into Witchcraft with the "Harry Potter" books -- this is the religion of the Masons.
And why isn't the ACLU threatening to sue these schools? Could it be, because they are a Communist organization controlled by Masons.
It is common knowledge in the government, that you cannot get a "real" Christian approved for the Supreme Court, and why our courts have been taken over by Masons.
A study of Jefferson's letter shows, that he was assuring the Baptists that government could not interfere with their religous freedom, not restricting their "right" to the free practice thereof.
Incidentally, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Supreme Court: their job is to interpret the law, not create law; that would be a violation of the Separation of Powers of the Constitution.
Law enforcement should honor their oath to defend the Constitution, and not enforce court orders that conflict with the document.
REPOST
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it .... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an nconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the Constitution was written. -- Marbury vs. Madison
