Former Congressman Joe Walsh indicated Thursday on his Twitter account that “On Monday, Obama, on his own, to go after guns. It’s war. Defy his executive actions. Time for Civil disobedience.” There is no question that the president is out of control, and that when thwarted by minor details like the Constitution and the will of the people, he is more than willing to implement executive orders that are generally misguided and uninformed. It is surprising that a former congressman would call for civil disobedience, but it is representative of the frustration citizens are feeling with this arrogant and out of control president.
Obama has used the murder of 14 people in San Bernardino by a radicalized Muslim couple to call for greater gun control. He grossly confuses the issues in an effort to disarm the American public. He refuses to acknowledge that terrorism and Islam are somehow linked, and will not use the two words together. The public, however, is most concerned with Islam, which has promised to come to the U.S. and kill those who will not submit. That is a powerful motivation to become armed and to prepare for the threat that is clear and imminent, especially after the slaughter in San Bernardino. The 14 victims of the Muslim shooters were unarmed. Obama seems to prefer that we all have the same fate should other killers cross our paths.
More confusion from Obama, page 2:
America needs to read to defend itself from a tyranny, and illegal, fraudulent, treasonous muslim puppet illegally occupying the position. https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/
SUPREMECOURTCASE
The lesson they do not teach in law schools or high school civics classes: the Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction DECEMBER 15, 2015SUPREMECOURTCASELEAVE A COMMENT
• Part 1: Article III federal courts versus United States District Courts
The Constitution creates the judicial power of the national government at Article 3 § 1 and delineates the character of the controversies to which the judicial power extends at Article 3 § 2(1); to wit, respectively and in pertinent part:
“Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . .
“Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States will be a party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In a judicial sense, “jurisdiction” (from the Latin jus right, dictio act of saying) means, essentially, the legal power, right, or authority of a court to hear and decide causes and pronounce the sentence of the law within a certain geographic area; to wit:
“forum . . . 2 a : a judicial body or assembly . . . b : the territorial jurisdiction of a court forum before personal jurisdiction may be exercised — National Law Journal” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated: Springfield, Mass., 1996), p. 201.
“—Territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction considered as limited to cases arising or persons residing within a defined territory, as a county, a judicial district, etc. The authority of any court is limited by the boundaries thus fixed. . . .” Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary, Second Edition (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul. Minn., 1910) (hereinafter “Black’s 2nd”), p. 673.
The true distinction between courts is as to species of jurisdiction, i.e., general or limited; to wit:
“General jurisdiction is that which extends to a great variety of matters. General jurisdiction in law and equity is jurisdiction of every kind that a court can possess, of the person, subject-matter, [and] territorial . . .
“. . . Limited jurisdiction (called, also, special and inferior) is that which extends only to certain specified causes.” [Emphasis in original.] John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn.: 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 1761.
“—Limited jurisdiction. . . . The true distinction between courts is between such as possess a general and such as have only a special jurisdiction for a particular purpose . . .” Black’s 2nd, p. 673.
It is well settled that trial courts ordained and established by Congress under authority of Article III of the Constitution, supra, are courts of limited jurisdiction, with authority only over certain controversies; to wit:
• “The character of the controversies over which federal judicial authority may extend are delineated in Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. . . .” Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd., v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982).
• “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . .” Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 457 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2006).
• “[T]he jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited not only by the provisions of Art. III of the Constitution, but also by Acts of Congress. Palmore v. United States,411 U. S. 389, 411 U. S. 401; Lockerty v. Phillips,319 U. S. 182, 319 U. S. 187; Kline v. Burke Constr. Co.,260 U. S. 226, 260 U. S. 234; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 44 U. S. 245.” Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372 (1978).
• “It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Id. at 374.
• “The courts of the United States are all of limited jurisdiction . . .” Ex Parte Tobias Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 3 Pet. 193, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830).
• “[S]tate courts are courts of general jurisdiction . . . . By contrast, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . .” Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., 43 6 F.3d 335, 337 (2nd Cir. 2006).
Whereas: Only courts with territorial jurisdiction (an aspect of general jurisdiction) can take cognizance of civil and criminal causes; and
Whereas: All Article III federal trial courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (certain controversies only),
Wherefore: No trial court ordained and established by Congress under Article III of the Constitution is authorized to take cognizance of civil and criminal causes.
Worked for the blacks back in the 60’s when they were getting screwed.
Felicitas Strong ….in these End Times, Love Of God and Country will prevail but unfortunately we have to live thru some darkness first…..
It is past time for Civil disobedience.
Fight fire with fire.
Isabel WE WILL KEEP OUR GUNS. Hope someday you people get your gun rights back
It will be war! It will start a civil war. They are just waiting if obama thinks he starts it he will get a fool bloom civil war!
Don’t back down, do something
Obama will be the person who fires the first shot to start the next American Revolution . I honestly believe 2016 will go in history as next one . Shame so many SHEEP will be slaughtered with no way of defending their families
God help us.