In an open letter posted Sept. 21, Jon Ritzheimer said that he “has everything to lose” and plans to travel from Arizona to Michigan with an armed militia of a “growing number of patriots” to arrest Stabenow because she voted for the nuclear deal with Iran. Once the group has arrested Stabenow, the letter states, the militia will then move on and arrest other lawmakers across the country, including “the president who brokered this deal.” More of Ritzheimer’s plan on the next page:
Lmao you’re taking out the wrong trash
I’m in sympathy, but don’t think that has even a remote chance of success.
Naturalized American born Lmfao your embarassing and sickening.
Norman I agree with u.
God bless him..
Hell yes brother!
The 2nd amendment and the defence there of:
US. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Two:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
It is well established that any time the phrase “the right of the people” is used in the Constitution it shall be interpreted to mean “the right of every citizen individually ”
It has also been established that the courts may not “reach” for an interpretation of the Constitution when the language is clearly defined and unambiguous.
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:
“Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”
In Marbury vs Madison it was established that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.
This also applies to the N.D.A.A., brady bill and any other bogus bills that have been shoved through congress or other items from executive orders.
In Murdock vs Pennsylvania it is held that no state may covert a Liberty to a privilege and issues a permit or charge a fee to engage in that liberty
Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 105:(1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
In Shuttleworth vs Birmingham in is held that
A Secured Liberty may be engaged in with impunity
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 262:(1962)
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”
And in US vs Bishop it is held that engaging in a secured right may not be deemed malicious or being willfully neglect by ignoring unconstitutional rules/laws etc.
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346:
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
1. It must be proven that you are the party.
2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.
Willfulness – “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”
16 AM Jurisprudence 2nd Section 97
The Constitution shall be intrepreted in favor of the people as they are the clearly defined and expressly designated beneficiaries.
To this point we have determined that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, that no law that is repugnant to the Constitution is Valid, that you may engage in your rights with impunity and doing so may not be deemed willful neglect.
Now to the Courts…..
The Courts are charged with upholding the Constitution over all other laws/codes ect.
To interpret the Constitution in the favor of the people as the clearly defined expressly designated beneficiaries.
To declare a law/code/statute/ordinance ect. Unconstitutional when a declaratory judgment is requested.
To interpret the Constitution and to hear cases regarding the Constitution in THE COMMON LAW
To recognize that NO EMERGENCY can suspend the Constitution or its laws.
That judges and other officers of the government ARE NOT immune to prosecution for violating your rights.
To up hold their oath of office and if found guilty of not doing so then they a guilty of felony treason.
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:
“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”
Bary v. United States – 273 US 128
“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”
(You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98:
“While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.” (No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114:
“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” “ The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.”
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:
“Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:
“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 177:
“Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy before the court.”
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 255:
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law” (Demand a Declaratory Judgment)
“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:
“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”
Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that’s what justice is all about.
“Judge, you are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deformation of a law and you certainly cannot pled ignorance of the law, for that would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of a law, when a Citizen on the street cannot claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity.”
Lets take our country back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is appalling, horrifying and abysmally pathetic. Armed insurrection? I would expect this type of thinking from George Wallace or maybe the Black Panthers. I am sickened by the thought that 6 people would support this let alone 6,000. This is what we wish for our children and grandchildren? Throw out the rule of law and use violence instead of the ballot box? We tried civil war already. This is thinking worthy of a banana republic, not the greatest nation on Earth. Extremists Left and Right have been, for some time now, contributing to the decline of this nation. Lincoln warned of a house divided, but no one is paying attention as they rush to defeat the opposition rather than seek agreement. Ted Cruz has hinted at this type of stuff—throw out the Supreme Court Justices because you disagree with their decisions. Cruz would love to step in amidst anarchy and declare himself King. Lynch mob mentality. No need to fear China, Russia or ISIS, we are going to destroy ourselves.
I love all these people who talk, blah blah blah. No action. Disgusting.