RSN Fundraising Banner
The futility of political reform without judicial reform
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=8245"><span class="small">W'Lawpsh</span></a>   
Tuesday, 06 September 2011 12:03
If the express and explicit legislative intent of the constitution is relevant to what the definition of what it means to be American, the unsustainable phenomenon of the rich getting richer while the rest get poorer is an un-American activity:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The difficulty is, the constitution does not rule. The judges of the Supreme Court rule. They attribute to the constitution their feeling that America is and should be an empire upon the basis of the commerce clause with sovereign power to initiate war against Indian tribes and foreign Nations for the profit of the rich in willful blindness to the fact that the Court in the country’s formative years settled that the commerce clause must be read subject to the amendment, defence and treaty clauses that protect the sovereignty of those others. See, W’Lawpsh, “Everybody knows war in self defence is constitutional but otherwise not,” RSN 9/1/11
http://readersupportednews.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7275.

Judges swear an oath or solemnly affirm that the constitution has the last word the same as do all the politicians and government officials. But they all (except for Justice Clarence Thomas) break that promise and duty. The words requiring the oath or affirmation are simple and clearly put together:

"Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

"Article VI, Clause 3. 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 reason the constitution is not the supreme law in actual practice is that the judicial branch of government has taken upon itself the power to obstruct and ignore the amendment, defence and treaty clauses in favor of looking only at the commerce clause and pretending it delegates sovereign power to the government to initiate war against Indian tribes and foreign Nations, so the rich can get richer.

The only way for the People to reclaim their sovereignty is to persuade the Supreme Court to stop obstructing and ignoring the constitutional question of the conflict between the amendment, defence, treaty and commerce clauses read together as a unified legislative policy as settled by the Court’s original precedents, as opposed to the contrary legislative policy invented by the 1871 Appropriations Act, the 1973 War Powers Act aided and abetted by the judicial reading of the constitution’s commerce clause strictly in isolation from its amendment, defence and treaty clauses, as if there were no previous precedents bracketing them and precluding the Court’s manifestly unconstitutional recent invention of global sovereignty.

If and when this profound conflict of laws issue publicly gets before the Court the only possible truthful answer is too simple, clear and plain given all the People’s awareness that the principle of the supremacy of the constitution is the cornerstone of their constitutional democracy. The judges can’t both let the issue publicly come before them and still aid and abet the empire. The clarity of the issue and the law and principle manifestly resolving it is the reason for the judicial refusal to let it into court. If this sounds Machiavellian that’s because it is. Judges are lawyers and lawyers are realists not idealists in the sense that the practice and teaching of law has become the art of the politically possible as opposed the pursuit of justice as the application of truth to affairs (again excepting only Thomas, J).

There is a pro se [no lawyer] court case presently being held at bay by the bureaucracy of the Supreme Court that has been forty years in the making. Old way Indians oppose the genocidal corruption of the federal Indian system and its obscene casinos and profiteering puppet governments. Some have stalked the legal system for a way into the courts in order to prevent the genocide from continuing to final solution. This so far fruitless and thankless process has culminated in the case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom and United States. Its heading says:

"IN THE MATTER OF preventing the genocide caused by the obstruction and ignoring of the constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal sovereignty asked and answered and invited into the Supreme Court of the United States by its Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in the case of United States v. Lara, 541 US 193 (2004)."

As also appears on the website Home page the Case Objective is:

"To re-instate constitutional democracy under the rule of law for all purposes in order to serve the particular purpose of preventing the genocide that is being caused by the judicial branch’s recent obstructing and ignoring of its previously settled answer to the constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal sovereignty pending treaty of relinquishment as required by the Constitution's amendment, defense, treaty and original US Supreme Court jurisdiction clauses."

And the Modus Operandi of the Genocide is the chicanery of the legal system as evidenced by the fact:

"The case is in limbo because the US Supreme Court Clerk refuses to docket and deliver it to the US Supreme Court Judges to affirm the previously-settled answer to the constitutional question on the ground subsequently-enacted federal legislation blocks access to the Court. The Clerk prejudges the conflict of laws by blindsiding the constitution and applying the manifestly unconstitutional federal law. The constitution guarantees to the tribes the same access to the Court as foreign Nations whereas the federal legislation repeals tribal access which irrefutably is unconstitutional since the federal legislation clearly and plainly does not comply with the constitution's amendment clause."

If this case can overcome the stonewall erected by the US Supreme Court (other than by Justice Thomas who alone has not obstructed and ignored the critical constitutional question but instead has been true to his oath or affirmation of office) political reform is possible. The legal historical circumstances and geographical location of the Indian complainants in this case as elaborated in the Case Court Documents uniquely qualify it as the ideal test case going the root of the constitutional question of constitutional democracy versus imperialism: the single most crucial question of our times, for all People’s and the shared global environment.

Unless and until constitutional democracy is reinstated by the judiciary, political argument and protest based upon truth, fairness and reason will remain futile in light of the willfully blind judicial veto in favor of commercial empire.

Please examine critically the website http://mightisnotright.org/ for the proof. Thank you.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Last Updated on Tuesday, 06 September 2011 20:03