Written by W'Lawpsh   

This is the question that burns a great big hole in the mind of those who are involved in the Case of Constitutional Democracy vs. Unconstitutional Empire that stands waiting to be let into the Courthouse of the Supreme Court of the United States. The formal name of the Case on the court documents raising that constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone is: Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi'kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.

Since 1871 the structurally critical constitutional question has been held at bay by the criminal obstruction of the Clerks of the Court who occupy the position that the federal law, which manifestly breaches the constitutional law protecting Indian tribal sovereignty, can not be challenged on constitutional grounds because the federal law has abolished the constitutional existence of the tribes; i.e., you can't get sent home on the ground you are crazy since if you apply you must be sane. In the Indian tribes' situation the tried and true Catch 22 technique since 1871 has served as the modus operandi for perfecting the crimes against the constitution and humanity of war and genocide.

The current Indian Case will, if and when it manages to overcome the Court Clerk's intentional suppression of constitutional democracy in favor of the war and genocide of the unconstitutional empire of commerce, end the problem that is the root cause of Wall Street's arrogance and disregard of the constitutional ethic that made America great. In fact it is the ONLY thing that can hope to achieve the reinstatement of true constitutional democracy. For even if the financiers were to agree with the protesters, there is nothing they could do that structurally would alter the pattern of excess and abuse that is bringing America to its knees and placing global civilization at risk of collapse.

The constitution as it exists is already more than adequate to the task of reform the protesters on Wall are espousing: basic honesty, the common welfare, one for all and all for one, justice as the application of truth to affairs, self defence in the best interest of all the People instead of war for profit of a few, in short, all of the ethical values that once were only common sense in America and the restoration of which now courageously is being promoted by the Wall Street protesters, it is all already there, structurally, in the constitution, if only the Supreme Court of the United States were to consider becoming ready and willing to depoliticize itself and, more simply, just uphold the constitution, like each Justice already swears or affirms he or she will do as a condition of being admitted into the office of a judge sitting on the Supreme Court bench.

This has already been explained in the Indian Case website's petition for help from the People. So I am reproducing it here. The reasons this is suitable for, and applicable to the protest movement for a meaningful change of direction in American and therefor global geo-politics is self evident from the numbered paragraphs at W'Lawpsh, "WHY AND HOW THE CASE NEEDS OUTSIDE HELP," Might is Not Right, http://mightisnotright.org/. The numbered paragraphs have been retained since they make it easier for the advocates of unconstitutional empire to focus the public's attention upon the errors of law made by the Indian proponents of constitutional democracy, in this document. If any can be found.

(1). Gary and Rick and their people whose fidelity to constitutional democracy under the rule of law, and whose ethical imperative precludes collaborating in the unconstitutional genocide by succumbing to the federal law punishment of resistance and payments of money for collaborating, are poor. But self defence in the courts of the empire committing the genocide-in-progress is expensive, even without having to pay lawyers and going it alone.

(2). Specifically the case urgently needs to be filed in each of the six European countries named as parties to it and this entails finding and paying agents in those countries to help format, print, bind, serve and, finally, file it in those foreign courts in the style to which each is accustomed. And it needs $9,500 for its agent in Washington who is carrying out those functions for the case in the US Supreme Court.

(3). Each European court will be asked to ask the US Supreme Court to address rather than obstruct and ignore the constitutional question. The European courts derive the constitutional jurisdiction and duty to do this under the discovery doctrine agreement by which each undertook the protection of Indian tribal sovereignty by means of the rule of law, and secondly upon the basis of the universal extraterritorial jurisdiction to act to prevent genocide that is occurring due to the judicial inactivity of the courts within the country hosting the genocide.

(4). The case does not actually need a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States willing to file it, but the Clerk of that Court wrongly says it does. Finding one is impossible because of the profound conflict of interest under which the legal profession labors with regard to Indian tribal sovereignty. The legal profession led the invasion into the unceded Indian territories and made a living certifying titles to the stolen land even though knowing full well title is void. The fact the legal profession staffs the judiciary made the lawyers' genocide the perfect crime. This is not something the profession wishes to expose.

(5). Between 1972 and 1999 the case's previous lawyer raised the constitutional question some forty times in courts across the continent in both the United States and Canada as well as internationally. In 1999 he was convicted of criminal contempt of court and disbarred for persisting in asking the question supposedly after it had been answered, with cogent reasons for judgment, by each of the forty judges which, if true, would be substantiated by court records, none of which exist, because it is not true. Other lawyers are not interested in committing professional suicide.

(6). Even so the tribes must once again extend the invitation and give the opportunity to any and all lawyers whom this reaches to take on that risk. Once the lawyer completes the mechanical task of signing and mailing Document 15 to the Court Clerk and the respondents, his/her job is done: the case can rest. It relies solely on the written submissions.

(7). While on the surface the case presents a simple conflict between the constitution and ordinary statute law, the necessary incident of letting the case into court is the need to face and publicly to resolve the deeper conflict between political expediency and fidelity to the constitution.

(8). We hope some will read the case, and having read will think and feel the help requested is an investment in a just cause the return from which is a matter of principle worth more than money.

(9). But let's assume that you are like us, poor and without influential contacts. If so you are in the same position as all the victims of all empires, and especially like the Indian tribes of North America that, being hunters, fisherpeople and gatherers, were not equipped to defend against the industrial and commercial society of newcomers, which invaded, occupied, usurped and dispossessed the tribes in breach of their own announced religious principles and theories of justice: paramount amongst which was and remains to be the promise of the protection under the constitutional law pursuant to the rule of law. That became the birthright of all the tribes in North America just as it is the birthright of the ordinary People of Canada and the United States.

(10). What can the poor and unconnected do to defend their birthright while at the same time preventing war and genocide against others? Protesting on Wall Street is one thing, of course. It draws attention to an "injustice" in terms of the definition of justice famously provided by John Rawls: "justice as political, social and economic fairness." Certainly protesting on Wall Street peacefully draws attention to an unfairness that is at odds with the Constitution's all-in-this-together legislative intent as proclaimed in its Preamble:

"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."

(11). Even so it is important for your own safety and success to bear in mind the mindset of the financiers and the police that monitor your protests. Understand, they honestly believe they are serving their country by making lots of money that they spend so that in the result it trickles down and benefits everybody who is engaged in producing the goods and services for them to buy. Correspondingly, by protesting you are doing a disservice to your country. They think and more importantly feel this way because they see, hear, accepted and propagate the propaganda of the unconstitutional empire and "just follow its orders" about the appropriate way to live one's life.

(12). They do not read the constitution and compare what it says against the different way the networked system actually works in practice. They take for granted there exists a correlation between the constitution and the practice of the political and judicial branches of the government constituted by the constitution. The proposition that in fact there is no correlation does not make sense to anyone unless and until one reads the constitution and the precedents settling the meaning of its commerce, defence and treaty clauses read together as the legislative plan governing the relationship, for constitutional law purposes, between their country and the Indian tribes and foreign Nations.

(13). In practice there is no more oversight of the commercial activities of the rich and strong in the territories of the poor and weak Indian tribes, than there is over what is done to the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. The pursuit of profit is red in tooth and claw in these out-of-sight places. As Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan said of such places where the rule of law does not exist, "life is nasty, brutish and short." The amount of profit from the unconstitutional wars and genocide waged against such places and people is mind-boggling. The competition to share in the spoils is fierce. There is no time for the profit competitors to reflect. If they take the time some other more vicious competitor will slip past them and take over with the murdering of the people and the exploitation of the ethnically cleansed environment. They believe they have no choice.

(14). They "know" that what they are doing must be legal or their government's courts would prevent them from doing it. That is not an unreasonable or groundless assumption. One does not start out thinking cynically. One needs to learn the law and then compare it with the facts in order to become cynical. And so the financiers, police and soldiers who protect them instead of protecting the weak and poor, all believe they are in the right and you are in the wrong. There can be no getting through to them without converting them, and converting them regarding the law is impossible precisely because their vast profits from the wars and genocide allow them to acquire the "best" legal advice money can buy, and when it comes to lawyers the voice of money drowns out competing sound.

(15). The Indian tribes learned this for a certainty in the course of the centuries of war and genocide against them. Certainly, from 1789 to 1871 every lawyer who actually practiced law in North America was well versed in the constitutional law of the amendment, commerce, defence, supremacy of the constitution, and the oath and treaty clauses, read as a set, precisely because every real estate conveyance had to be supported by a lawyer's search of title back to "a good root of title," which had to be the Indian treaty pursuant to which the government itself acquired the constitutional right to grant the title to the first private owner in the chain of title.

(16). Correspondingly every practicing lawyer as at 1871 knew perfectly well that Congress has no constitutional jurisdiction to enact the Appropriations Act of 1871 repealing the constitutional law settled by the precedents interpreting and applying in practice the legislative intent embodied in the commerce, defence and treaty clauses read as a set. They knew that could only be achieved in virtue of a constitutional amendment duly processed in compliance with the constitution's amendment clause, Article V:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

(17). In spite of its actual knowledge the legal profession historically led the invasion, or at least was hot on the heals of the cavalry at places such as Wounded Knee in 1890 where, after the soldiers awakened the sleeping men, women and children in order to massacre them, to make occupation safe and pleasant for the legal system, the lawyers, judges and police flooded in to do the land deals and arrest and imprison any Indians bold, brave or foolhardy enough to object on constitutional grounds, to which the lawyers and judges willfully were blind, and whose orders the police accepted and followed without question.

(18). Upon this basis the lawyers certified invalid titles as a matter of course with full knowledge both of their unconstitutionality and the incapacity of any person to be heard or seen to object, precisely because the court administrators obstructed any cases from getting through the Courthouse doors and, if by some miracle a case did get before a judge, because no judge was ready, willing and able to break rank by allowing the constitutional truth to seen on the written page or heard by voice in open court. No crime was ever greater or more exquisitely perfected with absolute immunity. The criminals enjoy an absolute monopoly over the legal process and the use of violence in the unconstitutionally invaded, occupied, usurped and dispossessed territories.

(19). Why did the lawyers do this? First, for money. Secondly, because they knew they could do it with impunity. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. The courts were staffed and run by themselves and therefore there was no chance any lawyer would defend the Indians against the war and genocide since, if any tried, he would be convicted of criminal contempt of court and disbarred for letting the truth out of the bag about the lawyers' and judges' overturning of constitutional democracy. I have personal experience of this fact and can and have attested to its truth, although no judge or lawyer who has read the affidavits has ever acknowledged their existence as a matter of court record. The issue itself is not mentionable, in the specific sense that mentioning it is punished by imprisonment and disbarment. The absolute defence of truth is not itself admissible. No mention of the attempt to raise truth in defence has ever made it into the court record.

(20). Now, the relevance of this overview of constitutional history and its realpolitik (a topic in relation to which I personally have a master of arts degree and a law doctorate in jurisprudence as well as forty years practical experience as lawyer seeking to have the constitutional question of the war and genocide addressed by the courts in accordance with most basic rudiments of constitutional democracy under the rule of law ) is this: If and when the financiers, police, soldiers or anybody else in society asks a lawyer for a legal opinion as to the validity of the constitutional question, the legal opinion not only is there is no validity but that any person who raises the question is either mad, stupid, misinformed or for some other personal reason not worth paying any attention to.

(21). Never, ever, will any such legal opinion be supported by the production of any constitutional enactment or precedent arguably capable of rebutting the constitution's words in the amendment (Article V), commerce (Article I§3), defence (Article I §8¶1, §11, §15 and Article IV, §4), judicial oath of office (Article VI¶3), supremacy of the constitution (Article VI¶2) or treaty (Article II §2¶2) clauses and their authentic precedents in the formative years. Most importantly, the lawyers always advise their clients not to say or do anything that might seem to endorse the constitutional question, since doing that risks prosecution for criminal contempt of court for the effrontery of presuming to criticize the judicial system for its previous and ongoing willful blindness to the constitutional question.

(22). And so, what can the poor and unconnected actually do? They can protest in front of the Courthouse of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the place where resides the ultimate responsibility for the demise of constitutional democracy at the behest of unconstitutional empire. There is where the decision has to be made to reinstate constitutional democracy. This the Justices of the Supreme Court are obliged to do by oath or affirmation. It is the since qua non of constitutional democracy.

(23). But in order to do this each Justice must stop being political. Each must do his or her constitutional duty above all competing allegiances. Each has to provide Emersonian judicial "justice as the application of the truth to affairs" and, correspondingly, to exclude from his or her mind and feelings the quest for Rawlsian "political, social and economic justice as fairness."

(24). The former is the jurisdiction specifically assigned by the constitution to the judicial branch of the People's government whereas the latter is the jurisdiction specifically assigned to the political branch. Congress and the President labor under the constitutional duty to create "fair" laws in compliance with their constitutional mandate. The Supreme Court of the United States labors under the constitutional duty to be "true" to the rule of law by implementing those ostensibly fair ordinary laws if but only if they comply with the constitution. And striking them down if they do not. The judicial function is not to assess the "fairness" of the constitution or of the laws legislated pursuant to it, but rather to ensure "justice as the application of the constitutional truth to affairs."

(25). It is quite simple. So don't be fooled by the lawyers' opinions all of which will evade the issue and devolve into personal attacks upon whomsoever honestly and rigorously defends the constitution, as witness the smear campaign by legal academics against Justice Clarence Thomas, the constitution's truest and most faithful guardian, as to which please see W'Lawpsh, "Defending the defender of the constitution, Justice Clarence Thomas," Reader Supported News, September 22, 2011, http://readersupportednews.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7542.

(26). There is also no point being frustrated by the refusal of the mainstream media to publish or even acknowledge the existence of protests. Before publication of anything remotely critical of the legal system in general and above all of the courts and judges, every mainstream editorial board asks for and receives a legal opinion from its lawyers who specialize in the law of defamation. Of course, the defence of truth is an absolute defence to a charge of defamation, as also to a charge of contempt of court. And has been so for as long as there has been a law of defamation and a law of contempt of court.

(27). Nevertheless the legal opinion given to the mainstream media editorial board invariably can only be: Don't risk publication! For while the truth defence in theory is absolute, in practice the courts are never going to convict themselves of dereliction of constitutional duty, which implicitly they would be doing if ever they allowed the constitutional question into court. And so, the legal opinion will conclude, the Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi'kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States, is never going to make it past the obstruction of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, precisely because the Justices of that Court (except for Justice Clarence Thomas) want to ignore the constitutional question upon which the Case is based.

(28). The Supreme Court is profoundly politicized regardless of the Senate Hearings at which every candidate for appointment to the United States Supreme Court always is asked whether politics could influence their decision-making if appoint, and every candidate then in answer testifies under oath or affirmation: No. The lawyers' legal opinions are that the judges' testimony is not worth the paper on it is recorded.

(29). In the "real world" judging is political. See, See, W'Lawpsh, In the matter of the Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi'kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States, Document 1, Case Court Documents, "Might is Not Right," http://mightisnotright.org/, at ¶3(f) “THE WAY," page 6; ¶3(g) “LIVING TREE,” page 8; ¶3(h) JUDICIAL DUTY, page 9; ¶3(i) ABROGATION OF DEMOCRACY, page 10; ¶3(j) DIFFICULTY OF AMENDING IS POLITICAL ARGUMENT, page 12; ¶3(k) ABANDONMENT OF THE TRUTH STANDARD, page 12; ¶3(l) REINSTATEMENT OF THE TRUTH STANDARD, page 13; ¶3(m) “LAW DAY RHETORIC,” page 15; and ¶3(n) RACE AND RACISM, page 15.

(30). Those pages provide a complete answer to the legal opinions not to publish. However, unless and until those pages are vindicated as the constitutional truth that binds the Supreme Court, by the Supreme Court, there is no chance for the reinstatement of constitutional democracy and corresponding termination of unconstitutional empire. Until that vindication is established, by the Indian Case since none other exists to make the attempt, the legal opinions not to publish for opportune reasons will always override the ethical duty of the 5th Estate to serve the truth rather than succumb to political opportunism.

(31). And so, if you want to establish constitutional democracy the way to go is to Washington, DC, to convey the message to the Justices of the Supreme Court that the cat is out of the bag in which the legal system has kept it since 1871, and the time has now come for the Supreme Court of the United States to reinstate constitutional democracy. The world will follow where America leads, if America will be true to herself.