Obamas arrested

Obamas arrested
Pray for the day!

Senate Refused to Vet Obama

We're Never Gonna Stand For This

Freedom of Speech Will No Longer Be Possible

The original Kenyan birth certificate of Obama

Dog Day Afternoon

Is it here, yet?

This is an American Tradition That Has Always Been Valuable to Us

To Arrest Obama or Force America to Live Enslaved?

Obama is a Muslim

Restore America

There's a Communist Living in the white House

Dr. Taitz on Obama

The Enemy is Obama

How to Become an Underground Publisher and help take back America


GO TO:
http://usapatriotsshoutinfoservice.wordpress.com/

There you will find directions and suggested material and web sites to check to find other material. You are welcome to take material from this site, the info service site, or just find your own. Whatever please commit to spread the word.

Join us at http://blogtalkradio.com/usapatriots every Monday 3:30 p.m. pactific standard time































































LAKIN DEFENSE OPTIONS


STAND UP AMERICA EXCLUSIVE !
Lakin Defense Options !!!



http://standupamericaus.com/stand-up-america-exclusive-lakin-defense-options:37663


The Stand Up America BlogSTAND UP AMERICA EXCLUSIVE – Lakin Defense OptionsPublished on 09/03/10

Editor’s Note: The following report is solely the product of the authors and is posted here for the public to view, and discern for themselves. It is a scholarly work and may clear up many questions readers may have.

Courts Martial Defense For LTC Terrence LakinBy J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington

World Net Daily, which has been following the Lakin trial step-by-step from the beginning, is reporting:

FT. MEADE, Md. – A career officer in the U.S. Army [Col. Denise R. Lind] acting as a judge in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin today ruled that the military is no place for Barak Obama’s presidential eligibility to be evaluated.
According to the WND report, presiding authority Col. Denise R. Lind used the following arguments to deny LTC Lakin proper access to a defense, summarized in the following three paragraphs taken from the 40 minute long reading of her decision Army Col. Denise R. Lind today ruled in a hearing regarding the evidence to be allowed in the scheduled October court-martial of Lakin that he will be denied access to any of Obama’s records as well as any testimony from those who may have access to the records.

With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs’ access to any requested documentation regarding the president’s eligibility.
Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

We find foundational flaws in Col. Lind’s decision, which Lakin’s defense team must seize upon in order to alter the current course of this trial.

1 – Lind’s authority is derived from the same place as LTC Lakin’s and all other members of the United States Military – from the supreme command of the office of Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.

2 – Lind is attempting to use her authority under her Commander-in-Chief to break the military chain of command, isolating the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military specifically, exempting the President from his position of authority in the chain of command, without which, Lind herself has no authority to convene the Courts Martial.

3 – Lind then reaches outside of the US Military Justice system to the Civil Court, relying upon civil court precedent to deny Lakin any access to discovery and thereby, a proper defense guaranteed him by the US Constitution and UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil Court precedent has no legal standing in a UCMJ criminal proceeding. In fact, the UCMJ is based upon the Articles of War (aka War Articles) and is a “penal system” unlike the US Justice System – as explained by Col. William Winthrop in Military Law and Precedents. As a result, precedents set in courts outside of the UCMJ are without legal standing in any UCMJ proceeding.

4 – Not even in the UCMJ can the United States government deny the accused his/her right to a trial, complete with discovery of related evidence. Yet Lind attempts to do so, under the authority derived from her Commander-in-Chief. If the chain of command is broken, then Lind herself has no authority.

5 – Lind’s statement that the legality of the Commander-in-Chief is “not relevant” in matters of military command is false on its face. As stated in a sworn affidavit filed by LTG Thomas G. McInerney executed on August 20, 2010 – “In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. – By thus stepping up to the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. – That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.”

6 – Lind attempts to break the chain of command at The Pentagon level, which she claims has no issue with the current Commander-in-Chief and that this should be good enough for Lakin. Yet she cannot break this chain of command without eliminating her own authority, and Lakin’s oath requires that he decide for himself whether or not his orders are legal, as affirmed in LTG McInerney’s sworn affidavit.

7 – At issue is not whether or not LTC Lakin refused orders, but rather whether or not he “unlawfully” refused orders. If his orders were not “lawful,” including but not limited to, emanating from a “lawful” chain of command which begins with a lawful Commander-in-Chief, then Lakin must be found NOT GUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.
At the heart of the matter is whether or not his orders to deploy were “lawful.” LTC Lakin has questioned whether or not his deployment orders were “lawful” on the basis that he believes that the Commander-in-Chief from which those orders are issued, may not be “lawful,” therefore making any orders from the top of military command “unlawful.”
To determine whether or not Lakin is correct in his decision to refuse orders, it is paramount to discover with certainty whether or not his orders were issued by a “lawful” command.
As we know, Article II – Section I requires that only a “natural born citizen” of the United States can hold the office of President, Commander-in-Chief. In this regard, a fatal misstep in the Lakin defense has opened the door for the illegitimate statements now being made by Col. Denise R. Lind.

LTC Lakin failed to directly assert that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT legal in his command on the basis that we know with certainty that he is not a “natural born citizen,” – and that LTC Lakin is “lawfully” refusing to follow orders on this basis. Instead, LTC Lakin only asked the “birth place” question and tied that question to whether or not Mr. Obama could and would present an official “birth certificate” proving once and for all that he was indeed born in Hawaii, making the wrong assumption that if he could and would provide proof of said birth via an official birth certificate, which has never been released to date.

The fatal error revolves around the reality that Obama’s birth place is of no consequence in the matter of his status as a “natural born citizen” eligible for high Command of the US Military under Article II – Section I of the Constitution. Although there is no shortage of opinions on the subject of what the term “natural born citizen” means, there is no honest debate on the matter either.

Every Supreme Court Justice knows exactly what the term “natural born citizen” means, where it came from, why it exists in Article II requirements for the office of President and that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen,” indeed ineligible for the office he currently holds.

They know that LTC Lakin is right to “lawfully” refuse orders from an illegal Command.

We know this on the basis of the following critical facts:

1 – The term “natural born citizen” is derived from the Law of Nations. An international treaty establishing a set of rules used to establish a “nation,” the issue of nation and citizen sovereignty, and internationally recognized definitions of universal terms, including the term “natural born citizen.”

2 – The Law of Nations is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution as an enumerated power of Congress under Article I – Section VIII – Item X – “To define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations;” (Note that in the original Constitution, Law of Nations is capitalized, referring specifically to THE Law of Nations.)

3 – From Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 book on The Law of Nations, Chapter 19 § 212. – Of the citizens and natives – Vattel establishes – “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

4 – In a letter from Founder John Jay to then President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington, Jay stated – “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

5 – It was later learned that President George Washington had actually taken out Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations from the local library in order to study proper implementation of law in our newly formed nation, and never returned that book. On the basis of known history and facts behind the Constitutional term “natural born citizen” which is based upon “natural law” explained in the Law of Nations as stated referred to in the US Constitution, the proper assertion is not at all related to the actual “birth place” of Barack Hussein Obama, II. The ongoing search for a Hawaiian birth certificate has no bearing on the subject of “natural born citizen” status for Barack Hussein Obama, II.

The only relative question is:

Was Barack Hussein Obama’s birth father a legal citizen of the United States of America at the time of his birth, no matter where in the world he may have been born? Without a birth father who was a legal citizen of the United States at the time of his birth, Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot be a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, he is not without divided national loyalties, and cannot serve as President of the United States or Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military as a result, creating a national security and a full blown Constitutional crisis.

According to the two autobiographical books by Barack Hussein Obama, II – his birth father is Barack Hussein Obama, a British subject at the time and a legal citizen of Kenya. According to public family history, Barack Hussein Obama was at no time in his life a legal citizen of the United States.

On this basis alone, LTC Lakin is right (and lawful) in refusing to accept orders from an illegal command. The US Constitution and the Law of Nations, upon which our sovereign nation was formed, are very clear on the matter.

As a result, the need for LTC Lakin to gain access to the Hawaiian birth records for Barack Hussein Obama, II is eliminated.

LTC Lakin need only assert the following:

On the basis of Article II – Section I of the US Constitution, supported by Article I – Section VIII – Item X concerning the Law of Nations and the term “natural born citizen,” – I hereby refuse any and all illegal orders issued by the illegal Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, President Barack Hussein Obama, on the basis that he does not meet Constitutional requirements for the office he currently holds and must further hereby demand that he be removed from office and immediately relieved of Command of the United States Military. I further assert that due to the illegal status of existing Military high Command that this Court Martial has no authority under which to proceed.

Under this assertion, there is no need for access to the birth records of Barack Hussein Obama, II, unless Mr. Obama chooses to respond by stating that Barack Hussein Obama is not his real birth father, in which case Mr. Obama is admitting to fraud during his pursuit of the Oval Office.
In the event that the UCMJ chooses to challenge the historically accurate definition of the term “natural born citizen” described herein, the US Supreme Court is the only court in the land with proper authority to rule on the true meaning of the term “natural born citizen” – as stated by the Constitutional protections that LTC Lakin has sworn a lifetime to protect and defend.

With this assertion is place, LTC Lakin does not have to prove that his assertions are true and accurate. As Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama must prove that Lakin’s assertion is false in order to proceed with the government prosecution of LTC Lakin on the grounds that he has “unlawfully” refused orders.

In short, Mr. Obama must prove that his orders are in fact “lawful.” If Obama is either unable or unwilling to do so, then LTC Lakin is in fact NOT GUILTY of “unlawfully” refusing orders.

This particular case is not about one soldier refusing deployment orders. It is about a nation allowing a precedent to stand which makes it possible for any individual with any foreign allegiance to hold the highest office in this land, with no obligation whatsoever to demonstrate or prove national loyalties before holding the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.

This case is about whether or not the US Constitution stands as the official Law of this land.

NOTE: Past challenges on the term “natural born citizen” have been improperly argued upon cases revolving around the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment relates to “immigration” and “naturalization” laws, not “natural law” used to establish “natural born citizenship” status of an individual. Therefore, any and all cases pertaining to Fourteenth Amendment arguments are moot on the matter of “natural born citizen” claims.

Researched and Prepared By:
J.B. Williams and Timothy Harrington
The United States Patriots Union, LLC - Sheridan, Wyoming
Available pdf - Courts Martial Defense of LTC Terrance Lakin.pdf (399kb - 5 pgs)


http://patriotsunion.org/
Researched and Reviewed By:
The United States Bar Association

http://www.unitedstatesbarassociation.com/




Rise Up ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvuimX2bjIStand Up ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Het3H9iQIAir America - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnq8o_7hPccI Am America - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2CzerawWho We Are - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHtVxDz43KY Come to Jesus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs10Rr14WxYWe The People - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJEAmerica Rising - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQI Fought For You - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTb6qdPu8JEChicago Tea Party - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8kChildren of Liberty - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnrt0ZLKQIU.S. Cease to Exist - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6p3l8BXmhsGod Save Arizona ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA07jcIHZIGod Bless Arizona ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKFuYykPSxIAwaken O, America - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fzKY0hS_PwRun Into The Conflict - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6lWl_XzKAMuslim Demographics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYUThree Things About Islam - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6wU.S. has 2 Constitutions - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0These are the Oath Keepers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K4-BQYAIStop The Socialist Revolution ! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtjQzpfq9-UThe Hidden Covenant Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnO-x9hkpX4The Hidden Covenant Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI92qto8gYsOB Mocks, Attacks Jesus, Bible - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0wObama Admits He Is A Muslim - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzYSecond American Revolution - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDkWeThePeople Stimulus Package - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyAThe Year of Living Dangerously - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsBOxDM_VekGOD'S JUDGMENT ON AMERICA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6roFN7NAENWO Plans 3 World Wars from 1871 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0DIQgnNRY49/11 NWO - Eu USA vs Russia China - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhvfCFCfdNkToo Late to Apologize: A Declaration - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVgOur Lives, Fortunes, Sacred Honor 2010 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL5bPJFHRnA

Esoteric Agenda - http://blip.tv/search?q=esoteric+agendaCamp FEMA: American Lockdown (1:26:41) - http://blip.tv/file/3661748Don't Tread On Me: Rise of the Republic (1:35:45) - http://blip.tv/file/3644422/Meltup - InflationUS (54:37) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb1n1X0OqdwFall of the Republic HQ (2:24:18) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shUThe Obama Deception HQ (1:53:40) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLwLOOSE CHANGE ! Full Version HD - 9/11 Absolute Truth - http://preview.tinyurl.com/2cnhf29Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA HQ (2:20:38) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVwwInvisible Empire - NWO Defined HQ (2:14:01) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5ENorman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations (52:24) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHMAmerica: Freedom to Fascism (1:51:16) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173The Fourth Kind Encounters (1:38) - http://sureynot.com/v/1278/the-fourth-kind,-true-story-with-raw-footage.html

Shadow Government - Grant Jeffrey (4 parts)Pt 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td01pNoC8icPt 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8UlFZZwG3EPt 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsHXb74M3JkPt 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Du7SiYLa90

The United American Freedom Foundation - http://uaff.info/2010 Sex, Drugs & Religion (1:11:14) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1021806902010 Global Eugenics - Using Medicine To Kill (2:04:57) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1007205722010 The American Matrix - Age Of Deception (2:00:03) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1007198422008 The Decline And Fall Of America - The Movie (2:00:46) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=63997187

Twenty Ten - 2010 by Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZkvkLmkYVgNBRA Feet to the Fire by Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s8BGPy7_MULloyd Marcus - American Tea Party Anthem - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1byTDgu7iAWE THE PEOPLE, New Tea Party Unity Song by Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlkgFpU_FB4Confessions of a Black Conservative - http://www.lloydmarcus.com/?page_id=1029Lloyd Marcus - http://www.youtube.com/user/LloydMarcusUSAhttp://www.lloydmarcus.com

Victory over All Creationhttp://downloads.cbn.com/cbnplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?s=/vod/MW131v2_WS

Run Into The Conflict - "Run For Your Life" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6lWl_XzKA On the first Sunday following the tragedy of September 11th, 2001, Carter Conlon delivered this soul-stirring message at Times Square Church in Manhattan. The sermon was titled, "Run For Your Life" and it is certainly worth the effort to listen to it in its entirety. http://www.braveheartedgospel.com/Sermons.html

U.S. HISTORY REPETITIVE TO END TIMEI - Bondage to Spiritual Faith - Year of The MayflowerII - From Spiritual Faith to great Courage - 1776III - From Courage to Liberty - Constitution 1791IV - From Liberty to Abundance - 1900 to 1960V - From Abundance to Complacency - 1960 to 1980VI - From Complacency to Apathy - 1980 to 2000VII - From Apathy to Dependence - 2000 to 2009 VIII - From Dependence back into Bondage by CONTRIVANCEIX - From Bondage to Spiritual Faith - 2010 to ? by REVIVAL or DEMISE - WWIIIX - RAPTURE - Blessed Assurance has Come - NEW JERUSALEM

Antichrist Illuminati Obama New World Order Agenda 2012 Exposedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjCiz47_PTY

The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Swedenhttp://www.saintbirgitta.com/

Yahuwah - Yahushuahttp://followersofyah.com/




Listen to the discussion--lessons learned in 2009--1/18/2010

The facts about the health care bill!

We're The Government and You're Not

Stand up for America

keep the fire burning

keep the fire burning
Keeping alive the burning desire for freedom

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

ILLEGAL CONGRESS--REDRESS

Illegal Congress - Redress


Don't Let Unconstitutional Legislation Be Shoved Down Your Throat ...

Thanks J.C at
http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/was-the-vote-on-healthcare-by-congressional-democrats-constitutional-i-think-not/


Was the Vote on Healthcare By Congressional Democrats Constitutional? I think not!


Senators don't have the legal right to vote YES on Obamacare because its unconstitutional- see hard evidence in my constructive notice, below. I just served this on both my Senators from The State of CA, by certified mail, to have standing to petition them for redress of grievances if they ignore said petition. You can easily do the same by going to your state constitute, copying and pasting Article I and serve it to your senators.

These people have recently demonstrated without a doubt their cluelessness and it's well past time to bring them up to speed on the Constitution in their state. So what's it going to be roll over and suck your thumb and hope this magically goes away or stand up for your rights and put your Senators under notice that they have violated their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of their state and that of the U.S.A. Random thoughts while observing the passing parade, J.C.


CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.
(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with
or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or
employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other
periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished
information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or
processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person
connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any
person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in
contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information
procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary
purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any
unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving
or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes
information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom
disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been
disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes,
outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not
itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication,
whether or not published information based upon or related to such
material has been disseminated.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information
concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the
meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and
agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule,
or other authority adopted after the effective date of this
subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with
findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and
the need for protecting that interest.
(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right
of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any
statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it
protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures
governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the
official performance or professional qualifications of a peace
officer.
(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any
provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a
person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided
in Section 7.
(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by
implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right
of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not
limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law
enforcement and prosecution records.
(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or
modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and
records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its
employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article
IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those
provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in
judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the
Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees,
committees, and caucuses.

TO: Senators Boxer and Feinstein

Via: Registered Letter

Dear Senators:

You have just met to vote on your parties Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am.

I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefore, your vote will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) ("Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government");

Lambert v. Yellowly (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...), 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) ("It is important also to bear in mind that 'direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.' Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.")

Oregon v. Ashcroff (openjurist.org...), 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are 'the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.' Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents (supreme.justia.com...), 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) ('It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state's police power.') The Attorney General 'may not...regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.' Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).")

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine (supreme.justia.com...), 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) "We think the suggestion has never been made -- certainly never entertained by this Court -- that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state's criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state's laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished. (emphases added)

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article. IV.

Section. 3.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

For Health Freedom, John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom 556 Boundary Bay Road Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA www.iahf.com... jham@iahf.com 800-333-2553 N.America 360-945-0352 World

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Obama Deception

Continental congress Live

Obama to sign treaty to give up American sovereignty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded

For The Record

Search Posts

Medical Martial Law

Obama Health Care Plan is a Duplicate of HItler's Health Care Plan

Obama poisoned his grandmother

Hitler's Health Plan same as Obama's

object width="480" height="295">

We The People Congress.org / blog

USA must Wake Up About Muslims

Must Listen--Here's to You Obama--We Are Not Stupid