quote:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 - Supreme Court 2004

These words were well known to the Founders. Hamilton quoted from this very passage in The Federalist No. 84, p. 444 (G. Carey & J. McClellan eds. 2001). The two ideas central to Blackstone's understanding — due process as the right secured, and habeas corpus as the instrument by which due process could be insisted upon by a citizen illegally imprisoned 556*556 —found expression in the Constitution's Due Process and Suspension Clauses. See Amdt. 5; Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.

(note only for criminal, the REAL money is to be made is in civil!)

The gist of the Due Process Clause, as understood at the founding and since, was to force the Government to follow those common-law procedures traditionally deemed necessary before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. (everything they could conceivably FORCE into civil jurisdiction they did) When a citizen was deprived of liberty because of alleged criminal conduct, those procedures typically required committal by a magistrate followed by indictment (traffic tickets? sure! LOL) and trial.  See, e. g., 2 & 3 Philip & Mary, ch. 10 (1555); 3 J.

Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1783, p. 661 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (equating "due process of law" with "due presentment or indictment, and being brought in to answer thereto by due process of the common law").

The Due Process Clause "in effect affirms the right of trial according to the process and proceedings of the common law." Ibid. See also T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law 224 (1880) ("When life and liberty are in question, there must in every instance be judicial proceedings; and that requirement implies an accusation, a hearing before an impartial tribunal, with proper jurisdiction, and a conviction and judgment before the punishment can be inflicted" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

quote:



INSERT FROM LEGAL SITE
DUE PROCESS The 5th Amendment states that no one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. [ok so WTF does anyone need the 14th for?  LOL  come on self proclaimed con law people, talk ta me!  Lets rock!]

There are two types of due process: procedural and substantive.
Procedural due process is based on the concept of fundamental fairness. It means that a person must be notified of the charges and proceedings against him or her and have an adequate opportunity to respond. This is done through an indictment (or an “information” in a misdemeanor), which is a formal document detailing the charges. Additionally, throughout the trial, the judge must protect the defendant’s due-process rights by ensuring the defendant understands every phase of the proceedings.
Substantive due process, just as procedural due process, extends beyond the context of criminal prosecutions. For example, the right of privacy, although not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, is a substantive right of the people that stems from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the area of criminal law, however, substantive due process means the government may not prosecute an individual for conduct that affects certain fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court has said that fundamental rights include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the free exercise of religion.  [not in the state of wisconsin, in this state you only have the right to pick the God you want to pray to, beyond that is the big fuck you]
Therefore, if the government wants to make a certain activity illegal that infringes on a fundamental right, it must show that it has a compelling interest in doing so.

[Like eminent domain, national security, "compelling interest" is the MOBocracies doorway to fuck you every which way but loose!]

Because of this standard, laws that restrict a fundamental right rarely are upheld.http://public.getlegal.com/legal-info-center/fundamental-rights/5th-amendment

As early as 1350, England's Statute of Treasons made it a crime to "levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King's Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort, in the Realm, or elsewhere." 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 5, c. 2. In his 1762 Discourse on High Treason, Sir Michael Foster explained:

"With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places.

[Where the hell have I heard that one before? 

Oh yeh Natural-born Citizens!!!  

WOW what a surprise!!! 

Natural-born Citizens owe Allegiance to the UNITED STATES at all Times and in all Places!  (14th amendment)

Now whoda thunked that?]  

"States in Actual Hostility with Us, though no War be solemnly Declared, are Enemies within the meaning of the Act. And therefore in an Indictment on the Clause of Adhering to the King's Enemies, it is sufficient to Aver that the Prince or State Adhered to is an Enemy, without shewing any War Proclaimed. . . . And if the Subject of a Foreign Prince in Amity with Us, invadeth the Kingdom without Commission from his Sovereign, [that means declaration of war from YOUR PWNER THE *sovereign* UNITED STATES OR THE *sovereign* STATE IN WHICH YOU RESIDE] He is an Enemy. And a Subject of England adhering to Him is a Traitor within this Clause of the Act." A Report of Some Proceedings on the Commission . . . for the Trial of the Rebels in the Year 1746 in the County of Surry, and of Other Crown Cases, Introduction, § 1, p. 183; Ch. 2, § 8, p. 216; § 12, p. 219.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"So far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with"

No offense PS, but I really think you do not know what that means.

What's more it is a proven fact in law that the Constitution does not and never has applied to the commoners.

So it is all a moot point.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"So far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with"

No offense PS, but I really think you do not know what that means.

What's more it is a proven fact in law that the Constitution does not and never has applied to the commoners.

So it is all a moot point.

T^T

Care to enlighten me as to what it mean on Planet Termy then ? It means American laws call the shots over English laws, any other notion put you on a par with RO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
What's more the Constitution is suspended anyway, people, People or otherwise. When a state of emergency was declared it was all over. The "People" don't want this to be commonly known so the courts can be embarrassed into "upholding" rights, but they are in no way compelled to do so.

That is 100% bang on target! 

The state of emergency is in and of itself repugnant to the Constitution, therefore anything goes. And the fact is, anyone can learn all they want about law, in fact become an expert at it, RealO knows shit none of are ever going to know. But if you want practical knowledge you need to know how to work the system. These finer points just do not help, usually.

They do actually, they are what pins the judges down, and embarrasses them.  Just had a case where 2 judges recused themselves and the 3rd was forced to dismiss. lol

But like you alluded to, you have to "TRAP" them into having no choice but to rule in favor of your rights!

Now where I come from that is not justice, that is Just-Us!

Every once in a great while they do, but the system responds just as it does to close any regular loophole. There are only a few loopholes they will never close, and that's because they don't want to.

T^T

quote:

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the united States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Trying to deal with this one from the articles of confederation:

quote:

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the united States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Commentary

Establishing both the means by which a new state could enter the "union" on equal footing, and an attempt for military security, Article 11 specifically targets one issue in a way that no other article does.

Annexing Canada and formally absorbing it into the folds of the United States would have increased the power of the U.S. tremendously. The inclusion of Canada in the union would significantly increase the U.S. resources of land, people, types of industry, and available ports. It would increase the tax base of Congress as well as contribute its valuable resources to the overall economic good of the U.S. Furthermore, the annexation of Canada would help to significantly eliminate the biggest threat to American Independence: the presence of Great Britain on the North American continent.

If Canada had overthrown British rule in the 1780s and joined the United States as a sovereign state, the British would have had no further holdings of land in North America. However, after the war, the British continued to violate the Treaty of Paris by maintaining forts in the western territory of the United States. The British controlled the Great Lakes, which bordered the U.S. and Canada and the St. Lawrence River, thereby giving them powerful control over trade in the interior of North America. The United States aimed to eliminate the presence of as many of its competitors as possible. Unfortunately, Canada had no interest in joining the United States and remained a British colony. The British presence north and west of the United States continued to be a problem, and eventually led to the War of 1812.

What this Article did accomplish, however, was to establish the precedent by which new states would be absorbed into the union. With this precedent, rather than representing a governing body with fixed limits, the United States would be able to expand and absorb sovereign states on an equal basis, instead of as colonies. This idea was later put into practice in Thomas Jefferson's Land Ordinance of 1784, which provided new states with the same right to self-governance and representation in congress as those enjoyed by older states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

bad boys bad boys whacha gonna do,  whacha gonna do when r1 gets thru with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
England gave up the colonies willingly, and let us win the war of independence, on purpose.
T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Firm, any one with an IQ above 80 knows the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, which tells us just what RO's IQ is. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, oh yeah ... the Articles of Confederation have no legal effect.  They were superseded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

bad boys bad boys whacha gonna do,  whacha gonna do when r1 gets thru with you.

Generally?  Ignore you. 

Occasionally?  Point out facts.

Firm

quote:

The common law of England , so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States , or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, oh yeah ... the Articles of Confederation have no legal effect.  They were superseded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

bad boys bad boys whacha gonna do,  whacha gonna do when r1 gets thru with you.

Generally?  Ignore you. 

Occasionally?  Point out facts.

Firm

superceded?  Really?  Lets see where they were repealed?  You do know that law is in effect unless it is repealed or superceded in whole.   Putting the magna charta on several burners back which is the for our intents and purposes the english constitution did not seem to supercede that, so then how do you figger that the present cnstitution superceded the AOC?

quote:

The common law of England , so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States , or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.

habeos and precaepe are all brought forward and the foundation for the AOC and Constitution.

Then here is food for thought. 

If the AOC are no longer "in force" then the United States has no legal basis for its existence. 

Now I can start digging up court cases like ware v hylton and many more that cite the AOC if you feel that is is not standing law.   The operative word here is as long as it is not "repugnant" to the constitution it is superceded and that is where you disconver just who the People are.

Only th eparts that are repugnant to the present constitution are superceded.  The rest is in full force and effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The real pecking order is:

voting for reps only and protesting
people -> legislature -> Law.

Law making
legislature as People -> Government as State -> Law.


I know not believe:

Legislature and Courts as People of the State -> Law -> people.


Law btw is mostly statute and statute is mostly private corporate by-law. LOL

If you think that is different you will need to successfully argue against the following;

quote:


1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction.

I do not see people in there anywhere do you?

They did not studder " subject only"

quote:

1.09 Seat of government. Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the territory of Wisconsin, that the seat of government of the territory of Wisconsin, be and the same is located and established at the town of Madison

One should immediately note 2 different jurisdictions.

I dont see people in there either, nor do I see State, nor do I see remedy for people since territorial courts were abolished in 1836.

Now the sovereignty issue and even worse eminent domain is a total killer for your case but I always listen to good arguments.

I will ask you if you are subject to the state you reside, you will say yes.

Is the state subject to you?  you will say no.


I will ask you if you are subject to the feds, you will say yes.

Is the fed subject to you?  you will say no.

Therefore you are subject.  You are not able to defend your rights except through the state grant of privilege to do so.

Inalienable guaranteed rights do not exist in the year 2011 and have not existed since the civil war.

now what :).


(and you are correct about lousiana)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

You know I am losing the last vestiges of respect for a certain member. One who doesn't even give any specific opinion let alone cites and quotes like the other sheeple. One who seems to only re-say that some people need more meds or a tinfoil hat or some shit, but never even ONE opinion. Nothing to attack any opinion, no fight against any assertion. NOTHING. Just "Y all are tinfoilers and crazynuts" and need more fucking drugs to control you and get offa my newsgroup. Get outta my face and DO NOT put this shit out to the people because I DISAGREE with it.

You all know who the fuck this is, and someone is watching.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The real pecking order is:

voting for reps only and protesting
people -> legislature -> Law.

Law making
legislature as People -> Government as State -> Law.


I know not believe:

Legislature and Courts as People of the State -> Law -> people.


Law btw is mostly statute and statute is mostly private corporate by-law. LOL

If you think that is different you will need to successfully argue against the following;

quote:


1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction.

I do not see people in there anywhere do you?

They did not studder " subject only"

quote:

1.09 Seat of government. Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the territory of Wisconsin, that the seat of government of the territory of Wisconsin, be and the same is located and established at the town of Madison

One should immediately note 2 different jurisdictions.

I dont see people in there either, nor do I see State, nor do I see remedy for people since territorial courts were abolished in 1836.

Now the sovereignty issue and even worse eminent domain is a total killer for your case but I always listen to good arguments.

I will ask you if you are subject to the state you reside, you will say yes.

Is the state subject to you?  you will say no.


I will ask you if you are subject to the feds, you will say yes.

Is the fed subject to you?  you will say no.

Therefore you are subject.  You are not able to defend your rights except through the state grant of privilege to do so.

Inalienable guaranteed rights do not exist in the year 2011 and have not existed since the civil war.

now what :).


(and you are correct about lousiana)

Come on man, you have to be smarter than this. that 'clause' refers to the state as defined by its boundary in the physical world and obviously what [that] is 'subject to.' Is this a geography lesson ? You speak of real estate used or occupied/owned by the state.

You can do better than this...can't you ?

quote:


STATE, n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.]
~snip~

4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.]

Websters 1828 Dictionary.