Welcome to Unalienable Rights Foundation!

· Home
· AvantGo
· Content
· Downloads
· Members_List
· Stories_Archive
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web_Links

     What Are/Is

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Inalienable Rights

Dillon Rule

Citizens Guide - Impeachment

     Random Headlines

Civil  Rights
[ Civil Rights ]

·Service available to the hearing impaired attending government meetings
·Donald Edwards Named as UARF's Secretary / Economic Development
·Virginia Law Makers At Play With Your Rights
·The Clean Air Act Framework that Preserves ''States' Rights''
·Boobie Bracelet and Free Speech Issues
·HHS Mandate: A Litigation Update
·Security vs. Freedom:Contemporary Controversies  
·Magna Charta 800 Years of the Rule of Law
·Obama Holder Congress Democrats Republicans Libertarians Politicians All, mixed


What is a UARF Fellow 

     CNN LAW
·Court upholds limits on Navy sonar training
·Slain wife accuses husband from the grave
·Prosecutors drop parent-killing case
·Priest accused of lying in mob investigation
·Inmate shot dead after brazen escape
·Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict
·Man convicted for Internet hoax death
·Zoloft killer's 30-year sentence appealed
·Girl who shielded mom is a hero at school
·Holloway disappearance hits cold case file


Unalienable Rights Foundation: Manual of the Constitution

Search on This Topic:   
[ Go to Home | Select a New Topic ]

 Should Congress Impeach the lower court judges blocking terrorist vetting

Manual of the Constitution Impeach lower court federal court justices that ad-hoc the express words of the U.S. Constitution

Fixing the terrorist vetting ban begins with
Impeaching Lower court Justices
U.S. Constitution Art. 3, Sec. 1 (1789)
Impeach lower court federal court justices that ad-hoc the express words of the U.S. Constitution
 a court's task to adjudicate and not to "legislate from the bench," he advocated that judges exercise restraint in deciding cases, emphasizing that the role of the courts is to frame "neutral principles" (a term borrowed from Herbert Wechsler) and not simply ad hoc pronouncements or subjective value judgments. Bork once said, "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else (Robert Bork)

Image may contain: one or more people and text

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment
U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. Art. 1, § 2 (1789)

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. Art. 1, § 3 (1789)




We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Wednesday, February 08 @ 05:33:36 MST (188 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 5)

 Fixing the problem with Trump's Terrorist Vetting Ban

Manual of the Constitution

Image may contain: one or more people and text

Fixing the terrorist vetting ban
Impeach Lower Court Justices
U.S. Constitution Art. 3  Sec. 1

The Constitution of the United States of America Article 3 Section 1. Judicial Power, Tenure of Office. -- The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. Art. 3, § 1 (1789)
See the inherent powers of Congress under U.S. Con. Art. 3, § 1 (1789)


We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Monday, February 06 @ 07:51:25 MST (253 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Impeach Obama's judges Usurping the Power of Congress

Manual of the Constitution impeach Obama judges

The Constitution says the Congress and the President control immigration/naturalization 
There are no words in the Constitution that grant that power to the courts.
Obama's appointees to the federal courts have exceeded their authority.

Obama's appointees have usurped [encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights] the Powers of Congress 

The Congress needs to impeach those Obama Appointees 

No automatic alt text available.

Image may contain: text

Image may contain: text
Image may contain: text
Image may contain: text







We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Monday, January 30 @ 11:34:23 MST (239 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 UARF's The Citizen Soldier White Paper/TOMB

Manual of the Constitution UARF's The Citizen Soldier

Get Your Free UARF White Paper/TOMB "The Citizen Soldier" [215 pages].

In medieval times it was a matter of law that common folk must purchase at their own expense and keep ready in their homes some basic weapons to serve and protect their king and state. The rulers expected the peasants to have acquired certain skills with their weapons prior to deployment, although they failed to provide any sort of funding for training.

The English Assize of Arms (1181), promulgated by Henry II, required that each man keep at his own expense in his home a weapon appropriate to his rank and position.1 The American use of militia was, in reality, a return to traditional practices of this earlier age. In medieval Europe the law defined a militia as "the whole body of freemen" between the ages of fifteen and forty years, who were required by law to keep weapons in defense of their nation.2 In the later Middle Ages the militia was the whole body of "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins [serfs] and others from 15 to 60 years of age" who were obliged by the law to be armed.3

Trained Bands (or Trainbands) are found primarily in Elizabethan and Stuart England. The concept and term may be found as early as the reign of Alfred the Great (849-899). "For greater security, certain men in or near each settlement or City, who volunteered or were selected otherwise, were given, or agreed to procure, arms in advance of any emergency."4 These men became the mainstay of Cromwell's army during the Puritan Revolution and these units developed from the broader militia. The term is occasionally encountered referring to select militia in the American colonies, especially in New England.

Most European nations had abandoned the militia system by the sixteenth century.5 Americans chided the English for abandoning the militia system which had worked so well here. The militia, alone, had served as a check on the native aborigine in the colonial period of American history. For instances, when General Braddock was defeated near Pittsburgh, then Fort DuQuesne, the Virginia militia under Colonel George Washington's command stood against the French and Indians. The British army fled to the eastern seaboard. During the colonial period Americans came to trust the militia to a far greater extent than they trusted the regular royal army. The fancy uniforms and European battle formations may have served the British well in wars in the old world, but they were ill suited for backwoods America.

America's colonial citizen-soldier citizens soldier had their counterparts throughout history, as in ancient and medieval times when the peasants were conscripted to fight as foot soldiers. After the wars were over the peasants, too, returned to their fields. Tradesmen, farmers, men in all walks and vocations of life, had one thing in common: they stood as brothers in arms against the enemy as part of the citizen-soldiery.

The citizen-soldier stands in marked contrast to the professional soldier whose vocation is war. The citizen-soldier does not enter war for pay or booty. He goes to war only reluctantly, spurred on by notions of patriotism, nationalism and duty. He deplores war. He fights only as a last recourse when his nation is threatened and not in imperialistic adventures. There is no human institution any where more fundamental than the militia. As we shall show in this and the ensuing four volumes, excepting only religious dissenters, the true, traditional citizens owned firearms, less as a privilege than as a matter of duty. They came to equate firearms ownership with freedom. A free man is armed; a slave is dispossessed of his arms. No man can trust a government that seeks to disarm him. Those who claim the right to bear arms over and against tyrannical government stand arm in arm with his ancestors who refused to give up their arms at Lexington, Concord, and on a thousand other locations.

We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Tuesday, December 29 @ 08:07:44 MST (986 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Manual of the Constitution Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.


Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.

periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.

iurator, oris, m., a swearer.

iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.

ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.

per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.

It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.

The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.

We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Monday, October 05 @ 04:22:36 MST (962 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Separation of Powers / Professor John S. Baker, Jr

Manual of the Constitution
Federalist Society Logo
Sponsored by the Hampton Roads Lawyers Chapter
See other Federalist Society events Here

Join the Federalist Society today!
Click HERE to join or renew your existing membership.

The Federalist Society
1015 18th Street, NW
Suite 425
Washington, DC 20036
The Federalist Society's Hampton Roads Lawyers Chapter cordially invites you to its March events:
Separation of Powers
Professor John S. Baker, Jr.
Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Catholic University of America School of Law, and Professor Emeritus at Louisiana State University School of Law
Professor Baker will give a one-hour lecture on the constitutional powers delegated to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This is a portion of the 10-hour course Professor Baker taught in Fall 2013 with Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. 
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014
12:00 p.m. - 1:15 p.m.
Regent University
1000 Regent University Dr.
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
Light refreshments will be served.
For questions, email hamptonroadsfedsoc@gmail.com.
Q&A with Two Virginia Judges
Hon. Mark S. Davis
United States District Judge,
Eastern District of Virginia
Hon. Douglas E. Miller
United States Magistrate Judge,
Eastern District of Virginia 
Date: Thursday, March 27, 2014
5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510-1665

Light refreshments will be served.
For questions, email hamptonroadsfedsoc@gmail.com.
buy medicines online pharmacy brand viagra online
We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Thursday, March 06 @ 04:39:48 MST (2024 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 "not going to keep me from going to the Constitution."

Manual of the Constitution


"not going to keep me from going to the Constitution."

NOVEMBER 15, 2013

Joyous Justice Thomas Speaks to Federalist Society

A relaxed and upbeat Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told the Federalist Society Thursday night that he feels "obligated" to state his sometimes unorthodox views of the law, even if they go against precedent.

"If you look like a fool, so what?" he said, adding that his respect for precedent is "not going to keep me from going to the Constitution." His remarks won a standing ovation from the more than 1,300 attendees at the society’s annual dinner at D.C.’s Omni Shoreham Hotel.

Now in his 22nd year as a justice, Thomas said "I feel blessed every day" working as a justice. He even resisted the sentiment expressed by other justices that they need the summer recess to take a break from their colleagues. Thomas said he was in no hurry to leave the company of his fellow court members in the summer, prompting Justice Antonin Scalia to shout from the audience, "I get out of there as soon as I can." Justice Samuel Alito Jr. also attended.

Thomas, 65, offered his observations during an on-stage conversation with Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. She praised Thomas as a "steady and committed originalist," and "a friend of the Federalist Society for so long."

As Sykes asked Thomas about his childhood as well as his tenure on the court, Thomas in his answers portrayed himself as a joyful man at peace with his job and his life. Recalling his first career path that began and ended in a Catholic seminary, Thomas said he has grown to view his current position as "like the priesthood. This is what I was called to do." He said he finds even the most boring cases fascinating, and loves his law clerks like family. Thomas even had positive things to say about his education at Yale Law School, which he used to describe as worthless. "The experience was beneficial to me."

Thomas could not resist a light-hearted swipe at news coverage of the court. When Sykes asked about the increased attention paid by media including SCOTUSblog, Thomas said "I know nothing about any of that." He continued, "I try not to read anything" about court proceedings, "because I was there … That’s hearsay."

Neither Thomas nor Sykes mentioned the protests lodged Wednesday by liberal advocacy groups Common Cause, Alliance for Justice, and U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, (D-New York) against their participation in what the groups viewed as a fundraiser for the Federalist Society.

The code of judicial conduct bars federal judges from using the prestige of their office for fundraising purposes. The organizations filed a complaint against Sykes with the 7th Circuit–-the first time they have done so, though they have protested previous appearances by judges at the Federalist Society.

Since the code does not officially apply to the Supreme Court, the groups lodged a protest about Thomas with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who did not attend the banquet Thursday night.

Just hours before the banquet, the society issued a statement in response to the protests: "The Federalist Society annual dinner is not a fundraiser. It is a part of our national convention, and we actually lose money on it. That is the case this year, and it has always been the case."

Alliance for Justice and Common Cause fired back that the event is a fundraiser, and the fact that it does not turn a profit is irrelevant. The printed program for the banquet Thursday night thanked several organizations for "their generous support of the 2013 annual dinner," and listed several gold, silver and bronze sponsors. The main "sponsoring law firm" was Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Sunday, November 17 @ 04:40:47 MST (1541 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Obama / GOP / Democrats / TEA Party / Libertarians Guilty all, of Impeachable O

Manual of the Constitution New Page 1

Obama / GOP / Democrats / TEA Party / Libertarians

Guilty all, of Impeachable Offense

Violate the 14th Amendment of U.S.C.:

Section 4:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Wait a minute: I still don’t understand why the idea of a debt ceiling is constitutional.

The last I heard, the Fourteenth Amendment is still part of the Constitution. Here’s Section 4:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Call me crazy, but that seems pretty straightforward: One may not take steps to impede the United States’ payment of its debts. 

That should mean that any law permitting or enabling the prevention of America paying its debts is prima facie unconstitutional. 

The debt ceiling statute, by asking members of Congress to decide whether the government may continue to pay the money it owes, is by definition a violation of the Constitution. 

Its very language questions the public debt of the United States.

Pelosi, Geithner and others have raised this argument several times in the last few years, but Obama punted then and he did it again this time (surprise, surprise) to avoid confrontation with Congress and stick to his mythical middle ground. 

Obama is afraid the House would impeach him and cause an even bigger crisis of confidence.

But it doesn’t have to be a confrontation between the branches. 

An outside goo-government group—or House Democrats—could and should go to the D.C. Circuit and challenge the constitutionality of the 1917 statute creating the debt ceiling. 

They should ask for a temporary injunction suspending enforcement of the law until the matter has been adjudicated.

A constitutional scholar might tell us that the public debt [what other debt is there for government but a public debt / obligation;  

But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-407 (1932) (dissenting opinion) (footnotes omitted).

Only the most compelling circumstances can justify this Court's abandonment of such firmly established statutory precedents. The best exposition of the proper burden of persuasion was delivered by Mr. Justice Harlan in Monroe itself:

"From my point of view, the policy of stare decisis, as it should be applied in matters of statutory construction, and, to a lesser extent, the indications of congressional acceptance of this Court's earlier interpretation, require that it appear beyond doubt from the legislative history of the 1871 statute that [United States v.] Classic, [313 U.S. 299 (1941)] and Screws [v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945)] misapprehended the meaning of the controlling provision, before a departure from what was decided in those cases would be justified." 365 U.S., at 192 (concurring opinion) (footnote omitted; emphasis added).Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 715 (1978)];

of the United States doesn’t refer to bills it has agreed to pay, but to repayment of bonds it floated—money it borrowed—to pay those bills. 

Even by that reading, any measure that raises questions about service of the debt—keeping up interest payments—should be unconstitutional. 

The fact that Republican caucus members suggest a way around it—paying the interest and stiffing everyone else—doesn’t negate the fact that the question has been raised, and that’s what’s unconstitutional.

Once you allow a vote on whether to continue paying the government’s bills, you are asking members of Congress to decide whether or not they want to honor the government’s debts.

That actually puts the members in a bind.

Every member [and the President], on entering office, did "solemnly swear" to "support and defend the Constitution" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to it.

Voting against an extension of the debt ceiling, thus preventing the government from paying its debts, amounts to violating the oath of office.

One could argue that it would subject them to removal.

In any event, the Supreme Court ruled in 1935, in Perry v. United States, that the 14th Amendment’s language should be construed as referring to all U.S. "public obligations," not just particular bonds up for payment.

Here’s what Chief Justice Hughes wrote about Section 4 of the 14th:

We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression ‘the validity of the public debt’ as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

Then there’s the question of precedent: Administrations have deferred to the debt ceiling law since it was first passed in 1917, so that validates it [slavery was precedent, spousal rape was precedent but right took the forefront as it should here.  More than this, it is penned to paper in the 14th Amendment that is the law of the land].

But the notion of a century of precedent hasn’t stopped this Supreme Court from doing what it wanted in the past, so it’s hard to see why it would now.

A more serious problem is that this court doesn’t seem willing to break with Republican policy on much of anything.

It’s hard to imagine Roberts & co. siding with the Constitution over the Tea Party on this either.

Maybe Kennedy would be willing to go along with reason. And if he didn’t and the United States’ credit rating plunged as a result of the court disavowing our constitutional commitment to the debt, at least we’d know we deserved it.



We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Friday, October 11 @ 21:15:12 MST (1829 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Scalia Chides 'Activist' Colleagues on Eve of Constitution Day

Manual of the Constitution New Page 1

SEPTEMBER 16, 2013

Scalia Chides 'Activist' Colleagues on Eve of Constitution Day

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday urged everyone to celebrate the birthday of the U.S. Constitution tomorrow -- except those who think the document is an "empty body" whose meaning can be filled in by activist judges. In that case, Scalia said in his best New York accent, "Fugget about the Constitution!"

Scalia spoke to a large audience at The George Washington University on the eve of Constitution Day, which marks the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution in 1787. The event was co-sponsored by ConSource, a project launched in 2007 to digitize and spread the word about a vast range of constitutional source documents.

As he often does when extolling the text of the Constitution, Scalia criticized his colleagues for their "activism" in creating new human rights not articulated by the framers. He made much of the fact that the right to privacy can nowhere be found in the document, yet the Supreme Court has discovered and cultivated it over the decades.

It has gotten to the point, Scalia said, that the current "national debate" over the power of the National Security Agency to track private citizens' phone calls will be decided "not by Congress, but by my court, because of the court's arrogation to itself ... [the power] to determine what privacy rights ought to exist." The court, he said, is "the branch that knows the least" about issues of national security.

Scalia poked fun at other high courts, including those in India and Germany, which he said have even broader mandates to create and enforce policy beyond the judicial power as envisioned by the U.S. Constitution's framers. "When I complain about the activism of my court," Scalia said, he reminds hiself (sic) how much worse it is elsewhere. "My goodness, I feel so much better."

We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Tuesday, September 17 @ 03:52:37 MST (2507 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Marxist wants to Trample 1st & 14th amendments

Manual of the Constitution

Marxist wants to Trample 1st & 14th amendments:

Congress shall make no law . . .   abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. 1st Amd. (1791)

The most recent congressional threat to the free press in the United States comes from California Democrat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

In a proposed amendment to a media shield law being considered by Congress, Feinstein writes that only paid journalists should be given protections from prosecution for what they say or write. 


The language in her proposal is raising concerns from First Amendment advocates because it seems to leave out bloggers and other nontraditional forms of journalism that have proliferated in recent years thanks to the Internet.


“It rubs me the wrong way that the government thinks it should be in the business of determining who should be considered a journalist,” said Ken Bunting, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the Missouri School of Journalism.


Feinstein appears to this commentator to wear the mantel of Liberalism to foster her search for 'liberation' from God's seemingly restrictive rules. There are those who will always seek – or if necessary, create the escape hatch through which those who find God's rules too limiting can flee. Liberalism, under many different names, has always found eager converts and is a very strong lure of the devils. Furthermore, it appears to this commentator that Jews and/or liberals like Feinstein  choose liberalism as the clothing needed to show they empathize with downtrodden people. They assume liberalism to be a kinder, gentler philosophy than conservatism. This leads to the liberal's  feeling of moral superiority.

We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

Posted by editor on Monday, August 12 @ 15:22:29 MST (1370 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

     T R A N S L A T I O N S
Translations Language
Helpcom Spanish Spanish

Helpcom French

 Helpcom German German
Helpcom Italian Italian
We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.

     Categories Menu
There isn't content right now for this block.

     Big Story of Today
There isn't a Biggest Story for Today, yet.

     Old Articles
Saturday, July 20
· 1st amendment Limited on Freedom of the Press not if you know history
Thursday, May 23
· Professor’s reading of the Fifth (V) amendment of the United States Constitution
Wednesday, May 15
· Dodd-Frank & the Separation of Powers
Tuesday, May 14
· Is the Patent System Working or Broken Panel Discussion
Saturday, February 02
· Rutledge on Sir Edward Coke
Friday, February 01
· High Crimes
Wednesday, January 30
· Depth of our commitment to a government of laws, not men
Sunday, January 27
· On Impeachment ~ The Rules
Wednesday, August 31
· Obama & "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
Friday, August 26
· Foreclosure & compliance with the Constitutional obligation of due process of la
Saturday, August 13
· Court Upholds Ban On Foreign Citizens Donating To Candidates
Tuesday, August 09
· §4, 14th Amendment ~ How to read it - its simple
Saturday, July 30
· Repeal the 17th Amendment?
Friday, July 29
· If Bam's and the Democrats' practices do not constitute a violation of section
Saturday, July 23
· House Lawyers Denounce Decision on Legislative Privilege
Wednesday, July 06
· Separation Of Powers
Wednesday, January 05
· Reciprocal duties resting upon the governed and upon those who govern.

     US Supreme Court Today

301 Moved Permanently

We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to
pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price. " target="new">301 Moved Permanently




     Is What I Got From UARF from UARF?
Is what you got really from UARF

Web site powered by Web Hosting USA

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © MM - MMXIII by the UnAlienable Rights Foundatation.

WWW http://www.uarf.us

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Copyright, MMVIII, Unalienabe Rights Foundation (UARF), All Rigths Reserved
Page Generation: 0.55 Seconds
We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.