• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

test

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,463
Likes
11,241
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#1
executive orders, presidential edicts, congressional legislation, individually or even in combination CANNOT amend the Constitution! No where in the Constitution will you find any power conferred upon the president to issue executive orders! IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!! Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284F Sup. 94 An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government Juramentum est indivisibile, et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. An oath is indivisible, it cannot be in part true and in part false. Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial District of San Mateo (1960) The Legislature, either by amending or otherwise, may not nullify a constitutional provision Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), to wit: Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution. Further; U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894) "Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the STATE government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT EXTEND INTO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATES, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817. Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recovery. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 it says “Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct.” DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956) "It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute's language. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.”
 

monty

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
17
Likes
17
Location
Nevada
#2
Good information, also treaties do not amend the constitution. So, using the same logic quoted in your post any portion of a treaty that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.



executive orders, presidential edicts, congressional legislation, individually or even in combination CANNOT amend the Constitution! No where in the Constitution will you find any power conferred upon the president to issue executive orders! IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!! Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284F Sup. 94 An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government Juramentum est indivisibile, et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. An oath is indivisible, it cannot be in part true and in part false. Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial District of San Mateo (1960) The Legislature, either by amending or otherwise, may not nullify a constitutional provision Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), to wit: Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution. Further; U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894) "Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the STATE government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT EXTEND INTO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATES, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817. Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recovery. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 it says “Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct.” DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956) "It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute's language. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.”
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
17
Likes
6
#3
Good information, also treaties do not amend the constitution. So, using the same logic quoted in your post any portion of a treaty that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.
Just testing replying with quote