Posted by MARTIN on September 13, 1998 at 13:15:18:
In Reply to: Dicta? posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 13, 1998 at 12:13:58:
Specifically specify the definition of "to uphold and protect the constitution for the United States".
If this constitution was law an oath would not be needed; only enforcement of this constitution as law would be required.
Today's JUDGES are not corrupt. These Judges justify their rulings and opinions in many cases
on constitution granted powers to bolster the political power of the UNITED STATES government.
They are not going to tell you that the "We the People" constitution is not law, legal or that this constitution is just a guideline and is optional.
This constitution cannot be amended lawfully.
Take a certified copy of the original "We the People" constitutional to COURT and admit it as "evidence of law" and see what it gets you. You may get a dismissal but this will not be case law.
Executive orders are constitutional in a deferent context (roman based law) than the "We the People" constitution.
A little or a lot of reading of International law will reveal that what is "constitutional" does not have to come from a specific constitution.
It sounds like Andrew Johnson was not a lawyer, did not want to get shot or was playing politics.
Also you doe not have unalienable rights in commerce under the GOD mercury.
No one was forced to join the new GOV. created by LINCOLN and those who followed him.
=================================================
RE: The Reconstruction Acts were unconstitutional.
: See Andrew Johnson's elaborate discussion
: of the many reasons, e.g. they were a Bill of
: Attainder upon 9 million people.
: Unconstitutionality dates from the moment
: of enactment, not from any decision
: so branding them.
: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.