Law

Census GPS - what to do now?

Charla — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:12:31 -0400

So what can we do now that 140,000 of the fedgov's minions are out gathering our addresses via GPS?

I'm happy to copy & post this census response (with your permission) next year when they actually are supposed to take the count. But how can I keep them off my property now, without fear of retribution in its various forms (DFACS, IRS, etc.)?

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1578

Police punished for being lawful

Wayne — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:39:22 -0400

This is what happens when a policeman stands up for the Constitutional rights of citizens. When he questioned his superior's order to arrest 15 people peacefully sharing their faith on the university's campus, he was relieved of duty, a reprimand was put into his file, and he was suspected without pay for a week. Then he was told that if he did it ever again, he'd be fired.

The peaceful Christians was arrested anyway but later released when the court found no basis for the charges. Too late. The damage was done. Free speech was quelled. The government violated their rights, despite its purpose to protect citizens' rights. The bad guys won. And the one good guy among all the bad guys with badges was punished, his career likely forever affected.

Much as it pains me to say, the worst enemy this nation has now, even with the hundred million Muslims or so who wish to kill us all, is actually our own government at all levels. And they have provided abundant evidence that they will give, follow, and enforce illegal, unconstitutional, and evil orders without hesitation.

As an aside... Hoplophobes irrationally believe that guns have minds of their own, that they can "go off" at any time without discretion. Perhaps there's a kernel of truth there. The kinds of guns that have minds of their own, that can shoot almost without discretion, and can perpetrate great evils upon the innocent, are those guns wielded by the jackbooted LEOs whose oath to the Constitution (and before God) means nothing.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1499

Death of Rule of Law

Wayne — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:55:55 -0500

It looks like this may be the last gasp for the rule of law in America. I expect it to fail. The Constitution is dead. The America created by it is dead. Common law is dead. I fully expect any semblance to the rule of law to die with the present efforts to verify (or disprove) Obozo's eligibility.

We live in a tyranny. Obsama didn't create this tyranny, but he's surely expanding it. There is no facet of our lives our governments leave untouched. There is no property that trumped-up charges—even without conviction—cannot take away. Our very lives can be forfeit with as little as the right anonymous tip (leading to a police-led home invasion, euphemistically called a "no-knock warrant"). Any life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in this nation is merely by the temporary and capricious mercy of our rogue governments at all levels.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1485

Rule of Law

Wayne — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:05:55 -0500

Bill Press insists upon rule-of-law:

There's no doubt Bush and Cheney broke the law, in several areas. Within days of Sept. 11, Bush gave orders for the NSA to tap the phones of American citizens without getting a warrant from the FISA court. That was clearly against the law, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

When Ambassador Joe Wilson embarrassed Bush by exposing the lies he told about Iraq's seeking to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger, the Bush White House retaliated by unmasking his wife's identify as an undercover CIA agent. That was clearly against the law, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

When the first "terrorist suspects" were rounded up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they were brought to Guantanamo Bay, where some of them were tortured. The use of torture, in fact, has now been confirmed by Susan Crawford, the top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial. Torturing prisoners of war – even if it's called "enhanced interrogation techniques" – is clearly against both U.S. law and international law, and Bush and Cheney knew it.

And the list goes on. Clearly, George Bush and Dick Cheney violated many of the laws they took an oath to uphold. The question is whether they should be prosecuted for their crimes or simply allowed to walk away.

The answer, I believe, depends on whether we believe in the rule of law or not. If we do, there's no choice: The Justice Department must prosecute. Otherwise, we send the dangerous message that, once you achieve a certain level of political power in this country, you can operate outside the law with impunity.

He left out the fact Bush waged war(s) without a Congressional declaration, violating the very clear Constitution, surely a bigger crime than the ones Press mentions.

Of course, we all know what the outcome will be. There will be no trial. There is no rule of law in this country—hasn't been for many, many years. Those in power do pretty much what they want, and the rest of us take it up our—

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1424

Does the Constitution obey the Word of God?

Dave — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:50:30 -0500

As I was writing another post, I stumbled upon the question of whether the Constitution is entirely obedient to the Word of God. I found that I did not have a clear answer. I still don't, even as I post this, though I intend to look into the matter.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? (I mean, besides Wayne, from whom I am certain we will hear very soon. )

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1392

Census Response

Wayne — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:36:47 -0500

To whom it may concern, particularly agents, officers, and delegates of the U.S. Census Bureau:

Whereas, the Constitution trumps all federal law;

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2: "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Whereas, federal government powers are granted by the people and are therefore subordinate to the people;

U.S. Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

U.S. Constitution, Article. I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted..."

Whereas, the federal government's powers are limited by the Constitution;

U.S. Constitution, Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Whereas, the actual census power granted the federal government is merely and only to count the number of persons in each state and only for the purposes of apportionment of Representatives;

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 2: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Whereas, all agents/officers of the federal government are bound by oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution, any breach of which is punishable by impeachment and removal;

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3: "[A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "[A]ll civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Whereas, any attempt to extract more information than is Constitutionally permitted is a violation of oath or affirmation, unconstitutional, and a federal crime;

U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, Paragraph 241: "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, ...or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, Paragraph 242: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, ...or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Whereas, any forcible attempt to deprive us of our Constitutional rights is also a state crime;

GA Constitution, Article I, Section I (Rights of Persons)

GA Code, Title 16, Chapter 2, Article 1 (Culpability)

GA Code, Title 16, Chapter 3, Article 2 (Justified Self-Defense)

GA Code, Title 16, Chapter 4 (Criminal Conspiracy)

GA Code, Title 16, Chapter 5 (Crimes Against The Person)

GA Code, Title 16, Chapter 7, Article 2 (Criminal Trespass)

Therefore, be it resolved, the only information to which the U.S. Census Bureau is legally entitled and all it shall receive—and only once each ten years—is the number of persons residing at this address: The household at 149 Tuscany Circle, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 30044-4398, has three (3) persons.

Attachment	Size
Census_Response.pdf	34.86 KB

Jubilee

Wayne — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:42:46 -0500

The Bible prescribes a Year of Jubilee every fifty years. What's involved with this tradition? At first glance, it's an obvious "reset" economically speaking. Debts are canceled. Land is returned. Since the law of Jubilee was given at a time when Israel's government was minimal--judges only--it's difficult to know whether or not this "reset" applied to government, too. Thomas Jefferson recommended armed revolution every 20 years to roll back government corruption. Might the year of Jubilee be a means of doing just this? Was this part of its intent?

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1352

CA Marriage Woes

Wayne — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:02:26 -0500

CA voters long ago passed DOMA (defense of marriage act, defining marriage as one man and one woman). The state Supreme Court overturned the law as being unconstitutional. The voters responded by passing Prop 8, an amendment to the state's constitution that succinctly defines marriage as one man and one woman. Now the CA AG is refusing to defend it--he's fighting it, in fact--because it's "unconstitutional".

The original DOMA was overturned by the courts because it was unconstitutional. The people said, "Fine, we'll make it constitutional by amending the constitution." The AG now says the earlier court ruling, ostensibly based upon the old constitution, "overrules" the new, amended constitution. Talk about circular logic! Here's some more irony: the AG is correct in that no constitutional amendment can lawfully negate an inalienable right. He fails to mention why, though.

You can't lawfully negate an inalienable right because its inalienability is granted by God Almighty and not by man or his government. However, if you are appealing to the Almighty for the basis of inalienable rights--what other basis can there be?--you cannot then ignore the Almighty's definitions of those rights. Marriage is certainly a God-given right, but the Bible clearly defines marriage as a man and a woman (Biblical polygamy notwithstanding, a topic for another day) and condemns homosexuality several times and in both testaments.

The problem in CA is easy to understand. There are those who are living according to worldviews at least somewhat in alignment with the correct, Biblical one. Then there are those who are living in alternate worldviews where homosexuality is "moral" behavior. Each is also implicitly defining government and inalienable rights according to these clashing worldviews. The gay-marriage folks, though, seem too stupid to understand that you have no legitimate or even feasible basis for government sans Godly authority. In fact, theirs is the very definition of mob-rule, in contrast to the AG's similar but idiotic charges against the marriage-defenders.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1351

4th is dead

Wayne — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:53:38 -0500

A homeschooling mother encounters government agents (a "dog warden" and a police officer) who have no clue what the Fourth Amendment is:

A dog warden showed up at the Jones (name changed to protect privacy) family home in Northern Ohio after receiving a tip from neighbor. She demanded entry into the family’s home, because she wanted to “see if their dog was healthy.”

Mrs. Jones, a homeschooling mother of 10, responded respectfully to this surprise intrusion by politely informing the dog warden that she had a Fourth Amendment right under the Constitution protecting her from warrantless searches and seizures. Mrs. Jones politely explained that her dog was healthy and that unless the dog warden had a search warrant, she would not allow her to come into the house or see the dog.

The dog warden became annoyed and threatened to call the police if Mrs. Jones did not allow her to see the dog. Mrs. Jones politely stood her ground, calmly stating that she would explain her right to the police officer if necessary. The dog warden spitefully called the police. When an officer arrived and asked the mother why she was giving the warden a hard time, Mrs. Jones simply explained she was unwilling to give up her Fourth Amendment right. As she explained this to the police officer, the dog warden rudely interrupted, “What is the Fourth Amendment?” Incredibly, as Mrs. Jones continued, the police officer stated that “The Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with searches and seizures.” [Emphasis added]

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1340

Capital Punishment debate

Charla — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:52:46 -0400

Working late last night on lesson plans away from home, I had the opportunity to eavesdrop on a group of Christian 20-somethings discuss several in-depth issues. To hear them debate, I was feeling quite old and matronly (two different things). However, their discussion was thought-provoking and good mental exercise vs. the phonics lessons I was planning.

Not sure if I've seen it here, so I'll throw it out now.

As a believer and follower of Jesus, how do you feel about capital punishment? How would Jesus feel about it? If He were to return today, would He change the current "justice" system and how?

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1241