US Supreme Court: ‘law’ repugnant to the Constitution is void

A useful place for Americans to stand is with the US Supreme Court in one of its most cited decisions that anything passed as law in obvious violation of the US Constitution is not law, but void. Void as a legal term means the alleged “law” has zero legal force; that “void things are as no things.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall’s crystal-clear wording is below.

This definitive legal ruling empowers Americans acting upon or enforcing such non-laws to reject them in full confidence of their Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The 3-minute video asks police, military, and other law enforcement:

When you signed-up to serve the US Constitution, was your Oath sincere?

US military are authorized by their Oath of Enlistment and training to refuse unlawful orders, with officers authorized to arrest those who issue them. Given that US wars are unlawful because the US is treaty-bound to only use our military if under attack by another nation’s government, all current war orders are unlawful and should be refused. Military of civilian “leadership” who issue such orders should be arrested to immediately stop War Crimes.

Our peaceful and lawful 2nd American Revolution points to other “emperor has no clothes” obvious void laws and criminal acts:

  • assassination of Americans upon the non-reviewable dictate of the president,
  • control-drown/waterboarding anyone dictated as a “terrorist” despite all US and international case law finding this to be torture,
  • NDAA 2012 and 2006 Military Commissions Act that state a president can dictate any person as a “terrorist suspect,” and then disappear them without challenge,
  • presidential executive order saying the US government can seize any resource, any person, at any time for “national defense.”
  • US agencies’ official reports that show all “reasons” for war on Iraq were known to be false as they were told that are unacknowledged by the 1% and not prosecuted.
  • all “reasons” for war on Iran are easily and objectively proven as also false as they are being told in the present, yet the 1% continue to lie for war.
  • tripling of the US national debt since 2001 while we ignore obvious solutions to create money for full-employment and infrastructure investment (here, here, for examples). Pushing Americans into debt-slavery rather than using money is financial fraud.
  • the King Family civil trial found the US government guilty for the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. The King family’s conclusion of motive was to prevent Martin’s “Occupy DC” for the summer of 1968 until the Vietnam War was ended and that funding directed to ending poverty. The 1% never acknowledge this.

Here is the US Supreme Court’s ruling (my parenthetical notes and emphases):

The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed

Between these alternatives (limited and unlimited government) there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

… So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, … those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

… Why otherwise does it direct … an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?

… If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument (the US Constitution).

And as Abraham Lincoln stated:

“The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.” –  “Abraham Lincoln, [September 16-17, 1859] (Notes for Speech in Kansas and Ohio),” Page 2.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • gozounlimited

    We have Expanded Protections for Subjects in Human Studies Research granted by Constitution/Congress/EPA….AND yet citizens of the US are being aerially sprayed like roaches with chemtrails (defalcating on your food), with toxins without prior published health studies ….. making this exercise not only immoral … but illegal.

    On January 19, 2011, EPA took several actions to ensure that studies involving human participants continue to be conducted in a strict, ethical and transparent manner that always ensures the participants’ safety. We’ve put out a proposal to tighten a rule that involves the study of pesticides (PDF) (79 pp, 292K, about PDF); the agency is enhancing the current 2006 rule to apply to all research involving pesticides as part of a settlement agreement.

    Additionally, EPA issued a memorandum to the Agency’s scientists reaffirming ethical considerations set forth in an agency document, “Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies (SEAOES)” (PDF) (79 pp, 292K, about PDF). All research conducted and supported by EPA that involves people as research participants must adhere to the principles in SEAOES. The Agency also will amend its policy and procedures to ensure that SEAOES is incorporated during the review of study proposals. Additionally, SEAOES will be incorporated into the Agency’s exposure assessment guidelines.

    read more: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm

  • paul

    ‘Obamacare’s individual mandate is also blatantly anti-constitutional.

  • There is a back-story to this discussion about what the police and the military ought to do if and when they are told to do anything immoral and or illegal and or contrary to the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold. That is, no one is in a position to challenge or refuse to obey any such order without making themselves subject to punishment or reprisal.

    So, say JFK thought that the direction the U.S. government was going in the early sixties was contrary to his understanding of the Constitution, the laws, or morality, he was in no position to challenge that direction and get away with it.

    The current situation with ‘whistle-blowers’ is another similar case. The idea of a ‘whistle-blower’ is that some employee sees that their organization is violating the law, morality, or the Constitution and therefore they try to expose these violations to public scrutiny in hopes that the violators will be prosecuted and the crimes redressed. However, the Obama administration, with Congressional assistance, is stepping down hard on these people in order to stop any such advocacy of the law, morality, or the Constitution. They don’t have to kill the whistle-blowers if they can just make an example of them in order to prevent any more from coming out.

    I suppose this type of consideration effects the conscience of police and military personnel too. It’s not overt, maybe, but if you can’t trust your buddies to have your back, you aren’t going to stick your neck out.

  • In the past week, I have had several conversations which has surprised
    me. While calling out all that is wrong with the police state, a
    tyrannical government, and the fact that my grandchildren are not enjoying the
    freedoms that I did as a little girl, not one person thought about taking a
    stand against these injustices.

    One response that comes to mind, “that’s why I don’t vote.”
    The other, “well, what are you going to do?” Both people who
    uttered these words are in their mid-30’s.

    They looked at me as if I were nuts when I informed them that “I would
    rather die on my feet than live crawling on my knees. You have to stand up,
    speak up. Do not accept things as the way they are.”

    The final response was to look way, shrug and change the discussion.

    So exasperating.