Democrat Governors Are Obviously Violating Constitutional Rights

Amazing, isn't it? Now we know they're doing it to save their asses.

From the viewpoint of the tyrant liberal politicians, the Constitution gets in the way of their being able to do what they "claim" is for our own good.

It is more expedient for them to have THEIR judges so interpret it as to permit their actions. Thus, the truly greatest achievements of Trump have been filling vacancies in the courts with Constitutional judges.

If they are not stopped, the Constitution would soon be whatever THEY at any particular time wanted it to be.

Conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law

And

Deprivation of rights under color of law

you really think DEMS/RHINOS/LIBS is the appropriate term for genocidal maniacs? emm FK OFF they are satanic communist bolshviks

Have you no clue as to why the top Penn officials are immune from their own decrees that oppress and abuse the general public?

ALL Governors Are Violating Constitutional Rights

It already is, that’s my point

We are all slaves!

The 13th amendment abolished slavery (won’t get into the real 13th)

The 14th amendment created a new type of slavery

Read more of the link tons of information ^^^^^

The point source being Marxism which is a secularized version if which older belief system?

“...at the revolution the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ......and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, at pg 471;

“People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY).

“The people or sovereign are NOT bound by general words in statutes [legislated acts, regulations, etc.s, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts [legislated acts or statutes] of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of the Common Law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997.

We can up the ante with Whitmer.

Throw em all in the pot!

Warming up the tar!

When their defeat is made public, with clear and concise conviction they will be forced to lift restrictions or face further prosecution.

Political moves, not medical or safety minded. They only care about the optics of being recognized for contributing to THEIR plan.

They seek a nod from the devil for being good little ghouls and goblins.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

1865 – 13th Amendment – people could volunteer into slavery by accepting federal benefits.

1868 - a privately owned, foreign (British) corporation called the "United States" was created and incorporated
in Delaware.

1868 – The 14th Amendment defined a two new legal entities: a "citizen of the United States" and a ‘person’, both subject to the federal government jurisdiction as "agents/officers" and/or "employees" of government. It then stated that no state could infringe or deprive any "U.S. citizen" or "person" of their "privileges and immunities" as U.S. citizens. Of great importance was the use of the terms ""privileges" and "immunities", as opposed to "rights". As "persons" or "citizens" (that is, agents or employees) of the private, foreign United States corporation, they had NO rights within that corporation. They possessed only privileges granted to them by that private, foreign corporation called the United States.

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.."

It defined a new legal entity: a "citizen of the United States" as 1.) a person naturalized or born within the United States AND 2.) "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", that is, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".

Note that BOTH conditions must be fulfilled to be considered a "U.S. citizen". Consequently, any man claiming the status of a "U.S. citizen" is affirming that he was born or naturalized in the United States AND that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the private corporation called the United States and its statutes and courts, thereby exercising his unlimited right to contract and voluntarily waiving his rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution.

1871 – the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 was passed by Congress, creating a municipal government as a privately owned corporation that took control of D.C. In subsequent statutes in 1882 and later passed by Congress, the federal government became, in fact , the private, foreign corporation called the "United States" incorporated in 1868 and based in Washington, D.C. Further, in subsequent statutes the term "United States" meant ONLY the "District of Columbia"; NOT the various states of the Union under the Constitution.

1913 – the Federal Reserve Central Banks were created.

1933 President Roosevelt put into effect the ‘Trading with the Enemies Act’. This applied only to Federal Citizens, aka, "U.S. citizens" as defined in the 14th Amendment

1933 – President Roosevelt took the gold away from the people, who were not lawfully required to relinquish it, and who then had no money with which to pay their debts. Since 1933, debts are never paid; they are simply "discharged"

March 9, 1933 – ownership (legal title) of all property is in the State; individual ‘ownership’ is only equitable (user) title. Use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. (YIKES! Read that again.)

1933 – President Roosevelt signed HJR 192 June 5, 1933 passed by Congress– since the government had taken the gold, and the people had no money, the government would pay the ‘debts’ for the people, thereby giving them unlimited credit. Whoever has the gold pays the bills. This legislation states that one cannot demand from you a certain form of currency, since any form and all forms of currency are your credit. If they do, they are in breach of Public Policy, PL 73-10. Not only does this insurance policy protect the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason but also it protects the people from damages cause by the Feds.

1938 – The U.S. Supreme Court's Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), decision made contracts the rule in the courts. This ruling voided the long-standing . Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 41 U. S. 18 (1842) No other law or court decisions prior to 1938 could be cited in future court cases. In effect, Erie Railroad Company v Tompkins made contracts [contract law or UCC-Admiralty Law; NOT the Common Law and the Constitution] the rule in the courts under the Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Act. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law, that is, the Common Law codified as statutes. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy, that is private commercial law created through contracts.

1946 – government and court system was lost through the Administrative Procedures Act.

1965 – silver was removed as a means for paying debt, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) became the supreme law of the land concerning the Banking System, the courts were pulled together in Admiralty/Administrative and Civil (contract /commercial /corporate) Law, thereby removing the ‘innocent’ plea under the Common Law, thereby reversing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty until proven innocent’. Securities replaced substance as collateral for debts; debt instruments with collateral, and accommodation parties could be used instead of money. The courts could uphold the security instruments which depended upon commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance.

1966 – The Federal Tax Lien Act: The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)
The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first section of STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.
In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

The word "person" is a fictional legal entity. A man (or woman) is real and not a legal fiction and therefore by definition is not a "person".
NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS in the STATUTES DO NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES (legislated acts) !!!

Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person ...
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person ...
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person ...
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person ...
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person ...

Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes (called acts or statutes). A crime by definition is an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an
offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is ONLY one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery or involuntary servitude. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
14th Amendment: (which defined the term “citizen of the United States”)

Democrat don't give a fuck about the Constitution. All that matters is their power.
[imgur]
[link to i.imgur.com (secure)]

Why do you still listen to them?

it was violated as soon as they legalized "abortion"

and then started giving (gibs) special privileges to women and "minorities"

and then started passing laws favoring the sodom1te mafia identified by a fake acronym made up of street slang: "LGBTQ+"

Yes, because Republican governors would NEVER do that...

And that is why these governors should be _________________!

Wake the fuck up already. There is no Constitution. It started to burn up in 1913. In 2020, it was fully gone. Adjust accordingly.

Actually, most State Constitutions allow elected officials to "protect the health and welfare" of the citizens. You can disagree with the decisions they make, but not their right to do so.

They can do that, but at least until liberals do away with it, the Constitution limits those rights. I have laid it out in this thread already.

Now since Democrats just ignore laws they do not like, and it seems a lot of Republicans are fine with it, so long as they and their families get to kiss the Democrats butts, we may have a Constitution, but no way to enforce it, unless the SCOTUS does something about it.

party status aside...criminals are criminals. Jail them!

I have not researched this yet, but as I currently understand it, and assuming that 140 Republicans in the House do so, there will be 2 hours of debate allowed for each such objector. The plan seems to be to allow that time to be used to present Trump's evidence in those public proceedings.
That would be 2 x 140 = 280 hours for them to do so.

Normally CNN on CSPAN carries ALL of that, and so unless they change that to prevent the public from knowing, we will all be able to record/watch it, starting January 6.

If FOX was what it used to be, at least it would insure it was available to us, but FOX does not seem to be what it used to be, so could be it is all suppressed by the news media, whose job it is to get that info to us.

Instead, we may 28000 hours of CNN commentary telling us what we would have seen, had they not chosen to prevent it, and you know it will be 100% anti-Trump and full support for removing all our rights.

Thread: Bitch all you want, your DOJ is USELESS against Democrat corruption. USELESS!

I want to thank all of you for the support. It takes some time and work to do these, and your support is appreciated.