16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Cooper v. Aaron, By Chief Justice Earl Warren
No state, legislator, executive or judicial officer can “War” against (or test the limitations of) the Constitution without violating their undertaking to support it (Breach of Oath/Contract, Treason??). The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal…no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth. (Book, Our Nation’s Archive © 1999 pg 701)
“Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby.” (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256)
” An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government”. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp.94.
AM14.3/HO, IR No person shall hold office if he rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution (treason).
“State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).
“Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.424 F.2d 1021UNITED STATES v.Horton R. PRUDDEN,No. 28140. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. April 1970 –
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977)-
Fraud: Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal right. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. Anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth, or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. An affirmation of a fact rather than a promise or statement of intent to do something in the future. Miller v Sutliff, 241 111 521, 89 NE 651.
“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 the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325. “Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people.”
Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116, 125. “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”
Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579. “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).
Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 (1884).” Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away.”
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
Hodges v. U.S. , 203 US 1 (1942). “The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence.”
” To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial. according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” (jury) Hoke vs Henderson, 15, N.C. 15, 25 AN Dec 677
“All subjects over which the sovereign power of the state extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced as self-evident. The sovereignty of the state extends to everything which exists by its authority or its permission.” McCullough v Maryland, 17 U.S. [4 Wheat] 316 (1819).
“The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted” –Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
Property MUST be devoted / pledged to the public with your consent and being fully compensated for such “… In one of the so-called elevator cases, that of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, [24 L. Ed. 77], it is said: ‘When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public have an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.’
But so long as he uses his property for private use, and in the absence of devoting it to public use, the public has no interest therein which entitles it to a voice in its control. Other case to the same effect are Budd v. New York, 143 U. S.
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):
“The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the ‘fruit.’ The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed… and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat… it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit.” Waring v. City of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.
The point being made is that the tree (private property, land, wages, salaries, compensation) is NOT taxable, while the “fruit” (or “income” FROM said property or wages) of the tree CAN possibly be taxed, (but only according to constitutional provisions). Tax upon income derived from, say, rental property, CAN be taxed, but ONLY according to the Constitution, because the tax does NOT diminish “tree,” the principal, or lessen the value of the person or property. Property taxation diminishes the “tree” itself, (the wealth of the person) thereby creating a possible situation where the tree could disappear because of the tax.
Property taxation must fall within constitutional guidelines set forth for all People of our nation. To be applied other than under Constitutional parameters is to make such a law or application null and void and is a violation of our constitutional rights.
Direct taxes must be “apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union”. [See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.] These include taxes directly upon people or personal property.
“…all duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States”. [See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]
“Apportionment” means according to the census… the actual number of people in the county or state. “Uniform throughout the United States” means the tax is the same everywhere, such as alcohol, tobacco and other excise taxes, where all Americans pay the same tax regardless of the state they are in.
“Thus, in the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises.” …determining that, the classification of Direct adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible for the government to burden, by taxation, accumulation of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment…” Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. 158, U.S. 601, at 637 (1895).
“The name of the tax is unimportant that it is the substance and not the form which controls;’ that the limitations of the constitution cannot be ‘frittered away’ by calling a tax indirect when it is in fact direct.” Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 580?1, 583 (1895.
“That decision affirms the great principle that what cannot be done directly (direct taxation) because of constitutional restriction cannot be accomplished indirectly by legislation which accomplishes the same result.” Fairbanks v. U.S. 181 U.S. 283, 294 (1901).
The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime. Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”
“The government of the United States… is one of limited powers. It can exercise authority over no subjects, except those which have been delegated to it. Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the treaty making power” Mayor of New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 736
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 1810 3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” ~Thomas Jefferson~
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” —Thomas Jefferson
“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” — Thomas Jefferson
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government… Thomas Jefferson (The Declaration of Independence)
They are all criminals. No one in office today qualifies to hold the office they are in or run for any other office, by law. The reason none of them recognize the constitution or the constitutional common law they swear a oath to uphold and support when they enter office is because if they did none of them would have a job. Maybe this is just too hot of a subject for any news channel to be talking about though.
We do not have ANYONE in government representing the government or the people. Everything they sign is null and void. Any actions they take are not lawful. Someone impersonating a officer of the government has no lawful standing anymore than a con man trying to sell your house out from under you. They had no lawful authority to do so in the first place any deal they make is null and void.