Great work anon!
Luv this
The stage is set
Kavanaugh is not the only Supreme Court justice who would agree with this “long settled law of the land”
THE ROLE OF MILITARY
TRIBUNALS UNDER
THE LAW OF WAR
2 The Supreme Court’s opinion noted that
American citizenship
was no bar to trial by military commission of “offenders against the law of war,” and it mentioned that the President, as Commander-in- Chief, has “the power to wage war which Congress has declared.”
5 …the Court reaffirmed the principle established by Quirin that the Constitution, in Article I, § 8, cl. 10, provides
authority for use of military
commissions to punish
violations of the law of war as
“Offences against the Law of
Nations.”
6 The Supreme Court soon reaffirmed in two other cases the authority of military tribunals established under the law of war. The first was Johnson v. Eisentrager, which concerned a German defendant who, after Germany surrendered but before the end of hostilities between the United States and Japan, had engaged in conduct in China for which he was tried there by an American military commission.
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,
or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Penalties:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Also relevant:
U.S. Criminal code
18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
https://youtu.be/3_gmOsnjrZw
Sources:
1
The Constitution of the United States of America
2
http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume24n1/documents/1-14.pdf
3
https://americandigitalnews.com/2018/09/28/will-kavanaugh-be-the-military-tribunal-scotus-tie-breaker/
I’m thinking that overturning an election could be interpreted as overthrowing a government… So yes…
I believe it could.
Also several court precedents could pave the way for such an investigation:
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 a law which
violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as
follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and
void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it
is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"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 its enactment, and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts
are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 la
This is also a relevant point…
They may have to wait for the fraudsters to move to impeach POTUS.
And yet, there so much overt criminality already exposed with NO indictments…
How far back does “secret pardons” go?
It would be a logical explanation for the delays.
Well he did say we were watching a movie…
Someone must play the part of the fool!
KeK
Can you imagine? They don’t know yet?