go to LAW dot com .. dot Gov hides the truth

According to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution all laws (and treaties) made by the United States are “the supreme law of the land.” Both federal and state officials, for example judges, are required to take an oath to fully support the Constitution, even when state law contradicts federal law. Unlike the previous Articles of Confederation, the Constitution completely wins over state power. However, the U.S. Constitution also defends the states’ powers in many different ways. This structure of federalism, where the state and national governments share power together, is the main feature of American government. Along with ensuring this form of federalism, Article 6 also promises a degree of religious freedom in the United States by disallowing any sort of religious test requirement for public office.

The First Clause of Article 6

The first clause of Article 6 simply states that any debts created before the adoption of the United States Constitution are to be considered valid, in the same form they were held under the Articles of Confederation.

The Second Clause of Article 6

The second clause of Article 6 states that according the U.S. Constitution, federal laws and treaties are considered the

supreme law of the land. State court and laws are bound to this supreme law and in the case of conflict between the two, federal law must ultimately apply. This includes the laws described in state constitutions.

The Third Clause of Article 6

According to the third clause, state and federal legislators, judges, and executive officers are bound by affirmation or oath to fully support the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress may decide the form of this oath. However, Congress cannot require any religious test in order to hold an office. While oaths can include the phrase “so help me God,” these words are not required to be said and are therefore not a religious test.

article 6

The Supremacy Clause is that which derives from Constitutional law and sets forth that three distinct areas of legislation be at the forefront. It states that the Constitution, Federal statutes, and United States treaties encompass the “supreme law of the land”, therefore making them the highest areas of law possible within the legal system of America. The Supremacy Clause may be found in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

A landmark case representing one of the earliest examples of the use of the Supremacy Clause is that of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland had no legal right to tax the Second Bank of the United States as a Federal entity. This exhibited how the Supremacy Clause called into question the actions of the State, and therefore, made it so that the State could not legally tax the Federal Government.

Another case that made use of the Supremacy Clause in connection with Constitutional law was that of Missouri v. Holland. This Supreme Court case was conducted over the cause of international treaties. The Court ruled that the power of the Federal Government to enforce treaties overrode that of the State’s authority to voice concerns as to the violation of their local rights as prescribed from the 10th Amendment.

This Amendment was used by the Supreme Court following the Civil War and stated that states assumed the rights to powers not already set forth for the Federal Government. This did not last long, however, as everything was shifted to the Government to have vast national power, which meant that the Federal Government could not be subject to State law aside from by its own volition.

In addition, the Supremacy Clause also maintains that State legislatures assume, in one way or another, the guidelines and procedures set forth by the Federal Government. This is due to the presentation of two issues that stem from State and Federal conflict. These include Congress’ surpassing of its original authority as well as its overall intent in going over that of State policy. In both cases, Congress may be acting with the express authority of creating uniformity of legislature. In such a way it may be attempting to enable the coexistence of Federal and State government.

A case that highlighted such issues of Federal law presuming power over State action is that of Pennsylvania v. Nelson. In this case, the Supreme Court instituted qualifications for when the Government does encroach upon the rule of states, even when absent of apparent intent. These include that the Federal law is so extensive that states may not be able to adequately supplement it, the fact of the “Federal interest’s dominance,” and whether “State law” is in so much of a contrast to the Federal administration that it may only do harm to it. Such cases represent the ways in which the Supremacy Clause has been employed.

Article I of the Constitution provides the right to habeas corpus, through which a person may issue a writ against his or her unlawful detention by a governmental or judicial system to citizens of the United States. The right to habeas corpus is a traditional concept in English common law, the origin of the American legal system, and was thus carried over from the process of winning independence from England.

Habeas corpus is considered a cornerstone of the English-derived conception of a liberal, democratic society, protecting people against arbitrary arrests and seizures, and thus guaranteeing the legitimacy of the judicial system as it is implemented. The Government has acted, however, to suspend the right to habeas corpus under certain conditions, and in these cases the Supreme Court has been faced with the question of whether to affirm or oppose the executive branch’s decision.

The United States Government has sometimes suspended the right to habeas corpus in certain regions or in regard to certain categories of people, as has sometimes been deemed necessary in regard to internal security threats, variously referred to as rebellion, sabotage, or terrorism. Notable early instances of this occurrence can be found in the Civil War, when President Lincoln suspended the right in areas feared to be susceptible to Confederate loyalties, and the subsequent Reconstruction when President Grant did the same for areas threatened by Ku Klux Klan terrorist activity.

The Supreme Court approved similar practices in the 20th Century. The attack on Pearl Harbor and subsequent war with Japan aroused doubts as to the loyalty of Japanese-descended American citizens and the threat of enemy saboteurs. The Supreme Court’s decision in the 1942 case, “Ex parte Quirin,” allowed for the right to habeas corpus to be denied to such saboteurs, ruling them “unlawful combatants”. The Court’s 1946 decision in Duncan v. Kahanamoku held the martial order declared after the Pearl Harbor decisions permissible due to circumstances.

In more recent history, the executive and legislative branches have attempted to impose limitations on the right to habeas corpus as a measure against terrorism, as was seen early on in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 after the Oklahoma City building bombing, and later appeared in the Bush Administration’s responses to the September 11, 2001 attacks. In making decisions on these latter moves (the former having been less actively applied), the Supreme Court has tended to find against the Government’s moves against the right to habeas corpus.

The 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, for instance, found that, even when being tried for terrorist/insurgent activities, American citizens could still expect to hold the right to file for writs of habeas corpus. The Court has also strengthened the right to habeas corpus through other decisions. The post-World War II era saw a trend in Supreme Court decisions that extended the applicability of the right, which today is commonly used for challenges to death penalty laws.

Just go read the DOI, Federalist papers, Amendments, and any Articles you can find. Then find this and see where the loss of our freedoms and sovereignty began in earnest

War

Central planning and Corporation

The corporate State

Dr. Eugene Schroder and David Schechter

Thank you POTUS for the X-mas gift……:P

Police power

is representative of the way in which individual states may regulate citizen

and non-citizen behavior and conduct. It proceeds with the express purpose of

ensuring that the public’s welfare is maintained, as well as its general health

and safety.

State

constitutions usually provide the limitations by which police power is

instituted. It stems all the way back to the feudal systems of Europe. The

exhibition of police power may be seen in a number of ways. These include: the

creation of laws and the imposing of these laws by physical force or other such

procedures.

Conflicts that usually arise as a result of the

existence of police power are those which concern the beliefs that such

physical force may not actually be in legal concurrence within the realm of the

United States Constitution. Federal courts are usually confronted with issues

of civil liberties which come into question, presenting serious consequences in

relation to the institution of police power.

In

accordance with Nineteenth Century legislation, Federal courts ruled that

despite the overseeing powers of the Federal Government, states possessed sole

control over the handling of police power. This system works to deal with

situations such as that concerning property considerations, public health

issues, laws concerning heinous crimes, as well as various other aspects of

law.

This may be seen as is exhibited within the Tenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution. This Amendment states that powers not assigned to

the Federal Government are to be left to that of the State as well as the

general public. Police powers are that which are set forth in accordance with State

constitutions having precedence, but also with some limitations.

One such

case is that of Lawrence v. Texas. In this Supreme Court case, Federal courts

stated that “intimate” situations not be subject to police power

aside from if it presented harm in relation to the health and overall safety of

those involved. A case that demonstrated how local authorities may abuse their

power includes that of Mahony v. Township. This involved the township

instituting “zoning ordinances,” which then were deemed an illegal use

of police power. This was due to the fact that a complete barring of private

gas wells was seen as without real reasoning since it had no actual effect over

concerns such as the health, safety, and welfare of the whole town. This case

example shows just how even a system of police power may also go too far

regardless of its legal intent

Eyes wide shut, Deception everywhere, Truth in f your face for years, but no one saw it in time.

Nothing any one can do now. Expect the worst, Prepare. It will all get much much worse.

Right is wrong

Wrong is right

Light = Good

Darkness = Bad

Lord of light

The Light bearer

Aza'zel = Lucifer

Son of God ?

Christ

Son of God = All Men

False Idols = Virgin Mary, Jesus, Hollywood, pope

THE POPE = Beast #1

Beast #2 ?

Beast #3 ?

Witness #1 ?

Witness #2 ?

Potus n Putin? where do they Fit ??

Deception is a game well played.

we have less than 100 yrs experience

they have thousands.

Grab your ankles and kiss ur asses Good Bye

or

Change direction

Faith is blind

Open your Eyes & SEE

Listen and actually hear

GOD = Alpha & Omega

God = The Word from God's mouth is unchanging. Let no man say otherwise.

God GOD = CREATION it's self

GOD is in all things and from God all things come forth. Put nothing before GOD….

Return to the Covenants and Commandments given to the Messiah Moses. That is the only way to get into the book for judgment.

Lunar calendar = YES

solar, sun = no think RA, Osiris, Lucifer

5 Books of Enoch 7th of Adam = genesis & Revelations come from here… tossed about by Ceasar and Bishop of Rome to create first biblical text 350AD

Reformers ( Jesuits) 1553 rewrote Bible canonized.

good luck

Q

ANONYMOUS

CLOWNS IN ACTION

3-15-18 it begins