Rulings

 

     While there have been many, many rulings that just boggle the mind, there is a belief amongst many in the federal judicial system that the commerce clause grants congress the power to regulate commerce between the People, thereby eviscerating any limit on federal power. This concept is just flat out wrong, and has enabled the federal government to terrorize its own citizens. One cannot point to one particular ruling and say that this is the ruling that enshrined this philosophy within our judicial system, it is a philosophy that has taken hold by a thousand cuts to the beautiful face of liberty. The commerce clause does not have the words the People in it, so I would like any supreme court justice to explain to anyone how the commerce clause grants the feds the power to regulate commerce between the People!  If the framers wanted congress to have the power to regulate commerce between the People, they would have written the words into the commerce clause. It is clear that they considered the People and the State to be two separate entities, and there is no wording that says the People are subservient to the State. The commerce clause grants congress the power to be the referee between the several States if there is some sort of trade conflict. That's it! Nothing more! The supreme court and those who want to take our freedom seem to think that a small s or a capital S on the word states in the commerce clause does not matter, and that somehow the words the People are in the commerce clause. Probably written in invisible ink! Go ask any English teacher if it matters if the s is capitalized or not. It makes all the difference in the world as to what the word States means in the context of the commerce clause.

     There is probably one case, that is cited quite a lot by those that want to use the commerce clause to regulate everything. That case is Wickard v. Filburn. This case seems to be where the supreme court decided to amend the Constitution once again and they added the language to the commerce clause that says, "and things that might affect interstate commerce". Read the commerce clause, you will not see this language in there! We emphasize the word might in the language that the supreme terrorists added to our Constitution. Does the Constitution somewhere give the supreme terrorists the right to rule on things that might happen? Would you like to be put in prison because you might commit a crime? I think not. You see how this works. Add a little language and presto, you have unlimited federal power, power we know for a fact is supposed to be limited by the Constitution!

     The illegal amending of our Constitution, specifically the commerce clause, has probably been the most devastating blow to our freedom in this country. This ever expanding power, that federal judges have stolen for their three letter armies, continues today! There have actually been some recent rulings by federal judges that take this thievery to it's ultimate end, the end that believes the Constitution empowers congress to do anything they want to us, and does not limit federal power at all.  When we have a system that denies us our individual sovereignty, we have slavery. I thought slavery was abolished and illegal in this country! Many of the supreme terrorists rulings that have expanded this stolen power are discussed below. Unfortunately, they happen for political reasons, the very definition of terrorism, and they happen because of pressure from both side of the isle, conservative and liberal.

     Probably one of the most famous idiotic rulings ever to come out of the supreme court is the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. Here the supreme court ruled that slavery was Constitutional. Are you serious? Holding a person as a slave represents one of the most extreme states of terrorism, again backing up this web sites claim that most federal judges and most supreme court justices should be thought of as terrorists, not protectors of freedom. This case should always be remembered as one of the most erroneous rulings ever handed down, showing just how wrong this body of 9 can be, and how damaging their rulings can be towards the preservation of freedom. NEVER forget this case.

     While one can argue over which cases should be listed here and the order of their importance, the main focus on cases here will be their effect on the preservation of freedom and liberty. One of the main reasons the States created the federal government. One of the most disturbing trends today, is that this fundamental contamination of the judicial branch of our government for political reasons appears to be worsening. The state run media does not want to talk about it, either out of ignorance or malice, the latter more likely. The congress and executive branch does not want to address it as all of these un-Constitutional rulings give them more and more power. It will be up to us, the People, to stop this attack on our endowed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Dred Scott v. Sanford Kelo v. New London Gonzales v. Raich Morse v. Frederick
Massachusetts_v._EPA Kentucky v. King   Helvering v. Davis

 


Home | Overview | What is Terrorism | Obscene Rulings | Links
U.S. Constitution | Peaceful Solutions | Comments | Contact Us

Hall of Fame | Hall of Shame