Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Supreme Court’

On the July 4, 2015 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism, I discussed the following issues:

Small AIDS fraudster gets jail and fine while the original big AIDS fraudster, Dr. Robert Gallo, continues to get millions in grants, changing accents to pander to a different audience, cultural genocide no occasion to clap and cheer, Canada’s spy agency allegedly hacked again, U.S. Supreme Court hypocrisy, and, yes, Doctor Snuggles.

Read Full Post »

On June 25, 2015, from the article, ‘Words no longer have meaning’: U.S. justice Scalia apoplectic on ‘pure applesauce’ Obamacare ruling, I pointed out Justice Scalia’s Obamacare wording hypocrisy, where he said that “words no longer have meaning” in reference to the majority 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether “the State” referred only to the 13 U.S. States that have set up health care exchanges, or whether it also includes the U.S. federal government.

Scalia’s hypocrisy relates to him saying that the Second Amendment pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms allows for reasonable restrictions when it clearly says that right “shall not be infringed.”

So who is he to claim that “words no longer have meaning” in the context of this case, and given the scathing nature of his dissenting opinion, I find it appropriate to call him out on his hypocrisy in this regard.

From an intensive layman’s study of the U.S. Constitution over the years, I tend to suspect he’s right with his decision in this case, as the words “the United States” is used in both the Constitution and the United States Code to refer to the U.S. federal government, whereas “States” are used to the several states.

Check out the comments section for my various comments and responses, including from someone who chastised me for allegedly using hyperbole in saying:

Scalia has no credibility in taking exception with the Court’s interpretation of words, since he misinterprets the Second Amendment, which clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” in saying that reasonable gun control limits are allowed.

For more on Justice Scalia, see my article, Charlie Rose’s interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Read Full Post »

The United States Supreme Court.

On the January 11, 2012 episode of Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith, Pastor David Whitney of The Institute on the Constitution made a claim implying that common law doesn’t exist in the United States (starting at 22:35):

The Congress is the only body that is given the power to make law. Not the judiciary, not the executive — none of them can make law. Only Congress can make law. Anything attempted by those other two branches is not law, it’s a violation of the Constitution.

While I agree that only Congress can legislate through statutes, there is the distinction between statutory law and common law. I know that Pastor Whitney regards natural law as the highest form of law, and that anything contrary to natural law is null and void. However, there is the separate issue of whether common law, which may or may not protect natural rights, exists in the United States, and has constitutional force.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary states that common law is:

[T]he body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the United States except Louisiana.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 81:

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (it may have been argued) will extend to causes determinable in different modes, some in the course of the COMMON LAW, others in the course of the CIVIL LAW.

Here we have a recognition of common law applying to the United States, from the most prolific writer of The Federalist Papers.

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Here we have evidence from the Constitution itself that common law applies in the United States.

Therefore, I have shown that common law does exist in the United States,  in terms of the intent of the Founding Fathers, and is operable according to the Constitution.

Wherever there is no Congressional statute or code stating how something should be handled, decisions by judges constitute a separate body of law in the United States.

Read Full Post »

Seal of the United States Social Security Admi...

Those on both sides of the false left-right paradigm claim that Social Security benefits are an entitlement.

Those on the left claim they are entitlements in order to resist any cuts and attempts to privatize Social Security.

Those on the right claim they are to justify those cuts and privatization attempts.

However, both sides are wrong, thanks to the 1960 5-4 split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor.

From the Social Security Administration itself, which says:

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor’s denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor’s benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Notice the doublespeak by the SSA, as Merriam-Webster defines an entitlement as “a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.” It’s admitted Social Security benefits are not a contractual right, and they also aren’t by law, therefore, they are not an entitlement.

For more on Social Security, see my articles, John Stormer, author of None Dare Call it Treason, Admits to being dependent on Social Security, and U.S. Social Security deficit starting in 2010, Canada’s solvent until 2075.

Read Full Post »

U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) that:

There is no federal general common law.

Article III, Section 2 of the original Constitution stated:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

The distinction between “Law” and “the Laws of the United States” shows that the former is referring to common law, while the latter is referring to Acts of Congress. Therefore, the original Constitution recognized the pre-existence of common law, and that it was within the purview of U.S. courts to shape, including federal courts.

The phrase “common law” isn’t explicitly referenced in the original Constitution; It is mentioned in the Seventh Amendment, which states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Seventh Amendment recognized a pre-existent “right” of trial by jury, which is part of the common law firmly established with the Magna Carta of 1215 — further demonstrating that common law was pre-existent to the U.S. Constitution, and the government it created.

Article I, Section 8, clause 17 grants Congress the power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,

Lawful Acts of Congress can override certain common law provisions in the limited area of present-day Washington, D.C., but the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over that area didn’t mean that common law never applied there.

If common law never applied there, then why should common law have applied in any of the several States? We know that common law did apply in the several States, and, therefore, common law always did, and still does apply to Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Despite the later incorporation of the First Amendment against the States with the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment couldn’t be more clear that it was only intended to restrict Congress and not the courts or State legislatures.

If no federal general common law ever existed, then Washington, D.C. was lawless until the first Act of Congress was passed. Does it make sense that murder wasn’t unlawful in Washington, D.C. until Congress made it unlawful?

And does it make sense that the common law right of quiet enjoyment of real property has never applied there? The implication of that and the First Amendment is that D.C. residents don’t have the right of peaceful enjoyment of their property, since Congress is prohibited from restricting peaceful, but noisy assembly.

Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the original Constitution states that:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Are we to assume that the Framers of the Constitution had it in their minds that there would be no habeas corpus protection in Washington, D.C. unless Congress granted it by an Act of Congress?

Therefore, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court took 149 years to decide in their 6-2 split decision in 1938, general federal common law did exist, and still does exist.

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court of Canada building

On a recent radio program, in comparing the liberties of Americans to the residents of other countries, the host said Canadians have no “right” to an attorney.

I agree with that, and the same applies in the United States, and all across the world.

There’s no right to an attorney, since a right doesn’t require the consent of others, and a right to an attorney implies the forced labour of attorneys.

However, even if talking about the privilege of an attorney, the 2010 Supreme Court of Canada’s decision specifically related to no “right” to have an attorney present when being interviewed by police. The Court recognizes the right of a suspect to remain silent, and so as long as they do, the “right” to an attorney in questioning isn’t relevant.

While Canada may currently have less of a protection on that front, the Supeme Court of Canada hasn’t ruled like the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled 8-1, that Americans can have their doors busted down without a warrant if police suspect evidence of a crime is being destroyed.

Read Full Post »

The Second Bank of the United States, Philadel...

Those seeking to abolish the Federal Reserve private banking cartel on the grounds that it is unconstitutional are faced with the U.S. Supreme Court precedence of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

At issue was the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States, a private central bank chartered by the United States Congress in 1816.

The state of Maryland had imposed a tax on all banks operating in the state that weren’t chartered by it. At the time, the only such bank was the Second Bank of the United States.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a 7-0 decision that Congress had the constitutional power to charter a private central bank on the basis of the “necessary and proper” clause of the U.S. Constitution in furthering its enumerated powers of taxing and spending.

Therefore, the only feasible way to abolish the Federal Reserve is through Congress and not through the courts, as the Federal Reserve banksters can point to this important precedent during the living memory of some of the Framers of the Constitution as an argument for the Fed’s constitutionality.

Read Full Post »