Laws which shall be made in Pursuance thereof …

The Constitution and Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. Article 6, second paragraph.

People keep trying to tell me that the Constitution has changed, or that government does not obey the Constitution, or that it is a living document that can be interpreted to mean whatever we want. Or that documents from 1787 have nothing to do with life today. Or that congress represents us, so they can write whatever laws they want. But, the U.S. Constitution is NOT a living document.

Government Overreach
“We The People” now means nothing to the civil servants who swore oaths to obey our Constitution

US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman: 110 US 421:

“there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. … congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld.”

In a 2014 speech entitled “Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court,” Justice Scalia said this: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
— Justice Scalia: ‘Constitution Is Not a Living Organism’, (March 15, 2014)

Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823, (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 7, Cambridge Library Collection, page 296):

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

The 1905 U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. U.S., 199 US 437:

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now…”

In the 1966 famous case of Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court said of our rights:

“And in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured “for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it,” (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 in 1821).

The 1901 Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwill, 182 U.S. 244, ruled:

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”

U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 at page 418:

“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927) repeating their earlier decision in Boyd:

“…and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

The U.S. Supreme Court Reporter, Headliner note to Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264:

“The Supreme Court will construe provisions of Constitution which appear to be repugnant, so as to preserve the true intent and meaning of the Constitution…”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, Page 635

“illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 page 442:

“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.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 page 491:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US 137: All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

Maxim of law:

Non accipi debent berba in demonstrationem falsam, quae competunt in limitationem veram. Words ought not to be accepted to import a false description when they are consistent with a true definition.

U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471:

“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

www.NotFooledByGovernment.com

The U.S. Constitution is delegated power, delegated from those who wrote it. The tenth amendment says so.

We are all created equal, therefore they could not have delegated to their civil servants a power that we ourselves did not have.

%d