|
US Bill of Rights |
|
|
|
Holding Elected Officials Accountable |
|||||
|
Set Aside, Repeal, Replace or Amend Injurious, Unjust Laws and Court Rulings var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) ) var gIE = (
gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 ) var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion
) >= 4 ) ) var floatwnd = 0 var WPEndnote1 = ' 1. Marbury V Madison, 5 US 137 2. Town of Madison v. Ford, 255 Va. 429, 498 S.E. 2d 235 (1998). 3. 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 4. Harris v. McRae 448 US 297 (1980) 5.
Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425 6. Reynolds v. Volunteer State
Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2nd 1087, 1092. 7. Black\'s
Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, Page 1412 8. Atkisson v. Wexford
Associates, 254 Va. 449, (1997). 9. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va.92, 95,
353 S.E.2d 756 (1987). 10. U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. 11. U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300. 12. Parrish v. Jessee, 250 Va. 514, 521 (1995).(Quoting Rook v. Rook, 233 Va.92, 95, 353\ S.E.2d
756, 758 (1987)). 13. 30A Am Rev cd Judgm § 657. 14. Toledo Scale Co. v Computing Scale Co. 261 US 399, 67 L Ed 719, 43 S Ct
458. 15. Caldwell V Taylor, 218 Cal 471, 23 P2d 758,
88 ALR 1194. 16. 30A Am J Rev ed Judgm §~ 657. 784. 17. Farley vs Davis, 10 Wash 2d 62, 116 P2d 263 155 AIR l302. 18. Britton v Gannon (Ok la) 285 P2d 407 55 ALR2d 667. 19. Flood v Templeton. 152 Cal 148, 92 P 78. 20. (Quoting Anthony v. Kasey, 83 Va. 338, 340, 5 S.E. 176, 177 (1887)). Evans v.\ Smyth-Wythe
Airport Commission, 1998 Va. LEXIS 20, 7 (1998). Watkins v. Watkins, 220 Va.\ 1051, 1054, 265 S.E.2d 750, 752-53 (1980); Barnes
v. American Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692,\ 706, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925). 21.
Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Cohens v Virginia, 6 wheat (19 U.S.) 264, 404 22. Parrish v. Jessee, 250 Va. 514, 521 (1995).(Quoting Rook v. Rook, 233 Va.92, 95, 353\ S.E.2d 756,
758 (1987)). Ballew, R.C. CPM, Fraud On The Court By An
Officer Of The Court" And Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal,\ http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm From Emmet J. Bondurant’s THE SENATE FILIBUSTER RULE This information about SOFAs is paraphrased from UNDOING THE BUSH-CHENEY LEGACY - A Tool Kit
For\ Congress and Activists edited by Ann Fagan Ginger, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute (www.mcli.org) with additional words from\ the editor of this document. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune
The Glass-Steagall Act (48
Stat. 162) (1933) Created the regulatory framework for banking; established\ the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
and other banking reforms. It placed legal restrictions on\ speculation and forbid combining banking and financial service
firms. The 1999 repeal of this act is credited as the\ major contributor to the 2008 financial collapse Eskow, Richard, JOBS Act: The Dumbest
"Bipartisan" Move Since Repealing Glass-Steagall Sunday, March 25, 2012,
Campaign for America\'s Future Eskow, Richard, JOBS Act: The Dumbest "Bipartisan" Move Since Repealing Glass-Steagall Sunday, March 25, 2012, Campaign for America\'s Future As quoted from Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard in:\ http://www.times-standard.com/guest_opinion/ci_18258653 As paraphrased from:\
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/house-passes-food-control-bill-now-awaiting-obama-signature/ "We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a
legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world?
Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them."
—Tony Judt (From page 1 of his book Ill Fares the Land) Draft Plan to Repeal, Set Aside, Replace or Amend Unconstitutional, Injurious and/or Unjust Laws (Updated May 15, 2013) (Readers - please provide constructive comments and additional injurious, unjust items to the compiler and editor of this document Ron Fisher, Fisher@WeThePeopleNow.org) The following TOC provides an outline of this plan. Individual items can be accessed by clicking on
its page number. Table of Contents IV. Laws Regarding Void and Voidable Statutes, Regulations, Court Judgments, Rulings and
Orders D. Void Judgments and Court Rulings G. Fraud on the Court And Disqualification Of Judges H. Bribery of public officials, Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201 I. Judicial Review of Statutes J. Legislative Review of Judicial Rulings V. Repeal Unconstitutional, Unjust And/or Injurious Laws A. Congressional Rules and Administrative Procedure D. Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) E. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 F. Laws that Fraudulently Deregulated Financial Firms G. Laws that Violate Civil Rights H. Laws that Harm the Environment J. Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization Attachment B: A Bill to Repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Provide a plan to set aside, repeal, replace or amend
the large number of injurious, unjust laws, statues, rules, regulations and court opinions, rulings and orders and to correct
the injustices caused by these acts. A. Outline the laws regarding void statutes,
regulations, and court rulings and orders B.
Identify and briefly describe salient injurious, unjust laws and court opinions, rulings and orders, all or parts of which
have had serious injurious, unjust effects on human beings, democracy and/or the environment. Most of these items are unconstitutional,
were obtained by fraud and/or were used to commit fraud and are null and void or at least voidable. C. Outline proposed
needed, corrective actions by Congress, the President and/or the Courts to set aside, repeal, replace or amend these items. D. Outline
additional work required by We The People A. It is
important to note that 1.
The U.S. Is a nation of laws not men 2.
“The Law” or ‘Laws” are not limited to just codes and statutes. According to Ballentine's Law Dictionary,
Third Edition, the Law is “The whole body of rules of conduct that applied and enforced under the authority of established
government in determining that which is proper and should be permitted and that which should be denied, or even penalized
in respect of the relationship between a person and the state, between him and society and between him and another individual”
The whole body of rules of conduct include provisions of the Constitution, legislative enactments or statues, the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), ethic laws, the Canons of Judicial Conduct, Attorneys’ Code of Professional
Responsibilities, municipal ordinances, ethics laws, election laws, SEC regulations, treaties, the Geneva Convention etc. 3.
Under our Constitution, Congress, directly responsible to the people, makes the laws and the chief executive insures
the laws are faithfully executed. 4.
The President can not lawfully make new law or modify laws passed by Congress, with signing statements and executive orders
IV. Laws Regarding Void and Voidable Statutes, Regulations, Court Judgments, Rulings and Orders All parts of a statute, regulation, court judgment, decrees
or order, and civil and military orders and instructions which are unconstitutional, violate constitutional rights, were obtained
by fraud, or used or intended to be used to commit fraud are null and void or at least voidable and should be set aside and/or
repealed. Null and void portions of
an order, judgment or statue are null and void whether or not a judge has found it to be null and void, the order is appealed
and/or a complaint is filed. 1.
Null: Nonexistent; void; of no legal meaning. 2. Null and void: That which binds
no one; that which is incapable of giving rise to any rights or obligations under any circumstances; that which is of no effect. 3.
Voidable: adj. capable of being made void, capable of being adjudged void, capable of being annulled, capable of being declared
ineffectual, capable of being declared void, defeasible, liable to be annulled, revocable, subject to being revoked, or subject
to cancellation. 1. The Constitution. "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme
law of the land" 2. Unambiguous Constitutional Provisions Apply as Written. If a constitutional
provision is plain and unambiguous, we do not construe it but apply it as written 3. Purposes of the Constitution. The overall purposes of the Constitution are found
in its Preamble, i.e., We the People of the United States, in Order to a.
form a more perfect Union, b.
establish Justice [right and fair], c.
insure domestic Tranquility [calmness, serenity], d.
provide for the common defense [not offense], e.
promote the general Welfare [well being, health and happiness for all], and f.
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [paragraph
numbering was added by the compiler] Any law or court ruling or any part of any law or court ruling
that is injurious to the Union, Justice, domestic Tranquility, the common
defense, the general Welfare or the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, is null and void or
at least voidable. 1.
"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." 2.
"It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law "impinges upon a fundamental
right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional"
3.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates
no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed." D. Void Judgments and Court Rulings 1. “A void judgment [is one]: a.
which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any
time and at any place directly or collaterally. b.
which, also, from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to
bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement
in any manner or to any degree. c.
that has merely semblance without some essential elements, as want of jurisdiction or failure to serve process or Party
in court. See also Voidable judgment. 2.
“When a judgment is absolutely void, no rights are divested or obtained from that judgment”.
3.
“Judgments that are void may be attacked in any court at any time, directly or collaterally.”
E. Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part
with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Black's 5th, 594 1.
“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." 2.
"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered
would be intentionally misleading ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is
clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be correct/ed immediately"
3.
“Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if it has been procured by extrinsic
or collateral fraud, or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties."
4.
Extrinsic fraud: The character of fraud which will afford a ground for setting aside a judgment, that is, fraud which
is collateral to the issues tried in the case wherein the judgment was rendered. 5.
Collateral fraud is the same as intrinsic fraud, which includes: a.
Fraud practiced in procuring a transaction. b.
In reference to relief from a judgment: fraudulent acts pertaining to an issue involved in the original action, or fraudulent
acts which were or could have been litigated in the original action.” c.
For the purpose of grounds of equitable relief against a judgment, fraud which has prevented a party from having a trial,
from presenting all his case to the court or has so affected the manner in which the judgment was taken that there has not
been a fair submission of the controversy to the court. d.
For the purpose of serving as a defense to an action on a foreign judgment, any fraudulent conduct of the successful
party in the foreign action, practiced directly and affirmatively on the defeated parts out side the actual trial of the cases,
whereby he was prevented from presenting his side of the cause fully and fairly. 6.
Actual fraud characterized by an evil intent to take undue advantage of another person for the purpose of actually and
knowingly defrauding him. 1.
“It is essential to the validity of a judgment or decree that the court rendering it shall have jurisdiction of
both the subject matter and parties. But this is not all, for both of these essentials may exist and still the judgment or
decree may be void, because the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the
mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt." 2.
"We [public servants] have no more right to decline the jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is
not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” 3.
“Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if it has been ... entered by
a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." 4.
A court engaged in a statutory proceeding is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction; there is no presumption that
the judge holds jurisdiction. Should the judge engage in any act beyond that which the law or the statute grants him or her
authority, the order of the court is void, of no legal force or effect anywhere and at any time. 5.
“Where the court, as here, is exercising special statutory powers, the measure of its authority is the statute itself;
and a judgment or order in excess of the powers thereby conferred is null and void. In such a case, even though the court
may have jurisdiction of the general subject matter and of the parties, an adjudication with reference thereto which is not
within the powers granted to it is coram non judice." G. Fraud on the Court And Disqualification Of Judges 1.
Officers of the Court All judges and all attorneys are officers of the court. Federal and state judges and attorneys are
public servants paid by the government to act impartially and lawfully. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980) 2.
Fraud on the court Whenever any officer of the
court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v.
United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed
to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where
the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
"Fraud
upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does,
or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery
cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner
v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a
decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." 3.
Effect an act of "fraud upon the court" has upon the court proceedings "Fraud
upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that
any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois
v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it
enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers,
336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ...");
In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham
v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App.
79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under
Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment
of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. 4. What
Causes "Disqualification of Judges?" Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal
judge under certain circumstances. In
1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable
questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that
a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct.
1147, 1162 (1994). Courts
have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality.
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias
or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed
against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial
Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public
confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires
a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady,
888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important
that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice." The Supreme
Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v.
United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).
A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. "Recusal
under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to
recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Further,
the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte,
even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202. Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify
themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge
has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should
another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality"
and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would
appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should
a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States
v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section
144, but on the Due Process Clause."). Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by
law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime
of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the
judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's
next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. If you were
a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed
an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However,
since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may
not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification
is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances. The Supreme
Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason
to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction,
and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference
with interstate commerce. Courts
have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate
commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. H. Bribery of public officials, Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201. Following, directly excerpted from the US Code, shows how comprehensive and inclusive the
bribery laws are. “Anything of value” includes campaign contributions, jobs, honorariums, gifts, negative advertisements.
“Official acts” include drafting legislation, introducing legislation, legislator’s votes in committee
or on the floor, threatening to filibuster, filibustering and judges and jurists’ rulings and citations of law. Title 18, U.S.C. Section
201 (b) (1) Whoever— directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public
official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person
who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent— (A) to influence any official act; or (B) to influence such public official or person who has
been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity
for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to
do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person; Title 18, U.S.C. Section 201 (b) (2) Whoever— being a public official
or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees
to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official
act; (B) being influenced
to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud,
on the United States; or ©
being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person; I. Judicial Review of Statutes To
conduct Judicial Review of a statue to determine its constitutionality, each justice must review the statute in light of exactly
what the Constitution says and state exactly in their ruling why each part of the Statute that they claim is unconstitutional
is unconstitutional. This is what was done in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Supreme Court Justices may
not simply pick and chose precedents or a false statement in a Headnote to justify a ruling of unconstitutionality. Such
rulings are unconstitutional, null and void or at least voidable. Following is paraphrased from Wikipedia (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States) Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality
of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the
Constitution itself. The United
States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been
inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's landmark decision on the issue of judicial review was Marbury v.
Madison (1803),[2] in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality
of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Since that time, the federal courts
have exercised the power of judicial review. As of 2010, the United States Supreme Court had held unconstitutional some 163
Acts of the U.S. Congress. Following is paraphrased from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law which formed
the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by
President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered.
Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents. Chief Justice John Marshall first examined the Judiciary
Act of 1789 and determined that the Act purported to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus.
Marshall then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions.
Marbury had argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add
to. Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
Consequently, Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict. This conflict raised the important question of what happens when
an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution
are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review. In support
of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written
Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the
Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws
of the United States." a.
On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision, that: “(i)
Marbury had the right to his commission (ii)
Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and remediable. (iii)
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by Article III of the Constitution. (iv)
The supreme court did not have the power to force Secretary of State Madison to deliver the commission because the provision
of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional (v)
. Marbury’s petition to force Madison to deliver his commission was denied (vi)
Congress cannot [may not] pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret
what the Constitution permits.” J. Legislative Review of Judicial Rulings The United States Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. The Constitution explicitly
states that Congress shall make the laws. Congress has the duty and may and should pass laws that void Supreme Court rulings
that are contrary to the Constitution such as in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. V. Repeal Unconstitutional, Unjust And/or Injurious Laws The following identifies/presents a small portion of the numerous unconstitutional, unjust
and/or injurious items that must be repealed, set aside, replaced or amended. A. Congressional Rules and Administrative Procedure 1. The Senate Filibuster Rule (Rule XXII) “gives a minority of 41 Senators . ... . the power to prevent the
Senate from debating or voting on a bill, resolution, or a Presidential appointment. A “filibuster” is the use
of unlimited debate not to inform or persuade, but to obstruct the proceedings of a legislative body ACTION: Senate eliminate the Senate Filibuster Rule (Rule XXII) 2.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Public Law 79-404) (1946) This is one of the most
important pieces of United States administrative law. It unconstitutionally enabled bureaucrats, instead of legislators, to
write laws. ACTION: Congress repeal the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Public
Law 79-404) (1946) B. War Powers Laws. The following laws are unconstitutional, null and void: 1. War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) (1973) 2.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Pub. L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted
September 18, 2001), 3.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Pub.L. 107–243, 116
Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) Resolution of 2002 The
reasons they are unconstitutional are outlined in: 1. Section IV of this plan: Laws Regarding Void and Voidable Statutes, Regulations, Court Judgments, Rulings and
Orders 3. A Summary of U. S. Illegal
Wars and Use of Force in the Mideast 4.
Numerous other reports and articles ACTION: Congress and the President repeal all three of the above War Power Acts by refining,
expanding and enacting H.R. 198, ‘Repeal of the Authorization to Use Military Force,’ introduced by Congresswoman
Barbara Lee January 4, 2013. This bill, provided as Attachment B, also provides an excellent format for repealing other unjust,
injurious legislation. a.
The table below shows enacted
appropriations, adapted from "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11"
by Amy Belasco, Congressional Research Service, March 29, 2011, (PDF) showing how subject Representative JDoe 250 voted. Votes
are on final passage of the conference report unless there was no recorded vote. In that case, the indicated vote is on initial
House passage. Name of Law Public Law No./ Date DOD
Funds JDoe 250 Enacted ($bln)
Voted FY01 Emerg.
Supp. Approp. Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on US P.L. 107-38 9/18/01 13.6 Yes FY02
Dept. Of Defense and Emergency Terrorism Response Act P.L.
107-117 1/10/02 3.4 Yes FY02 Emergency Supplemental P.L.
107-206 8/2/02 13.8
Yes FY03 Consolidated Appropriations P.L.
108-7 2/20/03 10.0 Yes FY03 Emergency Supplemental P.L.
108-11 4/16/03 62.6 Yes FY03 DOD Appropriations
Note a. P.L. 107-248 10/23/02
7.1 Yes FY04
DOD Appropriations Act (rescission of FY03 funds) P.L.
108-87 9/30/03 -3.5 Yes FY04 Emergency Supplemental P.L.
108-106 11/6/03 64.9 No FY05
DOD Approps Act, Titles IX & X Note b. P.L.
108-287 8/5/04 25.0 Yes FY05
DOD Appropriations Act Note c P.L. 108-287 8/5/04 2.1 Yes FY05
Supplemental Appropriations P.L.
109-13 5/11/05 75.9 Yes FY06 DOD Approps.
Act, Title IX P.L.
109-148 12/30/05 50.0 Yes FY06
DOD Appropriations Act Note c. P.L. 109-148 12/30/05
0.8 Yes FY06 Emergency Supplemental P.L.
109-234 6/15/06 66.0 Yes FY07 DOD Appropriations Act P.L.
109-289 9/29/06 70.5 Yes FY07
Supplemental, Amendment #2 (Did not include Withdrawal Deadlines from Iraq) Note
d. P.L.
110-28 5/25/07 94.5 No FY08 Continuing Resolution P.L.
110-92 9/29/07 5.2 Yes FY08 DOD Appropriations Act P.L.
110-116 11/13/07 11.6 Yes FY08 Consolidated Approps. Act P.L.
110-161 3/11/04 70.0 No FY08
Supplemental, FY09 Bridge Approps. Act (Roll call #431) Notes
d. and e. P.L. 110-252 6/30/08 157.9 No FY09
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act P.L.
110-329 9/30/08 2.5 Yes FY09 Supplemental Approps. Act P.L.
111-32 6/24/09 80.0 No FY10 Consolidated
Appropriations Act P.L. 111-117 12/16/09 1.4 Yes FY10 DOD Approps.
Act, Title IX P.L.
111-118 12/19/09 127.3 Yes FY10 Supplemental P.L.
111-212 7/27/10 30.8 No FY11
DOD and Year-Long Continuing Resolution Note f. P.L.
112-10 4/15/11 159.1
No TOTAL WAR FUNDING VOTED FOR
$545.3 billion a. FY03 Appropriations Act included $7.1 billion in regular FY03 defense appropriations
for GWOT that DOD cannot track; the FY04 DOD Appropriations Act rescinded $3.5 billion in FY03 war monies. b.
Title IX funds in FY05 do not include a $1.8 billion scoring adjustment that reverses the previous rescission of FY04 funds
because this did not change wartime monies. c. Reflects funds obligated for Operation Noble Eagle from DOD's
regular appropriations as reported by the Defense Finance Accounting Service. d. The House took separate
votes on different sections of the bill, which were then combined when sent to the Senate. e. The FY08
Supplemental included funds for both FY08 and bridge funds for FY09. f. This bill was the final DOD Appropriations
Act and the final version of the CR. It was preceded by seven other CRs. Other Defense Authorization and Appropriation Acts and supplementals wrongfully and unlawfully
for the illegal war/occupation in Afghanistan and drone attacks and covert operations. Legislation appropriating funds for wars, occupations and the War on
Terror are unconstitutional, null and void or at least voidable as outlined in Proof of the Unconstitutionality
and Illegality of U. S. Wars/Occupations and Use of Force in the Mideast. ACTION: Congress: Reprogram current appropriations to eliminate funding for wars, occupations, drone attacks
and covert operations to provide funding for defensive, withdrawal and peaceful purposes. Revise all Budgets to reduce Department of Defense and Military Industrial
Complex spending and provide funding to Help Secure a Peaceful, Prosperous, Just World as outlined in the Common, Universal Strategic
Plan for a Peaceful Prosperous Just World with no layoffs. C.
Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) Currently
the U.S. has SOFAs with over 100 nations' and approximately 800 bases or facilities world-wide, allowing U.S. military to
maintain a foreign presence across the globe. SOFAs are stand-alone agreements between the U.S. and other nations that allow the U.S. to station military forces
in those foreign nations. Every SOFA is different, but most of them define the legal status of the U.S. Armed Forces while
operating abroad and address which of the laws apply to military forces while they are within that nation. Some of these SOFAs ... "preserve the right of U.S.
forces to initiate unilateral military actions” and round up individuals in abusive preventive detention facilities
where human rights are violated routinely," “The nations that house U.S. military bases are threatened by the constant U. S. military presence on their
soil and the peoples of the United States are less safe because of them. These bases "stretch our military beyond its
capabilities, bringing about fiscal insolvency and very possibly doing mortal damage to our republican institutions,"
according to Chalmers Johnson.' These
SOFAS are also dangerous to the peoples of the U. S. because they spread our military thin. If the U.S. were to suffer an
invasion or attack, it would be more difficult to defend the country from abroad. Also, in Italy, more than 70,000 protestors
marched through the city of Vicenzain in 2007 to show their objections to the expansion of a U.S. military base.' The protestors
said that they did not want the base there at all because they believe Americans cause trouble and that in case of military
conflict, the base, which is at the heart of the city, could become a target.' There have been similar protests in South Korea.'°
In the Philippines, as in many other developing countries, the SOFAs sometimes provide that the "host" country supply
the logistical support necessary for the U.S. military to maintain their forces in the region, spare parts, transportation,
communication, medical services, and many more." The constant presence of a military base in a foreign nation is essentially a threat against the territorial integrity
and political independence of a nation. Having a U.S. military presence in so many countries creates what the CIA calls "blowback,"
or the unintended consequences of military action. Such a presence could result in future terrorist attacks on the U.S. or
U.S. bases on foreign soil. Status
of forces agreements (SOFAs) violate or ignore: U.S. Constitution Art. Art. I, 8, Cl. 2: “ Congress shall have power .. to provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare” U.S. Constitution
Art. II, 2 Cl. 2: The President does not have “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”. Most, if not all of the
Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) have not been submitted to the Senate for ratification. U.N. Charter, Art. 2(1), 2(4), Art. 55 & 56.l The Geneva Convention All SOFAs are null and void or at least voidable. ACTION: Congress: 1.
Set aside all Status of Forces Agreements 2.
Cease funding for overseas bases and commands D.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which unconstitutionally, wrongfully and unlawfully
established the federal reserve system (the Fed) 1.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the Federal Reserve System (the Fed), a private, non-government corporation.
This act unconstitutionally, wrongfully and unlawfully gave powers to the Fed to that the Constitution gives only to Congress
namely: a.
The Congress shall have the power ... “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof and foreign Coin”,
to draw money from the Treasury without the Consequence of Appropriations made by law b.
To regulate other banks. c.
To write regulations and to regulate banks. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to delegate these powers and most certainly not to a private
concern. Major portions of The Federal Reserve Act are unconstitutional, null and void or at least voidable. The Federal Reserve has abjectly failed to perform most of its duties
which, according to the Federal Reserve Act and official Federal Reserve documentation on its website include: • to promote effectively the
goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. • to conduct the nation's monetary policy • supervise and regulate banking
institutions • maintain
the stability of the financial system • provide
financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions”. On September 23, 2009, House Financial Services Committee
Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) released a report card demonstrating the poor record of the Federal Reserve in using the
tools provided by Congress to protect consumers from abusive financial industry practices. Chairman Frank cited several
examples of the Federal Reserve’s unsatisfactory performance and stated: The Federal Reserve's inattention and inaction
on consumer protection is a key reason why Democrats are working to create the Consumer Financial Product Agency in the coming
weeks and months. As the above report card shows, consumer protection has long been overlooked by federal regulators, and
their motivation to protect consumers has been driven more by congressional pressure rather than a sense of duty to the protect
the American public. Not only
has the Fed, not properly regulated banks, former and current Fed executives have been instrumental in getting rid of regulations
including the Glass Steagall Act. Their
main job, appears to protect, not regulate large banks. The Feds actions have increased the frequency and severity of boom-bust
economic cycles including the Great Depression of the 1930s, the late-2000s recession, and the current great recession. ACTION: Congress
nationalize the Federal Reserve System and operate it as part of Congress and the Department of the Treasury under the direct
control of Congress with Congress making all decisions about “coining,” appropriations, money supply, interest
rates and loan guarantees by public laws, passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President as required by the
Constitution. (During the last Congressional session Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), introduced H.R. 6550, The National Emergency
Employment Defense Act, which would have nationalized the Federal Reserve) E. Laws that Fraudulently Deregulated Financial Firms and Markedly Contributed to the Current Financial Crises Background Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act (the Banking Act
of 1933) and other legislation during the Great Depression which prohibited commercial banks that provided consumer activities
such as checking and savings from engaging in the investment business, speculative trading, mergers of bank sales of securities.
This legislation also provided for better regulations over the stock market and financial institutions. The Act built on the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914)
prohibiting unfair or deceptive business practices. Later, the Truth in Lending Act (1968) required banks to disclose loan terms and fees. "To assure a meaningful
disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer would be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to
him and avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit
card practices." Items one through
thirteen are injurious, unjust laws and revised regulations passed to eliminate and weaken the banking and other financial
institutions such as the Glass-Steagall Act 1.
Depository Institutions De-regulatory Act (also cited as The Monetary Reform Act)
(P. L. No. 96-221; 94 Stat. 132) (1980) Highlights: • Allows
banks to merge • Allows financial institutions to charge any interest rate
they choose and prohibits States from controlling interest rates (For years the maximum interest rates that banks could charge
was 6% or less in most states?. • Forces all banks to abide by Federal Reserve
rules (The Federal Reserve is a private institution and it is unconstitutional for Congress to authorize the Federal Reserve
to regulate banks) • Raised the FDIC level of insurance on deposits in banks
and credit unions from $40,000 to $100,000. Portions of this act are clearly null and void or at least voidable. ACTION: Congress replace the Depository Institutions
De-regulatory Act (P. L. No. 96-221; 94 Stat. 132) (1980) with legislation that: • Limits maximum annual interest
rates to, at the most, 4% on all mortgages, home equity, government guaranteed and other secured loans and to, at the
most, 6% on credits cards and unsecured (signature) loans and limits late fees to $ _____. • Makes these maximum interest rates and lower fees retroactive to the origination of the mortgage,
credit card or loan and requires financial institutions to calculate amounts due and balances based on these lower rates and
fees with excess interest and excess fees paid to reduce the principal as payments were made. 2.
The Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 (AMTPA). The following is
quoted from the article Lawmakers may say they are outraged, but it was actually two key pieces of legislation that primed
the pump for the housing implosion. By Jon Birger, senior writer CNN Money Prior
to the passage of AMTPA, banks were barred from making anything but the conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. AMPTA
lifted those restrictions, giving birth to all the new and exotic mortgages that have so many borrowers in hot water today.
For instance: • Adjustable-rate
mortgages, in which the interest rate becomes floating after a number of years. • Balloon-payment mortgages, which have an outsized payment
when the loan comes due. • Interest-only
mortgages, which require only repayment of interest (not principal too) during the first few years of the loan, only to hit
borrowers with crushing monthly-payment resets once the new monthly payment kicks in. • And worst of all, the option-ARM, which allows borrowers
to underpay by as much as they want during the first few years. The awful upshot is the unpaid monthly interest gets tacked
onto the size of the loan. So your $300,000 mortgage can turn into a $350,000 loan in a hurry, destroying any equity you have
in your home. ..... the problems
that are rampant today existed on a smaller scale in the 1990s, which is why McCoy faults the 1990s Congress for not acting
at that time. "Certainly
by the late 1990s, Congress knew of the problems," says McCoy. "It had plenty of time over the past 10 years to
do something, and it did nothing." ACTION: Congress replace AMTPA, with legislation that bans banks from making
anything but the conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. 3. Truth in Lending Act “Reform” (Sept. 30, 1995) Eased regulations on creditors. This bill was powered
through by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL), a key recipient of finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) donations ($136,000 in
1993-94).” 4.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) A bank deregulation bill that repealed much of the Glass-Steagall
Act It was also called the "Financial Services Modernization
Act." That act of "modernization" actually turned the clock back - from 1999 all the way back to 1929, stripping
away some of the common-sense measures that prevented the formation of too-big-to-fail banks that could gamble with their
customers' money or bring the economy to the brink of ruin - which they promptly did, less than a decade later. What did our wise leaders say when that bill was signed? "The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to
change with it," said Phil Gramm. "In the 1930s ... it was believed that government was the answer ... We have learned
that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers." ''This legislation
is truly historic,'' said Bill Clinton. ''We have done right by the American people.'' ''With this bill,'' said Larry Summers,
''the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century -- one that will benefit American consumers,
business and the national economy.'' Actually that bill helped crash the economy, costing trillions and leaving millions of
people un- or underemployed. They, on the other hand, all got rich This act is credited as the major contributor to the
2008 financial collapse. It led to a wave of mega-mergers “too big to fail” most of which had to be bailed out
by tax payers during the financial collapse. 5. Commodity
Futures Modernization Act (Dec. 14, 2000). Sen. Gramm attached a 262 page amendment that deregulated derivatives and
credit default swaps trading to an omnibus appropriations bill just prior to the Christmas holiday in December of 2000. Gramm's
amendment was supported by then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. The amendment was never
debated by the House or Senate and by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there
were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. This law unleashed the derivatives market, paved the
way for banks to become more aggressive about investing in mortgages, and opened the door to an explosion in new, unregulated
securities. The amendment also contained
a provision lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm. that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight
allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. 6.
American Home Ownership and Economic Opportunity Act (Dec. 27, 2000). This act makes
it harder for consumers to get out of lender-required insurance. 7. Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (April 20, 2005) The act makes it harder for consumers
(but not businesses) to discharge debts. The strict means test that would force more debtors to file under Chapter 13 (under
which a percentage of debts must be paid over a period of 3-5 years) as opposed to Chapter 7 (under which debts are paid only
out of existing assets), the additional penalties and responsibilities the bill placed on debtors, and the bill's many provisions
favorable to credit card companies. 8.
Suspension of the uptick rule that required that short sale transactions be entered
at prices that are higher than the price of the previous trade. This rule prevents short sellers from adding to the downward
momentum when the price of an asset is already experiencing sharp declines. 9.
De-regulation that allowed reduced margin and position
limits for speculators. 10.
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16,
115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001) ("The Bush Tax Cuts") 11. The "Jumpstart Our Business Strength" Act, 2004, introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley using
the phony name - "JOBS Act", was supposed to create jobs. What it really did was provide $39 billion in tax cuts
for overseas earnings by US corporations. 12.
Portions of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act (RAFS) of 2010 13.
The "JOBS" (Jumpstart Our Business Startups)Act undoes Sarbanes-Oxley's
key provisions. In a typically cynical move, the corrupt dealmakers of DC have appropriated two good ideas - "crowdfunding"
by individuals, as is done on Kickstarter, and the need to find investment capital for small and medium-sized businesses that
are the engines of job growth. But
this bill will actually hurt both those efforts. Kickstarter finances creative projects, where it's fairly easy for investors
to decide whether they feel a project has artistic merit. But this bill will unleash a torrent of unscrupulous scam artists
onto the public, leaving them unable to decide which project has merit and which doesn't. Since these ventures won't be required
to provide some basic financial data, many of them will bilk their investors - drying up the pool of available capital for
truly worthwhile startups. Besides,
why have we been pumping capital into the nation's banks through the Fed? Wasn't the purpose of all that support - including
TARP - to prop them up so that they would lend to American businesses? Worse, the bill is designed so that even billion-dollar corporations can be considered
"startups," leaving the door open for a dozen Enron of tomorrow to shaft the unwary. The common-sense protections
proposed by Sen. Jeff Merkley were rejected, while the equally rational protections of Sens. Scott Brown and Jack Reed, which
were passed, will be fairly easy for clever sharks to swim around. We've seen this play before, and it never has a happy ending.
That will no longer be required of them, thanks to the "JOBS" Act. ACTION: Congress and the President refine and implement the Plan to Reform and Revitalize
Financial Systems and Resolve Banking, Derivatives, Mortgages, Foreclosures and Debt Crises and repeal or modify items 1. through 13 above as appropriate.
Once these injurious, unjust laws, which were passed to eliminate and weaken the laws regulating banking and other financial
institutions, are found to be null and void the Glass-Steagall Act will be effective retroactive to the time it was passed
in 1933. F. Laws that Violate Civil Rights 1. Espionage
Act of 1917 2.
The National Security Act (P. L. No. 235, 80 Cong., 61 Stat. 496, 50 U.S.C. ch.15)
(1947). This was the granddaddy of all the others. It was the start of the national security state we are now under, and the
beginnings of a fascist state. 3.
Taft-Hartley Act, The Labor-Management Relations Act (80 P.L. 101; 61 Stat. 136) (1947)
Federal law which monitors activities and power of labor unions. Labor leaders have called it the "Slave-Labor"
bill. It favor management over labor.. 4.
Welfare Reform Act (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,
H.R. 3734, P.L.104-193) (1996) Sets time limits on entitlements and cash assistance to welfare recipients; requires most recipients
to get jobs; changes disability definitions for SSI for children; denies many legal immigrants from collecting SSI and food
stamps, and much more. Inherent in the Act: misogyny, racism, and exploitation of women (do whatever job you can get and don't
complain - or risk homelessness). Attention should have been directed to conditions of low-wage labor market - living wage,
health care, and child care all desperately needed. 5. Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] 6. The
Patriot Act 7.
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) which suspended Habeas Corpus. 8. Sections 1021 and 1022 The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2012 9. Sections
1021 and 1022 The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2012 unconstitutionally,
wrongfully and unlawfully allows the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested
in the United States, without probable cause, a warrant, charge or trial. Chris Hedges, war correspondent author and a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New
York City, with others has brought a lawsuit against President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In his article Totalitarian Systems Always Begin by Rewriting the Law,
Mr. Hedges states: The NDAA implodes our most cherished constitutional protections. It permits the military
to function on U.S. soil as a civilian law enforcement agency. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to
selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus for citizens. The law can be used to detain people deemed threats to national
security. Glenn Greenwald, the columnist and constitutional lawyer, has done the most detailed
analysis of the NDAA bill. He has pointed out that the crucial phrases are "substantially supported" and "associated
forces." These two phrases, he writes, allow the government to expand the definition of terrorism to include groups that
were not involved in the 9/11 attacks and may not have existed when those attacks took place. It is worth
reading Sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill. Section 1021 of the NDAA "includes the authority for the Armed Forces of
the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."
Subsection B defines covered persons like this: "(b) Covered Persons -- A covered person under this section is any person
as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda,
the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners." Section
1022, Subsection C, goes on to declare that covered persons are subject to: "(1) Detention under the law of war without
trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." And Section 1022,
Subsection A, Item 4, allows the president to waive the requirement of legal evidence in order to condemn a person as an enemy
of the state if that is believed to be in the "national security interests of the United States." The law can be used to detain individuals who are not members of terrorist organizations but have provided, in
the words of the bill, substantial support even to "associated forces." But what constitutes substantial? What constitutes
support? What are these "associated forces"? What is defined under this law as an act of terror? What are the specific
activities of those purportedly "engaged in hostilities against the United States"? None of this is answered. And
this is why, especially as acts of civil disobedience proliferate, the NDAA law is so terrifying. It can be used by the military
to seize and detain citizens and deny legal recourse to anyone who defies the corporate state. G. Laws that Harm the Environment 1. Cap
and Trade (Emissions Trading) (1970) A complex market-based carbon-emission trading scheme which enriches Wall Street
with funds that could be used to reduce the emissions. Although Caps are needed, trading these Caps does nothing for the environment
and hurts the economy Congress keep Wall Street out of cap and trade. 1.
The repeal under Reagan in 1987 of the Fairness Doctrine (Federal Communications Commission
[FCC] policy) (1949). The Fairness Doctrine had required that broadcasters present controversial issues in an honest, balanced
manner. In 1988 FCC Commissioner Johnson wrote that bringing back the Fairness Doctrine was absolutely necessary to have the
free press guaranteed by the Constitution. 2.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56) (1996) The Act was claimed
to foster competition. Instead, it continued historic industry consolidation reducing the number of major media companies
from around 50 (1983) to 6 (2005). It led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners. Example of corporate
welfare spawned by political corruption - it gave incumbent broadcasters valuable licenses for broadcasting digital signals
on the public airwaves. Lesson from this act: Deregulation before meaningful competition spells consumer disaster. I. Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization 1. Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995), North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1994),
Central American Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and other free trade agreements, have functioned principally to pry open markets
for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national and local economies - workers, farmers, indigenous
peoples, women and other social groups - health and safety - the environment - and animal welfare. In addition, in the WTO
system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority
of the world's people. ACTION: Congress: • Not enact any additional Free Trade Agreements
and Replace existing Free Trade Agreements with Fair Trade Agreements. • Resolve to ensure
that the rules and procedures World Trade Organization (WTO) are democratic, transparent
and accountable and are operated to promote the general welfare of the world's people. 1.
FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA, P. L. 105-115, 21 U.S.C. 301) (1997) FDA relaxes
rules of prescription drug advertising, eases restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, allows
manufacturers to disseminate journal articles describing the results of trials for unapproved uses of drugs and much more. 2.
Portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 which provides
billions of dollars to health insurance companies and increases the cost of health care. ACTION: Congress replace the so
called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and Medicare Part D Pharmaceutical Legislation with meaningful legislation,
which provides publicly supported nationwide Medicare (single payer) for all. 1.
The Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510 (P. L. 111-353, H.R.2751). Basically, the [this]
act precludes the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.
“If people let the government decide what foods
they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under
tyranny.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1781 ACTION: Congress repeal the Food Safety Modernization Act,
S. 510 (P. L. 111-353, H.R.2751) II.
CREDITS: Primary credit for initially outlining and describing many of these items goes to Ms. Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive
Director, Emeritus, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, www.mcli.org who compiled and edited A Tool
Kit for Congress and Activists which contains succinct summaries of at least 100 laws that must be amended or repealed.
The table of contents for the “Tool Kit” is provided as attachment A. Since this “Tool Kit” was published in late 2007,
at least another hundred of similar laws have been enacted in particular the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which
authorizes unconstitutional detention of U. S. Citizens and others. Credit for outlining and describing other key items and calling these laws “injurious”
because of the injurious effects on human beings, democracy and the environment goes to Ms. Libby Hunter, an activist
and talented musician, who also added several items. Ron Fisher, the compiler and editor of this document, has also added other key “injurious” acts of government
and compiled Part I of this document. Since
different individuals have added the same items, in many cases items are not distinguished by which person added which item. Attachment A: Table of Contents
of the Ann Fagan Ginger, mcli.org Tool Kit With Over One Hundred Unjust, Injurious Laws that
Must Be Repealed Edited by Ms. Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director, Emeritus, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, www.mcli.org. This “Tool Kit” contains descriptions of over one hundred unjust, injurious laws that must
be set aside and/or replaced. Since this “Tool Kit” was published in late 2007, at least another one hundred similar
laws have been enacted. INTRODUCTION TO THE TOOL KIT 1 TEXT OF THE LAW in U.S. Constitution, Statutes and Treaties (excerpts) 4 AGRICULTURE 10 Sewage disposal permits issued for Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOSs) 10 ANTI-TRUST
12 Federal
Communications Commission Cross-Ownership Rules Relaxed 12 BUDGET 14 Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Act of 2006 14 Budget for Military Aid for
Israel Ignoring Existing Law 15 DEATH PENALTY 16 National Application of Federal Capital Sentencing
Laws 16 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 19 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 19 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) 21 Presidential authority to use PATRIOT Act powers in
secret without critical review mandated by Congress 23 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) 24 Statement on Signing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 27 Real
ID Act of 2005 29 Mismanagement of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Relief Efforts 30 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA) 32 Failure to Appoint Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 33 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 35 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2007 37 DETENTION/HABEAS CORPUS 39 Page V Habeas Corpus as to Detainees Suspended 39 2002 and 2003 Torture Memos by John Yoo and Jay Bybee
41 Black
Sites and Extraordinary Rendition 43 No Enforceable Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Regulations to Protect Immigration Detainees 47 Inadequate Healthcare in
Immigration Detention Facilities 49 Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes
in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006. 52 ECONOMIC CRISIS, 2008 see page
viii EDUCATION 54 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) 54 Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) 56 ELECTIONS 59 Help America Vote Act of 2002 59 ENERGY/ECOLOGY/ENVIRONMENT 61 Non-compliance with Clinton's
Executive Order re Environmental Justice 61 2006 NASA Memo Canceling the DSCOVR Satellite Project 63 Energy Policy Act of 2005 65 Complex Transformation of U.
S. Nuclear Weapons 66 Consolidated Appropriations Act Cutting Funding for EPA Libraries 68 HEALTH CARE 70 2003 Revisions of Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 70 New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (TMAP) and Subsequent Reports
71 Medicare
Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) 73 Deleting Testimony on Climate Change 76 Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) 78 Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 (DRA) 80 Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 82 HOUSING/MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES 85 Lack of Federal Regulation of Banks and Mortgages
85 HUMAN RIGHTS 87 Directive Abolishing Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties and Transfer of
Their Authority to the Policy Coordination Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations 87 IMMIGRATION 89 Funding and Administrative Support for Massive Immigration Raids 89 Secure Fence Act of 2006 91 Real ID Act of 2005 93 Board of Immigration Appeals Continuing Inadequate
Coverage of Asylum Law 95 State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law 97 LABOR 100 Page VI Department of Labor and Office
of Labor-Management Standards' Enforcement of Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (Landrum-Griffin Act) 100 Exploitation of Low-wage
Immigrant Workers and Proposed "No-Match" Regulations 102 Lack of Enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 105 LAST MINUTE BUSH REGULATIONS INTO CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS see page viii LAWS WHICH WEAKENED
GLASS-STEAGALL ACT see page viii MILITARY COMMISSIONS 107 Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) - Suspension
of Habeas Corpus as to Alien Detainees 107 MILITARY RECRUITMENT 110 Expedited Naturalization Executive Order, and National
Defense Authorization Act of 2006 110 No Child Left Behind At of 2001 (NCLB) in 111 NATIVE AMERICAN/TRIBAL LAND AND RIGHTS
114 Western
Shoshone Claims Distribution Act of 2004 114 PRISON ADMINISTRATION 118 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 118 TAXES 121 Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 121 The Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003 124 The American Jobs Creation
Act of 2004 125 Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 127 VETERANS 129 Budget for Veterans Administration
Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 129 Financing of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 131 Financing for the Department of Veterans Affairs Homeless
Veterans Program 132 WARS IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND ... 13 Lack of Enforcement of Veterans Benefits 134 Authorization for the Use
of Military Force in Afghanistan (AUMF) of 2001 136 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (AUMF 2002)
138 Status
of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) 141 Statement on Signing the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act, 2005 144 Department of Defense (DOD)
Budget for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 145 Outsourcing the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to Civilian Contractors 147 Criminal Immunity of Civilian
Contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq 149 Signing Statement as Commander-in-Chief. on U.S. Combat Activity in Colombia 151 Page VII 2008 ECONOMIC CRISIS 153 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000) 153 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (2005) 153 LAWS WHICH WEAKENED GLASS-STEAGALL ACT 153 • Bank Holding Company Act Amendments (1970) 153 • Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act
(1982) 153 •
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (1991) 153 • Truth in Lending Act "Reform" (1995) 154 • Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act (1999) 154 •
Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000) 154 • Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act ( 2005) 154 • Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (2008) 155 • Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) 156 LAST MINUTE BUSH REGULATIONS INTO CODE
OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 158 "Midnight Regulations" issued by outgoing President on many controversial issues (2008) 158 APPENDIX 159 TEXT OF ALL PROVISIONS OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AND TREATIES CITED 159 United States Constitution
159 Amendments
to the Constitution 162 War Crimes Act 164 Anti-Torture Statute 164 United Nations Charter 165 Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners (of War) 167 International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 168 International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(ICAT) 172 International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 175 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights
of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 178 Convention on the Rights of the Child (Signed by the U.S. but not yet
ratified) 179 INDEX TO STATUTES, BILLS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND SIGNING STATEMENTS 180 INDEX OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES WHO INTRODUCED BILLS 184 Page VIII Attachment B: A Bill to Repeal
the Authorization for Use of Military Force 113th CONGRESS 1st
Session H. R. 198 To repeal Public Law 107-40. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 4, 2013 Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. GRIJALVA and Ms. Edwards)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs A
BILL To
repeal Public Law 107-40. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This
Act may be cited as the ‘Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force’. SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING. Congress
finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), signed into law on September
18, 2001, has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation
is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution
in the Government of the United States. SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-40. Effective 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed. ________ Endnotes |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
