A thing may be called a law, it may have the appearance of a law, it may have been legislated as a law but in order for a law to be a law it must conform, not conflict, with the constitution. Any law that conflicts with the constitution or attempts to modify the constitution is null and void at its inception; no person is morally nor legally obligated to obey such a law, no law enforcement officer is morally nor legally obligated to enforce such a law and no court is morally nor legally obligated to adjudicate such a law but all are both morally and legally obligated to oppose such! Title 42, Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 and Title 18, Sections 241 and 242 of the United States Code makes it a criminal offense to attempt to deprive any citizen of the United States of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution under colour of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage (commonly referred to as under colour of authority). Any elected official that proposes, supports, or votes for such proposed statute is committing a criminal act under Title 42 and, at a minimum, has committed an impeachable offense in violating that portion of his/her oath of office requiring that official to ‘support and defend’ the Constitution and deserves to be removed from office and any judge or law enforcement officer who attempts to enforce such an unlawful statute is likewise committing a criminal act. The Connecticut State Police would be well advised that the Nuremberg trials have set the precedent that political, military, and civil leaders that enforce unlawful statutes are guilty of criminal acts and can be made to answer for them.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:26:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015