Political Watchdog » GUN RIGHTS http://www.politicalwatchdog.com truth in politics Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:44:01 +0000 en hourly 1 Ex post Facto http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-27/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-27/#comments Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:38:22 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=152 “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.” – Thomas Jefferson

“DISCRETION, n. [L, a separating. See Discreet.]

1. Prudence, or knowledge and prudence; that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper, united with caution; nice discernment and judgment, directed by circumspection, and primarily regarding ones own conduct.”  1828

You have all read Section 8 by now.  Did you happen to see where this group of people from a political party can pass whatever legislation they want?  No, it is limited to the duties in Section 8. Did you see where this entity has the power to interfere in our personal lives at all?  NO!
Here is a list of things this government is not allowed to do when it comes to performing the functions as specifically spelled out in Section 8..

Section 9
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

    The "migration" here refers to moving a slave from one State to another.  The
importation refers to the import of a slave
 from another country. That is why
a slave could be taxed.  It was considered an importation of a commodity.  Both
practices would end in 1808.
    Migration is not mentioned any where else in the Constitution.  The States,
before the Constitution, controlled their own immigration.  Because it doesn't
mention in the Constitution who controlds immigration, you defer to the Tenth Amendment.
All powers not specifically given this government by this constitution are reserved to
the States.  The States control immigration, not some far off foreign government. 

"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."

There has to be a body, or evidence of a crime.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Bill of Attainder:  "Blacks Law Dictionary" edition one:
"A Legislative Act
 directed at a designated person pronouncing him guilty of an
alleged crime, usually treason With Out trial or conviction according to the
recognized rules of procedure, and passing sentence of death and attainder upon him.
    "Bills of Attainder," as they are technically called, are such special acts
of the legislature as inflict capital punishment upon persons supposed to be guilty
of high of fences such as treason or felony, with out cinviction in the ordinary course
of judicial proceedings.  If an act inflicts a lesser degree of punishment then the act
is called a "Bill of Pains and Punishment.  Both are included in the prohibition in
the Constitution."

EX POST FACTO;
   This is the only foreign language word in the Constitution.  Why?  It is Latin,
a dead language, so you can't change its meaning.  It is a hugely important word.
It means, after the fact, or retroactive.  Lets say I purchased a shot gun
 today
and it is legal today. A law can be passed making it illegal tomorrow to buy a shot
gun.  I can't be prosecuted because it was legal when I purchased the gun.
    A real creep changed the meaning of this word anyway.  It was the only supreme
Court Justice to be impeached for his arrogance and partisan politics.  His name
was Samuel Portlan Chase, you know, Chase Manhattan Bank.  He defined it as only
pertaining to criminal law, not taxes. 

Next 27-B

Citizen Conway
]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-27/feed/ 0 Constitution’s basic meaning http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-24/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-24/#comments Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:00:46 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=142 Fundamental #24

Constitutional Quotes

The following quotes make some important points about the principles of constitutional republican government:


The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;… — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government. — Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C., So. Dist. CA.

In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. — Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.

The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. — Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.

The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments. — Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).

To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. “In expounding the Constitution of the United States,” said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, “every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except where reference to common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in its vocabulary…when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood. — Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108.

The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. — Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.

Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon. — Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635.

It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power. — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. — A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.

If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repitition of the wrong will not create a right. — Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision. — Kingsley v. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. — Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.

Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. — State v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.

When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. — (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459.

I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the state. The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require, nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An Act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to intrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit, of our State Government, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments. — Opinion of Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386-389 (1798).
]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-24/feed/ 0 Duties of Congress http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-23/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-23/#comments Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:52:56 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=140
Fundamental #23

Here are the powers granted to the Seat of the Government of the United States located in Washington D.C..

Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money,
 regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix

 the
Standard
 of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin
of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
 the land and naval Forces;

To provide
 for
 calling forth the
 Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

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, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
 the
 Erection of
Forts,
 Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof."
(italics mine)

"...(not exceeding ten miles square...")--This protects the Seat from any
interference from local or State governments.  It is also the only area
where it can pass any laws outside of the parameters it is limited to
in this Constitution.

    Eminent domain does not appear in our Constitution. The practice of this
government declaring land inside a  States borders as Federal Land is fraud.
They have to have the permission of a State to do that. 

    Here is how you know that Tyrants have taken over our government.
When a government begins
 to
 regulate your personal behavior,
 Tyrants are hard at work taking your liberty. Citizen, it is what tyrants do--period!
Tyrants hold you in utter disdain.  To them, this is their planet and you are
only here to serve their needs.  You are to be herded and harvested like any other
animal here on earth.  As long as you serve their needs, you are allowed to exist.
Fall out of favor, and you can be eliminated--125 million in this century alone.

We are the first and oldest republic that civilization has ever seen.  We agreed we would
have the rule of law.  When government starts regulating your personal behavior,
then you end up with the rule of force, another name for tyranny.  Preachers will
follow this lead every time. 

    When laws are passed to regulate something people are going to do even if there is a
law against it, then enforcement is necessary.  The drug laws can not be enforced.
That means
 that
 there is no limit to the amount of force to enforce them.  Prisons have
rehab for the inmates that get hooked on drugs--IN PRISON! Think about where these drug
laws are leading to, A PRISON COUNTRY!

    More importantly, find in the above where this Federal Government was given
the power to regulate a citizen's personal behavior. As I have said before, if it is a war
on drugs, we should be fighting it with lawn mowers.  No, it is a war on our liberty--
WORLD WIDE!

"...foregoing Powers..."  That is the limit of the ability of this government in D.C.
to make laws.
 It can only make laws to bring what is stated here in this article to fruition--period!

The transients occupying this government are playing the, "lets rule the people and
take their production to do it, under the guise of taking care of them." 

"Government will take away your Liberty under
 the
 guise of doing something
good for you."  Thomas Jefferson

They are going to give you free health care.  Do that, and they now have
power over life and death.  Notice it isn't "medical" care, but "Health Care."
That means "MENTAL HEALTH."  The thought police come if you aren't complying my fellows.
Have an ice cold 'Thorazine Spritzer'for breakfast.

P.S. In the rest of the Constitution, government was granted one more duty to perform,
the power to make Treaties.  That comes to a total of twenty (20) duties this Federal
Government is to perform for the States.

Are you understanding the importance of our Constitution yet?

Citizen Conway
]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-23/feed/ 0 Fourth Amendment http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-22/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-22/#comments Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:46:54 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=137
Fundamental #22

Amendment (article) IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How many times since the drug war does a cop search the perp because he has “probable cause?”  Read this Amendment again and pay close attention to what you have to have in order  to obtain a warrant–probable cause.  And what has to happen to get that warrant?  You have to take an oath in front of a Judge.
The officer has to be very specific as to what he/she is going to seize and from where.  What happens if a cop swears an “oath or affirmation (if the if the officer is an atheist),” and gets a warrant to search  anything of yours?  If the officer lied about anything to obtain the warrant, the cop just committed perjury, a felony!  A cop cannot violate your civil rights any more than a criminal can.
Shall not be violated–except on suspision of drugs?  Look hard, that says “shall not be violated.”  There are no exceptions there either.  An officer with a badge cannot violate your “persons, houses, papers and effects” ever.  Unreasonable searches are searches without a warrant.
“PROB”ABLE, a. [L. probabilis, from probo, to prove. See Prove.]

1. Likely; having more evidence than the contrary, or evidence which inclines the mind to belief, but leaves some room for doubt.
That is accounted probable, which has better arguments producible for it than can be brought against it.

”

Next time a cop pulls you over and threatens to get the drug dog, tell him that still doesn’t give him an excuse to search you and your vehicle.  The dog can only give him probable cause.  The dog can’t issue warrants.  Tell him that if the dog can’t tell the judge exactly what drug he read on, they still cannot get a warrant to search you or your car.  Remember that probable cause only gives them ability to get a warrant.

The war on drugs isn’t a war on drugs, if it were, we would be fighting it with lawn mowers.

Is this quote beginning to make sense you now?
“A man that has been taught to know and prize the rights that God has given him cannot be enslaved.  It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
Ben Franklin

Citizen Conway

]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-22/feed/ 1 Second Amendment http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-21/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-21/#comments Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:43:17 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=135 Fundamental #20

Second (article) Amendment

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:

MILI”TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

That is the definition of a militia.  All able bodied men are, by law, required to train at certain times.  Otherwise, they are free to do as they wish.  They aren’t on our payroll unless they are called into service.  Here is what our Constitution says about our militia:
Article I section 8: Congress shall have the power:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;"

    Wait, I thought it was the FBI
 that
 executes the law of the land at places like Waco?
Just remember that the government in DC is not our government, and never has been.  It is
a central government.  Lets see, these things just in the 20th century have killed over
170,000,000 (that's million) of their own people.  First it disarms us, then it kills us.

    Our only hope of survival with one of these things is being armed with the latest
weapons.  So here we are, all men being called to duty.  Who is going to protect the
family?   Ladies, you need to be trained as well.

    When the powers here saw the fit that the Mexican Militias gave us, they acted fast in
1903 with this:

Militia Act of 1903

The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, was the result of a program of reform and reorganization in the military establishment initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish-American War of 1898 after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire United States military.

United States Senator Charles Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

Today, the National Guard is a reserve force for the Federal standing Army.

“Governments need armies to protect them against their enslaved and opposed subjects.”  Leo Tolstoy (1893)

Dick ACT?  Congress has no power to alter our Constitution by passing an ACT!  It has to be an Amendment approved by the States.  Here is the supreme Courts ruling on “Acts.”

“An unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no right’s; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Norton V. Shelby County 118-LL5, 425,442

Article 1 section 8,  Congress shall have the power “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;”

Here is what George Washington had to saqy about the military:

“Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

Have we grown so numb that we don’t remember what brought Russia down?  It was the money they lost fighting in Afghanistan.  Obama just asked Congress for another sixty billion to keep fighting this year alone.  We have been at it for seven years now.  We’re out front, and the elite are plundering both sides  behind the scenes.

300,000 barrels of oil a day unaccounted for in Iraq.  A gas pipeline being built across Afghanistan.  Are we going to prosper from any of this?  NEVER!

They are using our resources to steal their resources.

Next–How to Amend the Constitution

Citizen Conway

]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-21/feed/ 0 Sixth Amendment http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-18/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-18/#comments Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:30:58 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=129

Fundamentals #18

The Bill of Rights Amendment VI (six), or who is running this show?

Remember, we are a self governed people.  That means that we have a government that serves us, not
the other way around.  The nature of a government that can get all the money it wants uses that money
to gain power over the people.  Then. it has its lawyers to take power from the people and give that power
to themselves.  Here is a good example.

Amendment 5
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of

 law;
 nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."

"on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

 An Indictment is handed down when a case is presented to the Grand Jury by a prosecutor.
A Presentment is handed down when the Grand Jury takes an independent action that originates
in the jury.

    You see, a Grand jury can investigate the government without tipping it off by having a
government lawyer in the room.  This represents another way for the people to have the power
over this government.  Can't have that!
    Here is what they did:
    In 1946 the lawyers in Washington wrote up the "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Say what?
In rule #7 no mention of presentments.
Rule #4  Says that as far as Federal Courts are concerned, presentments are obsolete.
rule #6 says that independent Grand Jury investigations cause a "run-away" Grand

 Jury
further
 denigrating the Grand Jury, and the people in general.
    By now, I don't have to tell you that this is an act of war.  Any time one of our rights
gets attacked, it is an act of war on we the people.
    Here is the 1828 definition of a capital crime: "Capital crime, a crime punishable with
death."  Now you know why they want to do away with the death penalty.  It goes and then no
more cases have to go to a Grand Jury to be prosecuted.  Life W/O parole is the order of the
day.
    You can not be tried twice for the same crime.  Great Britain was infamous for trying an
individual until they got the desired results.  We said enough of that and stated here that you
get one crack at us and that's it.
    You cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself: COMPELLED, pp.  "Forced;
constrained; obliged."  The word 'compelled' was completely removed from the 1913 edition of
 the
new
 "Webster's
 Dictionary."
    When a cop takes your property because drugs were found there, he has just
 violated your right to due process.
    Just compensation for your property has been added to by the Federal government when they
say they have "imminent domain."  That term is not in our Constitution.  If the Federal wants
a piece of property in one of the States, it has to have the permission of that State.
    Because we don't study and understand our rights it's voila, stroke of the pen and another
power shift takes place in favor of the criminals.

 Note:   Why the 1828 Dictionary?  The first "Blacks Law Dictionary wasn't published until
1891, a hundred years after the writing of our Constitution.
    Daniel Webster was the expounder of our Constitution, and his Dictionary was in the works
for seventy years before being published 1828.

Citizen

 Conway
]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/07/fundamental-18/feed/ 1 Second Amendment Part Two http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-16/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-16/#comments Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:02:15 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=126 Fundamental #16

Second Amendment (second half)

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This could be written today as, “…the right of the people to whine quietly and with restraint shall be tolerated.  Government shall reserve the power to beat you like a rented Mule if we get tired of this incessant whining.”

This limitation on the power of government is the one that the tyrants running the governments here fears the most–this is how it should be.  If we are going to exercise the right of self rule, then we have to be dangerous.  We have to let those that would rule over us know hat we reserve the right to stop them.
The supreme Court just made a ruling about guns that the Commies are reveling over.  The case before them was, “Heller V. Washington D.C.”  The Court ruled 4-3 that the people in Washington D.C. have the right to bear arms, but they can be regulated.  Now, those that want to take our power of self rule are using that decision as though our Arms can be regulated over the entire country.  They want to use this ruling to make all manner of laws regulating our arms and ammunition.

Article I section 8 defines the Area we call Washington D.C. and the power of the Federal Government to make laws (legislation) THERE!
“Congress shall have the power;  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not to exceed ten miles square)…”
(they could even make drugs illegal THERE)

The supreme Court ruling on “Heller V. Washington D.C” determined that the Federal Government could not pass a law curtailing one of our rights even in a district (of Columbia) where they have been granted “exclusive Legislation.”

The Communist are running with this one as if it does apply to the entire country, it does not!  Go back and look again, it’s  “Heller V. Washington D.C.”

“A man who knows and prizes the rights that God has given him cannot be enslaved.  It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”  Benjamin Franklin

If the citizens of our once great country knew their rights, we would be laughing at the efforts of the tyrants to disarm us.  Here is the meaning of this part of the II Amendment:

“The right”
“10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.

“of the people”
“1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.

2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons.”

“To keep”
“2. To have in custody for security or preservation.”

“And bear”
“3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.”

“Arms”
“4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.”

“shall not be infringed.”
“1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.”

transgress
“1. To pass over or beyond any limit; to surpass.”

Now you know what ‘we’ meant by the Second Amendment.

These definitions came from “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.”  Don’t let anyone use the argument that the Constitution is a legal document so you have to use “Black’s Law Dictionary” to define the terms.  The first edition of that wasn’t published until 1891, fully 100 years after our Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.

Citizen Conway

]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-16/feed/ 0 Your Constitution http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-6/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-6/#comments Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:10:31 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=93 Subject: Fundamental #6

The Constitution for the United States.

The Constitution of the United States

Preamble
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."

   Do you notice anything here?  The description above the Preamble is not part of the
original Constitution.  It was added later.  So what is different?  The word "of" implies
that it is a possession of the United States Government.  In the preamble the word"for"
is used. That means that it applies to this government. (tyrants are very detail
 minded--no?)
    To ordain is to bring into existence.  To establish is to settle something once and
for all.
    This Constitution is a contract between sovereign States.  Once a contract has  been

signed on to by all parties,you can not change the meanings of the terms in that contract.
 If you do, that is called fraud.  It has been done, and you should know how.  The why first.
    In our republic, the citizen has the ultimate power, or else we are not self governed.
As the true minority, the individual, you have enemies that want to rule you.  To rule
over you, they first have to take the power to defend yourself from them away.  Then, and
only then can they impose arbitrary rule (rule of man) over you.  Remember,we agreed to the
rule of common law.  If you are the only victim of
 your actions, there is no crime.
    Here is our protection from arbitrary rule.  You will find it in the VI and VII
Amendments.

Amendment 7
 "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 most important word here is "jury."  A jury is designed to be our last line
of defense against arbitrary laws.  Those that want to rule you can't have you judging
their laws as a means of defending yourself from them.  What do the despots do?  they
just haul off and change the meaning of the term, that's how simple it is.  It happened
in 1913 with the issue of a revised "Webster's Dictionary."
    Hmm, 1913.  Lets see, the Federal Reserve Act, the sixteenth Amendment, the seventeenth
Amendment and the redefinition of the terms in OUR contract.  Do you think this is all just
a coincidence?  Compare the definitions below and you will begin to get the picture of how
the individual has lost his/her sovereignty here in the land of the overthrown. The eight
hundred

 pound Gorilla walked into our living room in 1913--he is still here.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

ARTFL > Webster’s Dictionary > Searching for jury:
Displaying 2 result(s) from the 1913 edition:

Jury (Page: 806)Ju”ry (?), a. [Etymol. uncertain.] (Naut.) For temporary use; — applied to a temporary contrivance. Jury mast, a temporary mast, in place of one that has been carried away, or broken. — Jury rudder, a rudder constructed for temporary use.

Jury (Page: 806)Ju”ry (?), n.; pl. Juries (#) . [OF. jurée an assize, fr. jurer to swear, L. jurare , jurari ; akin to jus , juris , right, law. See Just,a., and cf. Jurat, Abjure.]

1. (Law) A body of men, usually twelve, selected according to law, impaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to render their true verdict according to the evidence legally adduced. See Grand jury under Grand, and Inquest.

The jury, passing on the prisoner’s life. Shak.

2. A committee for determining relative merit or awarding prizes at an exhibition or competition; as, the art jury gave him the first prize . Jury of inquest, a coroner’s jury. See Inquest.

Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:

JU”RY, n. [L. juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.
The ARTFL Project • 5720 South Woodlawn • Chicago, Illinois 60637
The University of Chicago • Department of Romance Languages and Literature		 
(Bold mine)
    A freeholder is someone that owns an estate (your home) not someone you just drag
off the streets.  Peers are people that know you and your circumstances, not strangers.
   When a jury determines that the law is unjust, the law goes back to the legislature that
 passed it to be either revised or struck from the books.

    Nothing has ever been more deleterious to our liberty than taking the power from
the citizen to determine what laws rule their lives.

BTW, The 1828 definition still stands and applies to our Constitution to this day.

Next:  More Constitution

    Our home grown tyrants have been busier than a set of jumper cables at a picnic in Cuba
taking away our liberty.

In Liberty,
John Conway

]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/fundamental-6/feed/ 0 Why our forefathers came here http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/89/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/89/#comments Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:55:32 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/89/ Fundamentals #5

Why did our forefathers come to this new land in the first place?  Forget for a moment all the trappings of mind control on your TV.  Forget the monuments and trappings of power over you for just this brief moment in history.
Why did those that came before us leave the comfort of their known homes and come across the vast ocean to seek liberty.  It was because of bondage by some form of despotism.  Their production wasn’t theirs to do with as they saw fit.  The revered Knights of the Round Table and the sacred Samurai were the toughest among them.  They were the TAX collectors.  The Knights met their demise because of the long bow that penetrated their Armour and left them in the mud.  The samurai met their demise at the end of a cannon.
This was to be a land where your production was yours.  How many of you know that there is a clause in our constitution that prevents our government from taking our production?  What makes us different from every other place on planet EIarth?  Liberty and the protection it affords your property.  Your property is whatever the fruits of your labor bring to you.  If your property can be taken for any one elses idea of utopia but yours, then you are once again living in bondage.
Try understanding this:  You toil all day to fill a wheel barrel full of coal for your family and yourself.  On your way out, a man comes up and takes all but enough for you to maintain the basics of life.  Are you free, or are you now a slave to someone else?  YOU’RE A SLAVE!  Turn your wheel barrel into a pay check, and you begin to get the picture.  Now, if you want to sell some of your coal then those that you have selected to keep the mine going can put a markup on it that is paid by the consumer–not you!
Here is how we told the Seat of the Government of the United States it could raise a limited amount of money to perform its limited duties for the States:  (prior to the “Victory Act” of 1942, this particular government raised the vast majority of its income on Tariffs)

"Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;"

It should read, "To collect taxes by charging duties on imports and exports."

impost

IM’POST, n. [L. impositum, impono.]

1. Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.

excise

EXCI’SE, n. s as z. [L. excisum, cut off, from excido.]

An inland duty or impost, laid on commodities consumed, or on the retail, which is the last state before consumption; as an excise on coffee, soap, candles, which a person consumes in his family. But many articles are excised at the manufactories, as spirit at the distillery, printed silks and linens at the printer’s, &c.

EXCI’SE, v.t. s as z. To lay or impose a duty on articles consumed, or in the hands of merchants, manufacturers and retailers; to levy an excise on.

As you can see, these taxes are on inanimate objects, not on your production.  

Section 8:
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;..."

This is the banker’s clause.  This is like giving your teenage son whiskey and the keys to your car on Saturday night.  If we the people don’t want to fund some off the wall program, the government can borrow the money, at interest, and do it anyway.  This is putting our children in debt before they even get started.  We need to put stipulations on both of these clauses–limits.

Here is the very definition of this new land.  This is what we forbade the government, any government, from doing.

Article I section 9
“No capitation, or other direct, Taxshal; be laid…”

capitation

CAPITATION, n.

1. Numeration by the head; a numbering of persons.
2. A tax, or imposition upon each head or person; a poll-tax. Sometimes written Capitation-tax.

We are either free or we are chosing to live in bondage where our production isn’t our own.  No, the XVI amendment did not alter this clause.
What led to this heavy and escalating income tax was the “Victory Act” of 1942.  The income tax comes right out of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848.

  1. Brief Explanation of the Victory Tax

    The Victory Tax was repealed by section 6 of Income Tax Act of 1944, which in … [Act Oct. 21, 1942, 4:30 p. m., E. W. T., c. 619, 56 Stat. 234, 884] …www.constitution. org/tax/us-ic/hist/ victorytax.htm – Cached

  1. Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

    Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn … The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American …www.libertyzone. com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html – Cached

Next, the meat and potato(e)s of our U.S. Constitution

“…God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.  The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.  The part, which is wrong, will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …and what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?   The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure.”

Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, see Jefferson On Democracy, 20 (S. Padover ed. 1939).

Why twenty years?  It’s because the creeps haven’t had time to completely infest our government in twenty years and we don’t have to burn down the entire house to rid ourselves of them.  There are creeps among us, and they want power.

You don’t think about having power over your fellow man like these power seekers we elect to office.  They spend their entire life getting into a position of power.  Once they gain that power, they want to use it.  Our Bill of Rights ends at the border.  The ultimate power for power seekers is murder with impunity.  Governments are the ultimate mass murderers with over 150,000,000 deaths attributed to them in this century alone.

This is what we are dealing with, never forget that.  A government will never relinquish its power willingly–we have to taken it.  Stay home Mr. Propitiation, your time is ended.  Never forget that you are supposed to be dangerous.  Here in our republic, this government is supposed to be afraid of abusing the Citizens.  It is the reason we have arms.

In Liberty,
John Conway

]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/10/05/89/feed/ 1 Exodus from Europe http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/09/29/fundamental-4/ http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/09/29/fundamental-4/#comments Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:49:56 +0000 John Conway http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/?p=62 Subject: Fw: Fundamental #4

Contrary to what you are taught in the government schools today, those that came here from Europe didn’t come because of religious prosecution.  The Pilgrims did came here because they were being abused for praying kneeling down instead of standing up but that was an exception.  The reason for the exodus from Europe was socialism.  It wasn’t called socialism yet, but that is what it was just the same.  It didn’t matter how hard you worked there, unless you were attached to the ruling class, you could not get ahead.
In ROOTS OF CAPITALISM, historian John Chamberlin writes that in France:
“It took more than two thousand pages to print the rules established for textile industry between 1666 and 1730.  Weavers had to negotiate with the government for four years in order to obtain permission to introduce “blackwarp” into their fabrics.  The effect of the regulations was to freeze French textile production at a certain level, though smuggling and evasion of manufacturing regulations did elleviate the situation somewhat.  The violation of the rules often brought terrible penalties:  for breaking regulations governing printed calicoes, some 16,000 people were either executed or killed in armed brushes with government agents.”

Do you think for even one minute that we wanted to paint our blank canvas with the broad stroke of sicialism or any other form of regulations but the rule of Common Law?
We wanted to, number one, protect ourselves from a government, any government.  The best way to ensure that was to limit the amount of money it could take into its coffers. This is what was meant by our fore fathers when they said “money is the root of all evil,” IN THE HANDS OF A GOVERNMENT THAT IS.  We are being taken down financially.

If you want to track our demise, follow the coins.  We started out with gold and silver coins, then we went to just silver and in 1965 we no longer held coins.  Coins have to have some amount of precious metal in them to be called coins.  What we have left is tokens.  We have just become like any other civilization that has ever existed here on planet Earth.



The majority of citizens want to be informed, but don’t know where to start looking.  Watch this video about the different types of government and put a check in the “fully informed citizen box” on the different types of government.  Watch this with your children and any socialist you may know (they convert  to being a defender of our republic immediately)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&ei=xrTVScnEHpKqrQKjiJHuCg&q=overview+of+america
In Liberty,
John Conway

]]> http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/2009/09/29/fundamental-4/feed/ 0