- Of the People -

"The one fact that will always remain is that as long as one person lives who believes to the very core of his soul that human rights are divinely given that freedom will never be completely destroyed, that one person will eventually lead others to destroy the oppressors."

It is flagrantly clear from an Associated Press article that Missouri officials, including judges, do not have any concept whatsoever of the Constitution for the United States of America, the import of the Amendments, or their duty prescribed by their Oath of Office and the Constitution for the United States of America.

Thus, I am going to use the comments (direct quotes) or reports of what has been said/done to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that either the officials are committing treason or are so ignorant of their duty, liberty, the Unanimous Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the United States, and the role of government that none should be holding their offices.

From the AP article ~

"Supreme Court denies appeal in concealed-weapons suit - Associated Press, 10/13/2003

A St. Louis Circuit Court judge on Friday blocked the law from taking effect Saturday, saying there were constitutional concerns that needed to be resolved."

What constitutional concerns? This judge needs to read the Constitution for the United States of America, the 2nd Amendment, the Unanimous Declaration of Independence, and the Ten Commandments. These are not hard to understand and should be relatively easy for a learned man; that is presuming the judge is a learned man. This may not be the case.

Why do I say this? Well, first of all every judge is required to uphold and obey the supreme Law of the Land dictates on officials. This is laid down quite clearly and simply enough that any dunce should be able to understand the text of Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America. It would seem only Bar trained attorneys have trouble with this Article - and the balance of our most important documents and values.

In order that each official has the opportunity to "understand," here are the demands made not only on judges, but also on every official, elected or appointed or otherwise placed in a government job.

ARTICLE VI, Clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America (the organic name - "united" was used as an adjective, not as part of the name).

Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

SUMMARY - Officials please read carefully. I have tried to simplify this to ease your understanding.

1. The Constitution IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

2. The judges in every state are bound by anything and everything in the Constitution.

3. No state rule or regulation made in violation to the Constitution withstands.

4. Therefore, any constitutionally repugnant (adverse to) law is null and void from its inception.

Then, Title 28, Sec. 453 - Oaths of justices and judges, states:

"Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of this office: 'I, _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _ _ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Furthermore, Title 28, Sec. 454, prohibits the practice of law by justices and judges, as it states:

"Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor."

Now hang with me, judges and other officials - our system of life, liberty, and justice really is not hard to understand when the principles of the Unanimous Declaration of Independence, the limitations placed on government in the Constitution for the united States of America, and the rules and regulations (statutes) controlling officials and other artificial entities are put together.

I think it is important to repeat the above summary statements, as it seems they have been missed by the whole of governments. They must be incorporated into the Unanimous Declaration of Independence in order to enhance ease of understanding.

The Unanimous Declaration of Independence establishes that this union was created to protect the God-given Rights of the individual man and woman, and further declared the people as the Sovereignty. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed". And, a cite, which officials so love as "law" when it suits their purpose ~

"The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." Chisholm v. STATE OF GA 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

Thus, we must first make it clear - and officials can surely understand this as I did on my very first reading - the people of the United States of America - are the sovereignty. To aid officials in understanding they are not the boss - the sovereign - here is another very easy to read cite from about a century later in our history:

"Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins, 188 US 356 (1886)

Second, the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. There is apparently a great deal of confusion about the meaning of "supreme" by officials. Therefore, to lend to their understanding, "supreme" means: "1. Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. 2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement. 3. Ultimate; final: the supreme sacrifice." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., 2000

Third, all judges, justices, and all executive and legislative officials must take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Any who do not commit treason (aiding and abetting the enemy, whether known or unknown) and quite probably a plethora of other criminal/civil violations, including terrorism. See Title 18, Sec.s 2331, 3077, 1101 (22)(A) on Terrorism.

Fourth, no justice or judge can practice law. Judges may only state exactly what a law says as a law must mean what it says and say what it means. He/she may not give his opinion, as such is practicing "law." This is prohibited and considered as a 'high misdemeanor,' an impeachable and criminal offense. Thus, "making law from the bench" may also be construed as treason and/or terrorism criminalized by Title 18, Section 2331.

Thus, if one couples these basic demands with the provisions in Article VI, no judge can make any decision that violates the supreme Law of the Land or interferes or legislates in any manner against the Rights of American Citizens.

In fact, it appears that judges do not have authority without the people's consent to make any decision in matters over 20 dollars as Title 28, Section 459 states: "Each justice or judge of the United States may administer oaths and affirmations and take acknowledgments." It appears judges haven't any power past this concerning the American People, the Sovereignty.

You see, the 5th Amendment demands that a person may be held to answer for an offense by indictment by a Grand Jury only - which is made up of 23 American Citizens - while the 6th and 7th Amendments demand that trials are by jury made up of 12 peers and American Citizens. Thus, the conclusion that in our system of "justice," judges haven't any power past taking oaths and acknowledgments, such as receiving writs for filing for the public record.

To explain what a "judge/justice" is also is not difficult. These are members of the judiciary meant only to assure the rights of the people in court are not violated by the Executive/Legislative Branches. The Executive Branch has the duty of enforcing the supreme Law of the Constitution, or assuring it is not violated by any man or woman involved in a specific adversarial proceeding, known as "being in court."

They, however, whether appointed or elected, are to act as monitors more than anything else other than their sacred duty to uphold the Constitution. They represent the judiciary but do not determine law in fact and substance in a court of the people, or - in other words - a court of the supreme Law of the Land created by Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Thus, since judges do not have discretionary authority to make "law," or to interfere in the law making process and due process, other than assuring the individual rights of the people are not violated, no judge can deny to any man or woman any right of the people, whether it is enumerated or not (9th Amendment). And he damn sure hasn't any authority to rule on a case before it is even heard and - furthermore - there must be a case.

In the issue of concealed weapon or open carry, and any issue involving the arming of the people, judges do not have any discretionary power whatsoever as the 2nd Amendment is as clear as can be written. It is enumerated as the founders by their own words knew the dangers of giving a few authority - the negative aspect of Man that power corrupts - and wanted to preserve the right of self-defense.

This includes above all the right to defend against government officials running amuck with their sickness caused by assumed authority. In fact, judges and other officials have no jurisdiction over the people and their individual rights when no other man or woman or their property has been damaged by an act of intent. Furthermore, the act must be defined as a "crime."

Because all officials must take an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it, each must further defend the people against all invasions on their lives, property, and pursuit of happiness, whether the source of interference is foreign and domestic.

Okay, Officials, here it is - the 2nd Amendment. Only the mentally challenged, illiterate, and those wishing to be treason-committing tyrants against the trust of the people and the United States of America could possibly misinterpret the meaning.

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

There is no age requirement and no authorization for a State to make any rule or regulation in contradiction to this Amendment or to change it in any manner. It is part of the Constitution for the United States of America via the Fifth Article of the Constitution.

And for any anti-gun nuts, the Militia has been defined as the whole of the people by our founders, and is not just the artificial entities (military or militarily related, cops, and other enforcers of man made laws) under the control of the corporate government. They, too, though, in their private capacities have the right to be armed at all times in all situations, in all buildings, and other property.

The only exception is of personal choice, such as if a private Citizen asks them to not carry into their homes and/or business. Then, the carrier decides whether to use the privately owned business or to enter the private Citizen's home. This cannot be legislated but is a matter of common courtesy and respect for the individual Citizen.

As for so-called "government buildings and other government property," who in fact owns the buildings and property. Governments are artificial - they do not own anything. The People own it all. However, that's a whole book in itself.

The AP article went ahead with ~

"Opponents [of concealed carry] sued on claims that the law violated a Missouri Constitution provision dating to 1875 that guarantees the right to bear arms and adds, "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

With this, the opponents of Citizens being armed at all times and Judge Steven Ohmer, who blocked the concealed carry law, flagrantly show their lack of knowledge and understanding of the whole of the Constitution for the united States, and Missouri Law. The Missouri Constitution also states, "That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States;" Article I (Bill of Rights), Section 4, Missouri Law (Constitution)

The fact that "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" bothered me greatly as it is in direct conflict to the 2nd Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution for the United States of America. Thus, I requested and purchased a copy of the 1825 Laws of Missouri (known as the Missouri Constitution) to see what was stated in it as it determined the statehood of Missouri.

Well, Folks, the 1825 Constitution states "and that their [the people] right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state cannot be questioned" - Period. This clearly shows the intent of the original Laws of Missouri that the right to keep and bear arms could not be interfered with in any manner.

We must understand here in the Republic of Missouri that the only way the 2nd Amendment can be modified by Missouri lawmakers is by an Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America, with said amending being put to conventions of the people as required by the U.S. Constitution AND the Laws of Missouri. Article I (Bill of Rights), Section 4, states "…that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people." Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 3.

It is clear that the 2nd Amendment has never been modified to allow for any rule making affecting in any manner the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution for the united States of America, which Missouri and its officials are bound by LAW to obey, does not allow for any legislation affecting the rights of the people. This applies whether it is the right to redress government, speak out, or to defend against any Lawbreakers, be the offenders of the people or of the government.

Now, Folks, we get to the nitty-gritty. The Constitution for the United States does not permit any legislation concerning the right to keep and bear arms. There has been no change in this prohibition. Thus, and the added on phrase apparently by the Missouri General Assembly, is a limiting, modifying rule. It is unconstitutional and repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Understand this. The Missouri Constitution cannot be repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America. Any phrase that is repugnant is by constitutional law null and void and the people are not bound to obey it as - lawfully speaking - it does not exist.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, 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. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed...

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it; No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177

Sometime between the 1825 and 1875, the Laws of Missouri (the actual name of the Missouri Constitution), some unscrupulous officials added the phrase to the original Law, which stated: "…and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state cannot be questioned." These traitorous spawns of the Satan decided they had the power to change what cannot be changed - man's unalienable rights and the Constitution of the united States of America without it being properly done - and assumed they were sovereign over the people, instead of our Creator being sovereign over us with we the people being sovereign over those in government.

We must also understand - and I know this is going to be difficult for officials to understand - a "state" is "…a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856

Bouvier also defines State as:

"State also means the section of territory occupied by a state"

"In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act."

Thus, the people united together for the defense of their rights is the body politic known as a "state'. The government is not the state but is merely a body politic designated by the name of the state. Bodies politic are fictions at law and hold no power over living souls, creations of the Supreme Being. Being creations of the Supreme Being, living souls must respond only to the laws of the Supreme Being.

Furthermore, since the governing body is a fiction of the people, it must respond to its sovereign, the People, and it holds no authority over its creator, just as we hold no authority over our creator. Thus, elected/appointed/hired government officials are servants of the people. Hence, civil servant, a tool of the people used to defend their rights.

Have the principles laid down in the above two paragraphs been ruled on? Of course. Otherwise, I would not have brought it up. But, what are the principles?

The first is that man-made law does not apply to living souls known as American Citizens.

The second is that the people in government positions - and hence the governing body politic - are subservient to the people, that the people are the sovereign and supreme, or in other words, above the laws of man. These "laws" are actually rules and regulations meant to control artificial entities created by man, such as government officials, corporations, and others since they lack a heart and conscience.

"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process…" Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

Can state legislators - or judges - or any other officials - deny to the people their unalienable rights, including the right to be armed at all times by any weapon they can afford and can physically carry? Can lower courts rule against higher courts?

"If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery" United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.

If he [the Governor] had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases" Sterling v. Constantine, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398 (My emphasis)

"Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, 'to support this Constitution.' Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' 'anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . ..' Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524." (Quote copied from Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 1958)

Folks, this writer could continue giving specific cites that would fill a book as he has saved dozens of pages of such cites. However, he is going to close this discussion with two cases (Bar attorneys love what is called "case law" but really isn't "law" at all) that combined define Liberty, Justice, and the American Way as well as can be defined. Not all judges have been corrupt in our history, and not all "courts" have made decisions based on corrupted meaning in our "law," the supreme Law of the Land and the Laws of God.

The first refers direct to the police power of a state and the severe limitations of policing power placed on it by the Constitution for the United States of America.

"According to settled principles, the police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety...The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within discretion of the state, subject of course, as far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a state, nor any rule adopted by any local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States nor infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument. A local enactment or regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police powers of a state, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the general government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures." Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1904) (My emphasis)

The second is one of the most cited cases in the history of the US Supreme Court. It has reportedly been cited and had a direct bearing in the decisions of over 1600 cases. The cite is easy to read and easy to understand, although it appears that the majority of judges either have not read it or do not understand it if they have read it.

"The 'individual' may stand upon 'his Constitutional Rights' as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his 'private' business in his own way. 'His power to contract is unlimited.' He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. 'His rights' are such as 'existed' by the Law of the Land (Common Law) 'long antecedent' to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) (My emphasis)

In summary, it must be noted:

The governing body politic of a state cannot make any rule repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America. They are bound by sacred Oath, by God's laws, and the Law secured by the Constitution for the states united.

A judge has no discretionary power to make law, or even to give his opinion as to what a law means. He is also bound by sacred Oath and the supreme Law of the Land to never infringe upon the rights of the people but to instead protect these rights by upholding the Constitution for the United States of America.

Our Creator has given us the means and the right to defend our persons and our state against all who would destroy what God has bestowed us with. There is no confusion in the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, except in the minds of those who would deprive us of all of our unalienable rights. It says clearly, "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Any rule concerning the right to bear Arms is an infringement upon that right and is therefore unconstitutional and null and void from its inception.

It doesn't matter what any judge has said or what any legislator (federal, state, or local political subdivision) says or what any Bar attorney says, or what any enforcer of de facto man made law says, or what any anti-gun group says, or what any executive officers say, or what those determined to establish a one world order say, or what your neighbor says, or any other persons, artificial or natural, say. The fact is every rule ever made by any government body politic that infringes upon this basic and natural right of the people should be ignored by all people as it is not "law" when applied to the living souls - people - of America.

Thus, to answer the title's question. It doesn't matter whether it is treason or ignorance or a combination of both. The bottom line is the judge and every official involved with making a rule or enforcing any rule infringing upon the right to bear Arms is in violation of his Oath of Office. Whether treason or acting through ignorance, they are not fit to hold their office. They exceed their authority that is severely limited by the Unanimous Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the United States of America, and the Laws of our Creator. Each therefore does not have the integrity and honor to hold his office and should be immediately removed.

You see, we are not a Democracy, and have never in fact been a democratic country. We the people who make up and are the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government in which the Rights of the individual and the individual himself are supreme, or sovereign. Our rights cannot be voted or legislated away. We are human beings who do not answer to other men but only to our Creator.

Thus, the rule in America as it was created is that each of us may do as we wish as long as we do not interfere with the rights of others by damaging them or their property. As long as we do neither - essentially obeying the Ten Commandments - there is no crime that can be committed by we the people and, furthermore, there can be no crime committed without the intent to damage property or injure another.

Additionally, the exercising of a right cannot be converted into a crime by well-meaning but ignorant officials, nor can there be a fee charged by the thieves now filling the bodies politic known as "government." But, that is another story for another day.

This is America, not Gestapo Germany or Communist Russia or China, isn't it?

Or are we all merely the animals to be used and abused by those elected to serve us in governing bodies?

Comment on this article on our Forum.

Ed Lewis is a veteran writer, having been published in many online journals and newspapers. Mr. Lewis, a Missourian dedicated to liberty and truth, may be reached for comment at elewis@mail.shighway.com