Below is an edited email discussion about three potential legal paths that lead to stripping the federal executive branch of legal authorities it has wielded unconstitutionally and criminally for at least 90 years.
List of the federal laws that should be formally nullified by one or more states, to create an actual controversy for constitutional review by SCOTUS:
Dec. 20, 2023 - Draft Ending National Suicide Act.
States should nullify those federal laws, and also repeal their own state quarantine and 'public health emergency' management laws (MSEHPA).
It's important to understand that the seven statutes listed in the draft are the foundational laws for the 'public health emergency'-predicated mass murder programs that have become much more visible and better-understood since January 2020:
Quarantine and Inspection, 42 USC §264 to 272
Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, 50 USC §1511 to 1528
Licensing of Biological Products, 42 USC §262 to 263
Public health emergencies, 42 USC § 247d to 247d-12
National Vaccine Program and National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 USC §300aa-1 to 300aa-34
Expanded access to unapproved therapies and diagnostics program, 21 USC §360bbb to 360bbb-8d
National All-Hazards Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies, 42 USC §300hh-1 to 300hh-37
Nullification of those seven federal statutes would terminate the PHE mass murder programs in the states that nullify them.
However, there are 90+ years' worth of other 'emergency'-predicated federal abuse of power acts that also need to be nullified and/or repealed.
Jan. 25, 2024 - Law and Antilaw: 1995 report by Constitution Society
Here’s information about why repeal or nullification of the federal laws listed in the Ending National Suicide Act is necessary for terminating the PHE-EUA-MCM mass murder programs:
Weaponization of Language and Law: US Government Bioterrorism Program from 1969 to Covid. (January 2023, 2-page abstract)
Legal History: American Domestic Bioterrorism Program. Enabling statutes, regulations, executive orders, guidance documents, etc. (May 2023 version, 14 pages)
Here's a draft nullification-procedure bill under consideration by the Tennessee legislature:
Aug. 21, 2023 Draft - Tennessee House Bill 0726 (PDF):
…SECTION 4. As used in this chapter:
(1) "Federal action" includes federal law; a federal agency rule, policy, or standard; an executive order of the president of the United States; an order or decision of a federal court; and the making or enforcing of a treaty; and
(2) "Unconstitutional federal action" means a federal action enacted, adopted, or implemented without authority specifically delegated to the federal government by the people and the states through the United States Constitution…
…SECTION 9. State nullification of federal action may be accomplished in any of the following ways:
(1) The governor may, by the governor's own executive authority, issue an executive order nullifying the same, whereby all executive departments of the state are bound by said order;
(2) Any member of the general assembly may introduce a bill of nullification in the general assembly. For any such proposed bill of nullification, the bill is not subject to debate or passage in committees, and proceeds directly to the floor of each house, where said bill shall, within five (5) legislative days, be scheduled for debate on the floor of each house, and thereafter, within three (3) legislative days after the debate is closed, shall be presented for a roll call vote on each floor. The bill, if passed in the same manner as other general law, has the force and effect of law, and becomes effective immediately upon enactment. The time constraints listed in this subdivision (2) may be changed by majority vote of any house of subsequent general assemblies;
(3) Any court operating under the authority of the Constitution of Tennessee may render a finding or a holding of nullification in any case of which it otherwise has proper venue and jurisdiction, wherein the parties to said case will, upon final judgment, be bound thereby in the same manner as in other cases;
(4) Any combination of ten (10) counties and municipalities may… submit a petition of nullification [leading to] the same methods and protocols as described in subdivision (2); and
(5) The signed petitions of two thousand (2,000) registered voters of this state may submit a petition of nullification [leading to] the same methods and protocols as described in subdivision (2).
Edited email exchange on how state nullification acts represent one possible step in a sequence whose ultimate goal is restoration of constitutional rule of law nationwide.
Paraphrase of email correspondent’s position:
In your view, if I understand it correctly, a state act of nullification amounts to an act of secession, through which the state transfers the US Constitution as supreme law of the land to its own jurisdiction/territory, and simultaneously takes over the judicial review function of the US Supreme Court.
My views
I don't think your view of state legislatures, through nullification acts, superseding or displacing the US Supreme Court's constitutional review functions, is accurate.
In my view, the Supreme Court is empowered by the US Constitution to conduct constitutional review of statutes, regulations, executive orders and other laws, when an actual controversy is presented to them.
Meaningful litigation requires states to directly challenge the federal government to elicit violent federal backlash (lawsuits filed by federal government officials, against state government officials) and use the legal fight itself to expose and dismantle the unconstitutional, criminal enterprise that the federal government has become.
So far, I'm not aware of any constitutional lawyers, or even any other lawyer who practices any other type of law, who publicly discusses or is litigating these issues: the constitutional implications of the public health emergency laws, regulations and executive orders enacted since 1944 [American Domestic Bioterrorism Program laws] and most forcefully executed since January 2020. I'm also not in contact with any lawyers privately who are willing to acknowledge the implications of the 'public health emergency' laws, regulations and EOs, and develop legal strategies based on those facts.
If and when such lawyers can be mobilized, their constitutional law credentials would enable them to draw the constitutional conflicts presented — emergency ruling power, which is also killing power through 'medical countermeasures' and other poisons and weapons falsely presented as regulated medicinal products, unconstitutionally concentrated in executive hands — further into public view and into federal court for SCOTUS to address.
SCOTUS would address the controversy by either ruling that the executive power as concentrated and exercised is unconstitutional and the laws are null and void, or by ruling that the constitution is suspended/superseded under ‘emergency’ conditions, such that America is under a federal executive dictatorship that will continue to kill and steal with legal impunity until citizens develop an alternative means to restore constitutional rule of law and stop the mass murder and mass theft programs.
As states consider codifying and using their nullification power, many appear to be focused on possible future federal laws they would potentially want to nullify at later dates, including what they erroneously construe as possible, future sovereignty-stripping federal acts related to the World Health Organization's international legal instruments (i.e. treaties) governing global management of worldwide 'pandemics.'
State governors, lawmakers, lawyers and judges need to understand the massive volume of unconstitutional federal and state kill box laws already on the books.
In proportion to their understanding of how federal and state, unconstitutional, emergency-powers laws are already being used to enable killing of Americans with complete preemption — complete, wrap-around civil and criminal legal impunity — state-level government officials will be better equipped to handle debates on nullification-procedure bills and specific nullification acts in their respective state capitols.
All 50 state governments currently have the legal authority to adopt legislation (nullification acts) or issue governor's executive orders nullifying unconstitutional federal laws.
If and when a state or a group of states uses their legal authority to nullify unconstitutional federal laws, their action will elicit a legal response from the federal government's executive and legislative branches.
The President, Cabinet secretaries and Congress will file suit — at the US Supreme Court — to defend their own actions as constitutional and demand judicial review of the constitutionality of the state nullification acts themselves.
See also:
Dec. 6, 2023 - Litigation proposals for state Attorneys General.
Those cases will be heard by SCOTUS, and they will be useful cases because they will actually present the real disputed issues that have bulit up for many, many decades, and became more visible, more forceful, and more-rapidly deadly in 2020:
Does the US Constitution authorize the federal executive branch to centralize and use legal authority under self-declared emergency conditions to injure and kill American citizens and steal their property?
Or does the US Constitution prohibit such executive centralization and abuse of legal authority?
As comprised currently, the Supreme Court may rule that the federal executive branch is empowered to kill and steal from Americans with impunity.
If they do, however, the status of the American people as disposable chattel in a post-constitutional-rule-of-law, brute-force-based, totalitarian dictatorship will become more widely understood, allowing Americans the opportunity to better address the situation at the state and local level based on an accurate understanding of how Americans are legally construed by the federal government...
I think states can and should take action to nullify bad federal laws, articulating their reasons in terms of their assessment that the bad federal laws and acts (as passed by Congress and signed and implemented by Presidents/executive officials) are unconstitutional.
The federal executive branch and Congress hold the opposing view: they believe and are acting as if the laws they’ve passed and implemented are constitutionally-sound. They will defend their legal position and their acts by attacking/suing any state that dares to nullify federal acts.
But I think the Supreme Court is the institution, empowered by the US Constitution itself, to review and rule on the conflict (between the states’ claim that the federal executive and legislative acts are unconstitutional, and the federal executive and legislature claims that the federal laws are constitutionally-sound) once that controversy becomes live or actual and is presented to SCOTUS.
The role to be fulfilled by states in passing nullification acts and/or filing federal complaints against the US Congress and US presidents, is to create the real or actual controversy that can be put to the Supreme Court.
Without a state taking direct, open, legal action to challenge the federal laws, by using legal, constitutional state government authority, and in doing so, drawing the backlash lawsuit from the federal executive and legislative branches, there is no actual controversy for the Supreme Court to review and rule on.
SCOTUS does not review or rule on hypothetical controversies.
SCOTUS only reviews and rules on actual controversies.
After the SCOTUS ruling, whether SCOTUS finds the federal laws and acts constitutional or unconstitutional, the states and the people will have better information about how the federal executive, legislative and judicial branches interpret the constitution and the legal status of states and people, and can make decisions about further actions to take in light of that information.
In my view, the necessary sequence is
State governments nullify (or challenge) federal acts.
President and Congress counter-attack by filing suit asking SCOTUS to void the nullification acts or rule on the state challenge.
SCOTUS rules.
From there, two possible paths open up.
If SCOTUS rules the US Constitution as supreme law of the land prohibits federal acts and programs to kill and steal from the population, then mass murder programs terminate and restoration of constitutional rule of law can begin.
If SCOTUS rules that the US Constitution as supreme law of land allows federal acts and programs to kill and steal from the population, then states understand that SCOTUS, president and Congress are at war with the people, secede and begin to properly defend their state sovereignty, state populations and territory.
Email correspondent added:
4. State refuses to comply....the Constitution wins.
My reply:
I agree.
My view of the nullification work by the states is that it’s one of the three most effective, fastest ways to get the country through Steps 1 through 3, and on to Step 4 if needed.
But if Step 3 goes well, by God’s grace and human cooperation with it, the whole country gets back to constitutional rule of law, instead of just individual states one by one.
The other two most effective, fastest paths are state Attorney Generals filing constitutional challenges at SCOTUS, and Congressional repeal of the kill box enabling laws, both of which would also elicit a federal executive and/or legislative branch backlash, and thereby also present actual controversies to SCOTUS, leading to either nationwide termination of the kill box programs, or to the greater public understanding that would make it politically possible for more states to openly defy the feds and uphold constitutional rule of law in their own states.
 |
All content is free to all readers.
All support — reading, sharing and financial — is deeply appreciated.
| ||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment