Posts Tagged ‘Bill Of Rights’

The Constitution Vs The Declaration of Independence

December 30th, 2009

In exploring the workings of governments; the bureaucracies that define how they interact with the citizenry, and how the citizenry are manipulated for political and economic purposes; I have learned that there is a great deal of confusion in the average citizen concerning the formation of governments and the power available to preserve those governments.

A good example is the lack of understanding of our own historical foundations. Europeans discovered the Americas and associated islands over 250 years before some of the British colonies seceded from the British Empire, and established their own governments. For over two and one half centuries the laws of Britain along with the colonial laws, approved by Britain, provided to the citizenry their social, economic, and political structure. With the increasing development of the colonial economies and the abundance of resources for manufactures and trade, England continually taxed the Colonies of their productive labor and resource wealth. Economic disparity with England, reinforced by the social and political disparities between England and the Colonies, was the motivation for colonial self-determination and desire for complete control and ownership of the wealth generated by the Colonies.

Thus was born the Declaration of Independence; a very strange document, whose validity cannot be argued in any court, since it predates any court that its formulators would recognize as a valid court. The authority claimed by those who wrote this document is placed by them above all other. However, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights, are in such great conflict with each other, that they mutually exclude the authority of the other to be the vehicle by which society may establish, promote and preserve its government; to enforce the authority of one is to negate the authority of the other. It is impossible to believe that both of these documents are valid in their exclusive philosophies.

From the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,…} {…That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.}…..{ We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions do, in the Name, and by authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” » Read more: The Constitution Vs The Declaration of Independence

The Constitution Vs The Declaration of Independence

December 18th, 2009

In exploring the workings of governments; the bureaucracies that define how they interact with the citizenry, and how the citizenry are manipulated for political and economic purposes; I have learned that there is a great deal of confusion in the average citizen concerning the formation of governments and the power available to preserve those governments.

A good example is the lack of understanding of our own historical foundations. Europeans discovered the Americas and associated islands over 250 years before some of the British colonies seceded from the British Empire, and established their own governments. For over two and one half centuries the laws of Britain along with the colonial laws, approved by Britain, provided to the citizenry their social, economic, and political structure. With the increasing development of the colonial economies and the abundance of resources for manufactures and trade, England continually taxed the Colonies of their productive labor and resource wealth. Economic disparity with England, reinforced by the social and political disparities between England and the Colonies, was the motivation for colonial self-determination and desire for complete control and ownership of the wealth generated by the Colonies.

Thus was born the Declaration of Independence; a very strange document, whose validity cannot be argued in any court, since it predates any court that its formulators would recognize as a valid court. The authority claimed by those who wrote this document is placed by them above all other. However, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights, are in such great conflict with each other, that they mutually exclude the authority of the other to be the vehicle by which society may establish, promote and preserve its government; to enforce the authority of one is to negate the authority of the other. It is impossible to believe that both of these documents are valid in their exclusive philosophies. » Read more: The Constitution Vs The Declaration of Independence

Family Courts Tyrannically Deny Fit Fathers Their Constitutional Right to Parent Their Children

December 12th, 2009

courts routinely deny one fit parent – overwhelming the father- his parental right to raise his child. They tyrannically allege a right to deny father’s fundamental rights since they do so for ‘the best interest of the child’.

Such family court claims are tyrannical and directly conflict with constitutional rights and protections – as this article shows.

Fundamental or ‘Constitutional’ rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the further Amendments, and rights raised to that level by Supreme Court Case law. Supreme Court case law overrides all lower jurisdictional laws including family courts procedures.

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property (i.e. any fundamental right), without due process of law.” Due Process Clause “guarantees more than [a] fair process.”Washington v.Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997). It includes a substantive component to the process that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301302 (1993).

The Supreme Court consistently upholds parental right as a fundamental constitutional right. And that’s the right to determine what the best interest of the child shall be.

The Supreme Court asserted that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923). So parenting includes both legal and physical custody of your children.

To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence. As such, Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) emphasized to restrict a fundamental right of a parent to any extent, requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence that serious harm will come to the child.

Family courts ignore all constitutional due process when they daily deny a fit father his right to physical and legal custody of his child – a right that every other fit parent has.

Family Court claims to determining ‘best interests of children’ over fit fathers’ rights are illegal in a presumably free republic. Only if there are no fit parents can the court invoke the ‘best interest of the child’ doctrine to assign custody.

In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979), the Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state: “Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”

In the 1978 case of Quillon v Walcott, the Supreme Court ruled: “If a state were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objection of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest,” the Due Process Clause would clearly be violated.

In 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 2000: “[S]o long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e. is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.”

Under divorce and paternity actions, the ‘equal protection clause’ of the 14th Amendment, requires that one fit parent must necessarily retain all of his fundamental rights to the extent that the other does. But two disputing parents can’t both exercise a few decisions – such as where a child goes to school simultaneously – but these are few.

Now the level of scrutiny required for a family court to infringe upon fundamental rights of either parent is “strict scrutiny”, which requires the court to show that the infringement serves a “compelling state interest” and that there is no constitutionally less offensive way for the state to satisfy this compelling interest.

The constitutionally least offensive way – by far – is an equal partition of time parenting their child. So, during one’s parenting time, that parent can control all decisions about the child which parenting implies, i.e. education, religion, medical, etc, as well as the typical day to day decisions.

The family courts deny a father’s fundamental rights in order to extort money from him and support a billion dollar industry based on such denials. They provably work to the ‘worst interests of the children’




By: Shane Flait