By Christopher Wiikwaji’o
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivering the opinion of the court in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company 259 U.S. 20 ruled:
It is the high duty and function of this court in cases regularly brought to its bar to decline to recognize or enforce seeming laws of Congress, dealing with subjects not entrusted to Congress, but left or committed by the supreme law of the land to the control of the States. We cannot avoid the duty even though it require us to refuse to give effect to legislation designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards. In the maintenance of local self-government, on the one hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a half.
Chief Justice and former U.S. President Taft was in agreement with Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, *388-389, (U.S. August Term 1798)
The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: 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 over-rule 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 of 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 punished 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 entrust 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 Governments, 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.
The Founding Fathers knew what must occur when the king/legislature created laws that violated basic rights. (See insert)
Even before the Revolution the Founders knew that they could not obey laws that deprived them of God given rights. “All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void… We are in conscience bound to disobey.” –Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772)
Today the U.S. Congress is running rough shod over the Constitution with the support of the Presidents (Republican or Democrat): ObamaCARE, the USA PATRIOT ACT, continued support of the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto (graduated income tax), undeclared foreign wars. The newest violation of the Constitution by Congress and the Presidents is the abolition of private property by the invidious acts by the government or its instrumentality like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The federal government scam is buying up homes and private property by intentionally buying and even encouraging fraudulent loans to drive up the price of Real Estate then crashing the market so the government could take financial control of the private property. The feds or their instrumentalities (Freddie and Fannie) are collecting rent and putting that rent toward Marxist purposes.
The First Plank of the Communist Manifesto is:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
The Second Plank of the Manifesto is:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Both of these planks are being forced upon Americans. Both of these laws violate the First Amendment to the Constitution and other articles, sections and amendments to the ark of our covenant.
We are in conscience bound to disobey and law says we can be protected and within our rights to do so.