Oregon County Nullifies All Unconstitutional State and Federal Gun Laws

Oregon County Nullifies All Unconstitutional State and Federal Gun Laws

I responded to a comment made by Rebel Yell concerning an article on
thenewamerican.com about an Oregon County nullifying federal laws :

Sunday, 08 November 2015
Oregon County Nullifies All Unconstitutional State and Federal Gun Laws

Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.


Hey, Rebel Yell, why don’t you make copies of this post and send a copy, with a
cover page containing your comments in support of their doing the same thing,
to your county sheriff, your county commissioners, your representatives in your
state’s legislature, your state attorney general, and your central government
representatives in the House and Senate.

I have to agree fully with expanding this action to all Federal Laws. But, not just
laws, executive orders, agency regulations, mandates by government agencies
that have no legislative license, anything and everything that violates, and or will
tend to violate the mandates from the Framers dictating how our government
“shall” be organized and operated, now or in the future.

The first thing we have to do is correct the unconstitutional acts that are effecting
us the most, reelections. Article 1. Section 2 and Section 3 set the amount of time
a Member of the House of Representatives and a Senator “shall” serve by using
the strongest, most stringent wording available in English grammar. The word
“shall” in the sense used by the Framers renders their words as absolute, having
no other meaning or intent than the words they used as if carved in stone by
using the word “shall.”

(Emphasis is mine)

Article I. Section 2. “The House of Representatives “shall” be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, ….”

Article I. Section 3. “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the people thereof for six Years; and each
Senator shall have one Vote.

Then there is the Office of the President of the United States of America. The
Framers established the rules for “HIS” election and the amount of time “HE”
shall serve in:

Article II. Section 1. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America. He shall hold “his” Office during the Term of four Years,
and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as
follows: ….”

Strict adherence to the Constitution will require the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
Complying with the Framers “Term of four Years” will no longer require a limit of
the number of terms that a President could serve. And, the 22nd Amendment
gives a president the ability to serve for two terms. We have seen in Article II.
Section 1. two terms is unconstitutional and must not be permitted.

I placed emphasis on the words “He and “his” when describing Article II. Section 1..
Those words show that the Office of President is to be filled by men. There is no
provision for a woman to hold the office of President. As you know, at the time
the Constitution was written women had hardly any rights. Voting was one that
they did not have that has been added through an Article V, amendment. There
has been no amendment that permits a woman to hold the office of President.
Considering the case here, I would say that they did not allow for women to hold
any office of government at any level. These would also have to be addressed by
an Article V. amendment. This means that no woman should be holding public
office until amendments are ratified allowing them to do so.

Changes to the Framers rules can only be made through amendments.
Amendments can only be made following the rules the Framers provided in
Article V. The process is long and arduous in order to reserve amendments for
changes that a majority of the People feel must be made in order to better
keep government in check and on course.

Article V. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application
of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three
fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in
the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall
be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

The Supreme Court has given itself the duty for interpreting the Constitution, yet, there
is nothing in the Constitution that gives anyone the responsibility for explaining what
the Framers have spelled out in precise terms already. The Supreme Court recently
stated on its home page that the Constitution is a living document that must represent
the current times. FALSE! The Constitution is not a living document. It only works in the
way it was written and has been legally amended in accordance with Article V.

Americans have been losing their rights and freedoms one little chip at a time for several
decades. One example being that we can no longer peacefully assemble in front of the
Supreme Court building to grieve our concerns with government. This is a chunk taken
out of the First Amendment. Then there is the recent opinion by an illegal Supreme Court
ruling concerning same-sex marriages. Five Justices sat on that hearing and contributed
to the final opinion which resulted in Legislating from the bench, infringement on State’s
Rights, and two Justices breaking existing law that required them to recuse themselves
from hearing cases when their participation might reasonably be questioned. (wording
is not exact.)

A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), further mandates that a federal judge “disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Read more at http://joemiller.us/2015/06/former-federal-judge-says-u-s-supreme

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

I would like to read your comments about my posts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s