Some Everyday Constitutional Accountability Issues


"The Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..."

Law cannot prohibit speech on its own, period.  The privileges and immunities clause covers even more specific rights protecting government dissenters that make(s) our country unique.  However, the United States Code outlaws any speech that questions the government as subversion/ sedition/treason.  Did the founders write specific rules in the constitution so future politicians can break them, so specifically badly and backwardly?  Simple!


"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, anything in the constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Some schools teach that constitutional review was found to have no legal foundation in Marbury v. Madison (1803).  However, the supremacy clause is just that.  Pretending the supremacy clause isn't there enabled Justice Marshal to assert his own precedent to resolve legal errors in its place, based on no legal foundation!

Some Technical Constitutional Accountability Issues


"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The only right protected against suspension is the right to habeas corpus.  The founders saw the power to suspend specific laws during an invasion based on specific needs to respond as important, but as of right now, government can suspend our rights on partisan grounds and ongoingly suspend the laws however it pleases because there aren't enough specifications.  Basically, government shouldn't be able to suspend our fundamental rights because it has been using that power in the worst ways it possibly could to punish citizens.

1 U.S.C. 204(a)

'The matter set forth in the current laws of the United States and any supplements thereof establish the prima facie law of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force after that session.'

What you are looking at is literally the law for the rule of law simplified.  The technical language basically says that judges must apply the law as written.  Obviously, this is not what we have, and that is a huge, ongoing crisis.  Who enforces these laws on judges?  Judges are responsible for punishing themselves through councils, so we are getting nowhere with a judiciary so unlike the checks & balances the founders designed.  We have rights for when government can't police itself for a reason.


Next Page >