Unconstitutional – VOTEing Rights

June 1, 2009

Unconstitutional – VOTEing rights.

The way I am reading the Constitution I do not see why EX-Convicts cannot vote right away. Do I agree with this. No. But it is the way the U.S. Constitution reads. Please advise if I am wrong.

Article XIV, Section 1.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United State and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article XV, Section 1.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Previous condition of servitude here means incarcerated. See Article XIII Section 1. I would interpret this to mean while in the slammer and also under house arrest and also while under parole.

Article XXIV, Section 1

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the Untied States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

My question on this is the questioning of what a tax is. If a tax is someone having to pay restitution then having to pay restitution prior to having your voting rights restored would be unconstitutional by definition.

Article XIII, Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly conviced, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.

This define what involuntary servitude is supposed to mean in todays terms since it was more extension back in the writting of the Constitution.

So for my conclusion. I have the definition as from the Constitution as to how long the condition of servitude is supposed to last which is until the end of parole. Article XV, Section 1 also limits restrictions on voting to not be denied because of previous condition of servitude.

If one would complain about this then in the States the condition of restitution can still be maintained but a different and separate role for voting of U.S. candidates must be upheld. If “other tax” is not interpreted as from above then this condition must be changed because it directly includes States in the requirement of conditions.

Is this just politics or what.  Is this a sign of the times to reject the Constitution of is this country acting like a Democracy and not like a Republic which it is “guaranteed” to act like as per the Constitution. 

Or is the only solution to Impeach the President so this can be enforced by the next President.   A softer approach would be for the Attorney General of the U.S. and the several States to enforce this provision by demanding the President and respective Governors to call the Congress or Legislature back to enforce this provision in the Constitution.  The President could enforce this without the Legislatures by the State Executive changing the provision.  But it would be less of a headache if the Legislatures are called back into session. 

See also I-1043




Unconstitutional – Illegal Immigration

June 1, 2009
Unconstitutional – Illegal Immigration
Look at the following Constitutional Articles and Sections. See the wording at the bottom.

Will make an explanation after each one of the Articles or Sections.

1) Article IV, Section 4.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

This can be a little bit tricky sometimes in its interpretation. For the meaning of a Republican Form of Government this would essentially mean that no State government could transform its government style to a Democratic, Socialist, or Communistic, or Fascist Form of government or other no conceived of at the time of the forming of the Republic. This in my intepretation means that Jodge Sotomayer cannot be elected because this would be interferring in this interpretation. But another way of reading this is that the U.S Government has to be a Republican in form type of Governement. It could also mean that the U.S. Govenment will come in an force a State to revert back to a Republican Form of Government. No special interest or Nobilities can be created. No Democrat style of government can be created. Voting must be guaranteed.

All states must be protected from Invasion from without the Countries borders and from within. If a disturbance would come from another State then the federal government would step in to settle the disagreement. If an Invasion would come from the Federal Borders then the Federal Government would have to come in to stop the problem.

This would also mean that if the Legislature of the Executive branches of government could not convene then the Federal Government would step in and take over to get the State government back to a Republican Form of Government.

2) Article VI

… both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to Support this Constitution…

This part of the Constitution does not seem to be working at this time. To protect the Constitution of Article IV, Section 4. Well, I do see Invasion from outside forces at this time. If we have 850,000 illegal immigrants with 500,000 staying each year then this is an Invasion. The federal government needs to be stepping in and squelching this Invasion.

3) Article I, Section 8.

… to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

Each State has its own Militia. The States could provide its own Defence if the Federal Government does not step in to do this. Overpowering and setting up Habeas Corpes could be instituted to round-up all of the illegal immigrants.

4) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on th esubject of Bankrupties throughout the United States.

The establishment of a uniform Rule of Naturalization has been established. But we need enforcement of these rules as well. This is where the federal government is lacking in is enforcement. This is really the job of the Executive Branch.

5) To provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions:

This would be just a wording of what was being stated above and who has the responsibility to do the enforcement.

6) The Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Casees of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Evidently we have had a need for Writ of Habeas Corpus suspension 500,000 per year for each of the last dozen years and more to get the borders guarded.

7) Article II, Section 1.

…will to the best of my Ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If the President is not Defending the Constitution then he should be Impeached so someone that wants to defend the Constitution will be the President. Unfortunately this illegal immigrant mismanagement goes along ways. But at least let’s start to enforce this provision now.

My conclusions on this are that the U.S. Constitution has been badly hammered and is waiting for someone or some President to enforce the Constitution. The problem of illegal immigration is not just a casual affair. The strong wording of GUARANTEE is not just a warrantee but a GUARANTEE. The gentlemen farmer who was on the U.S./Mexican border was not being GUARANTEED his property rights because the U.S. Government was not GUARANTEEing the Constitution are required by the Constitution. Perhaps on the border there is a different Constitution?

See also I-1043 RespectWashington.us





Judge Sotomayor has Unconstitutional Opinions

May 27, 2009

When a judge will not try to hear the fireman opinion with high marks on a test score and ignores them because they are not a minority this is unconstitutional.  The Congress and thus everyone else cannot set up “royalty” or “nobility” as a criteria for judging a case.  This is a direct violation of the thinking which John Adams, one of the signators of the Declaration of Independence and a signatore of the United States Constitution was adamant about.  He did spend quite a bit of time in Paris, France just waiting to be invited to London, England to make the case for the United States and the drafting of and signing of a Treaty to end the War of Independence. 

Thomas Jefferson also quite literally so eloquently addressed the reasons why “Nobility” should not be a consideration in determining what a final judgement should be.  I actually am offended that the Democratic Party still insists on being connected with Thomas Jefferson when he is totally and radically different than the Democratic Party as it is today.

Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed.  She considers her blood to run blue and the United States Constitution cannot recognize “blue” unless one is not from this country.   

The Senate should reject Judge Sotomayor and if they do not then all of the Senators should be voted out of office at the next election cycle.   Not being able to understand the Constitution is a Concrete reason not to re-election an individual.  Abiding by the Constitution is one of the Charges of a Senator and of a Jurist and of the President.  Come to think of it now President Obama has violated the spirit of the Constitution twice.  The first time was when he told the Bond holders of Chrysler “tough” you will take the deal and get to the back of the bus.  This created nobility of the Unions and also was a violation of the Constitution by the Administration from breaking Contract Law which is specifically written as a violation of the Constitution.

Credit Cards and U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.

May 17, 2009

Credit Cards and U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.

In the U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 is says,

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.”

Also in Section 10 it says,

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Now, let’s look to The Declaration of Independence.

Second paragraph.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 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….

bottom of second paragraph.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good!

Paragraph fifteen

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (For imposing higher interest rates on us without a meeting of minds nor our Consent)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of separate accounts for old debts at the older lower interest rate.)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms (altering fundamentally the Forms of meeting of the minds concept in Contract Law) of our Governments: (By taking away these rights the Governments has implied Nobility on the rights of Contracts from the perspective of the writer who is a banker/creditor.)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our governments: (For conspiring with Congress to allow the other creditors information to be included in the calculations for increasing our interest rates and without any prior warning. Also conspiring to allow creditors to arbitrarily increase interest rates at their own discretion and without a new signed contract.)


From the above in most areas if King were substituted for creditor or lender or credit card and then you the debtor were the citizen then what is happening now is likewise the same scenario which was happening around the formation of our Country.

The Creditors are altering contracts which have a nebulious wording attached to them to allow them to change the credit card interest rate at any time and for whatever reason which may suite the lender. Congress has also gone ahead with this scheme and transposed its legislative rights to the creditors. However, since Congress cannot pass any ex-post facto laws allowing this type of a contract then law is Unconstitutional and thus the Contract is Unconstitutional.

I would therefore say that since we also have laws which if a contract is written up by one party then the party writing up the contract is totally at fault when the wording of a contract cannot be enforced by a judge. When one party changes a contract ex-post facto then you have nullified a contract and it should be voidable by the other party.

I would liken a provision like this as usuary. In some States if you charge usuary then the amount over the normal interest rate is indeed also payable back to the party being charged but the principle of the amount is also reduced. Since this is such a widespread disrespect for the Constitution then the principal amount should also not have to be paid. There should be some type of provision in the Narco Laws which should cover double or triple or quadruple damages also to be paid.

Since I am not an attorney nor do I pretend to be one I am not advocating anyone stop paying their credit cards but rather to address this issue with their attorney. If you have enough money to press the issue stop paying your credit cards and ask the credit card companies to reimburse you if they have previously increased your interest rate for no reason of your fault. That is if you have made regular payments on-time and regularly and they still have increased your interest rate. I think this is where this provision might take affect. Although in my thinking the creditors are collecting a penalty fee to get you back into compliance and the increasing of the interest rate even if your fault is an ex-post facto increase as well.

The other thinking might be that if your creditors increase their interest rates to such a point that you now cannot make your payments then in the old world you were obliged to be an indendtured servant to pay your bill back. In essence, this is what is being created. You contracted at a reasonable interest rate and now that things (macro-economic pressures) are beyond your contract the creditors are increasing your interest rate and then you will have to be extending all of your time and free-time to pay them back. So the old solution was indentured servitude or debtors prison and the new method is a court judgement or bankruptcy.

The ability to instantaneously change contracts is the infering of Nobility on a particular group. This notion of Nobility is expressly prohibited as noted above from the U.S. Constitution and the agregous noting of what happens under the cloud of Nobility.

Please advise as to what your opinion is as to this matter.


Keith Ljunghammar



Sen Dodd credit card bill and Unconstitutional wording

May 15, 2009

This bill is weak.  It needs to punish the credit card companies for putting in ex-post-facto provisions into their contracts.  If all powers come from the U.S. Constitution and all contracts are designed and given power by the constitution then no contract can have an ex-post-facto provision in its wording.  Thus all credit card interest rates which were increased without any notice and for no reason are Unconstitutional and the Courts cannot enforce the provisions of a “Contract” which is illegal and Unconstitutional.  This is truly what the bill should be addressing and not some type of whamby-pamby bill of rights provisions.  The constittution already addresses this.  You need to address the true punishment and state what the constitution addresses and make all credit card debt go away if they have increase the interest rate whatsoever in the past.  Thus the credit card companies would then have to sue to get their money back and since this would be a Supreme Court case they would have to get around the ex-post-facto- provision of the Constitution first and they will not be able to do this.