Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:31:02 -0500
From: Gene Karl <nodebt@bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: anti-govt@egroups.com

Subject: [theseries] Re: [anti-govt] Hate to say this

Gene Karl wrote: 

  Ed, 
  That is what we are taught, and quite frankly I too accepted 
  that position for a long time but always questioned it because 
  something still didn't quite ring true. The Constitution 
  itself conflicts with the Bill of Rights. Therefore a different 
  perspective must be taken if one is to preserve one's Rights. 
  If you accept the argument that the Federalists have been 
  feeding us for years, then you will continually be like a dog 
  chasing one's own tail. You will never bring the federal 
  beast into conformity to the Bill of Rights because you 
  will accept the proposition that the U.S. CONstitution is 
  "supreme" over the Bill of Rights instead of the other way 
  around. Even believing that the Bill of Rights is part of 
  the U.S. CONstitution, then one must accept a document that 
  is in conflict with itself. With the federal juggernaut 
  in power, and set up the way it is, in violation of the 
  people's true Jury and Grand Jury powers, you will lose 
  everytime because now you have lost your Jury and Grand 
  Jury powers to the federal prosecuting attorneys and 
  judges. 

  But in my view, even the Bill of Rights was tainted 
  by Federalist infiltrators. 
  For instance, Article VII states: 
  "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall 
  exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be 
  preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise 
  reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according 
  to the rules of the common law." 

  In other words, what this says is: 
  "In suits at English common law of the Crown, where the value 
  in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of 
  trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, 
  shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, 
  than according to the rules of the English common law of the   Crown." 

  This is the same English common law of the Crown that our 
  Anti-Federalist forefathers hated and fought against. 
  I suppose that this reference to a right of trial by jury 
  was supposed to satisfy them. But is this Jury a People's 
  Common Law Jury? NO!!!! 
  And isn't it funny that NO FACT TRIED BY A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S 
  JURY SHALL BE OTHERWISE REEXAMINED IN ANY COURTS OF THE UNITED 
  STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW. 
  [Meaning the English common law of the Crown.]
  So even within the Bill of Rights we find subterfuge 
  and deceit. 

  And what are Rights? They are the flip side of the same coin 
  called Law. They are one and the same coin. Without Law, we 
  have no Rights. Without Rights, we have no Law. They are 
  both expressions of the same subject, viewed from different 
  angles. 

  sincerely, 
  gene karl 

  Ed wrote: 
  > 
  > Gene Karl wrote: 
  > > 
  > > From: Big Al <bigal123@gloryroad.net> 
  > > To: anti-federalist@egroups.com 
  > > Subject: Re: [anti-federalist] Re: [anti-govt] Null And Void 
  > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:01:43 -0500 
  > > 
  > > Hate to say this but yes.  That's how they designed the document
to 
  > > control 
  > > people 
  > > BiG Al 
  > 
  > I'd have to disagree. I don't think the Bill of Rights contains 
  > "laws." 
  > 
  > I'll have to look at the wording to be certain, but isn't the BofR 
  > more of a delcaration or statement of our pre-existing rights to 
  > make it crystal clear to the fed govt that "these areas are not 
  > to be f***ed with by you"? 
  > 
  > Laws passed by politicians, (which is all a politician is, 
  > one who creates policy, aka laws,) which conflict with the 
  > constitution, which includes the bill of rights, are 
  > null and void. 
  > 
  > I'm not a lawyer, but this is my take on it. 
  > 
  > Ed 
  > 
  > > Gene Karl wrote: 
  > > 
  > > > >"All laws which are repugnant to the 
  > > > >Constitution are null and void." 
  > > > >--Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803) 
  > > > 
  > > > I suppose then that where the U.S. CONstitution conflicts 
  > > > with our Bill of Rights, that our Bill of Rights is 
  > > > null and void then. 
  > > > 
  > > > gene karl 
  > > > Anti-Federalist 
  > 
  > -- 
  > "All laws which are repugnant to the 
  > Constitution are null and void." 
  > --Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803) 
  > 
  >