The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.
CONGRESS MATERIALLY ALTERED JUDGES OATH
Congress on December 1, 1990, in Public Law 101-6 404 thereof, 104 Stat. 5124 – effective 90 days later, March 1, 1991 104 Stat. 5124 at §407 - materially altered by way of amendment, the oath of the Justices and Judges at 28 USC §453 62 Stat., 907, so as to relieve all Justices and Judges of the United States of any duty of fidelity in the Constitution, Upon amendment, 28 USC §453 the oath of Justices and Judges of United States, 104 Stat. 5124; provides:
“Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:
Furthermore, Section 8. And it be further enacted, that the justices of the Supreme Court and other district courts, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit;
I, _____, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect persons, and equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as District Judge; according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
“Section 404 amendment to the oath of office of justices and judges. “28 USC §453 is amended by striking out “according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to” and inserting “under”, pub. 1,104-650, 104 Stat. 5089, 5124, December 1, 1990. See the altered oath below:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as District Judge; under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So help me God.”
NOTICE: The duties incumbent upon justices and judges of the United States to discharge and perform their duties are provided in the statutes of Congress. The Laws of the United States and the Constitution do not provide for justices and judges to perform their duties under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States.
The 1990 oath, 104 stat 5124, severs the connection between the federal judiciary and the Constitution; meaning: as of March 1, 1991, officers of the federal judiciary have no obligation to discharge or perform the duties of their respective offices “agreeably to the Constitution” (62 stat 907), and the former judicial-branch officers are now legislative-branch officers under the close control of Congress.
The Constitution and
Article 6 Clause 3
provides in pertinent part for the prevention of arbitrary exercise or
abuse of “the judicial power of United States,” id., by way of
requirement that all justices and judges of the United States be bound
by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.
Every Supreme Court Decision and United States District Court Judgment since March 1, 1991 is Without the Authority of the Constitution and is a VOID JUDGMENT.
Any justice or judge of the United States who enters a decision or judgment in a Federal case without the authority to exercise “the judicial power of United States,” (See U.S. Constitution, Article 3 Section 1) …every Supreme Court decision and United States District Court judgment since March 1, 1991 - does so “without the authority of the Constitution” thereby denies the litigants due process of law and manufactures a VOID JUDGMENT.
A void judgment is an utter nullity, of no legal force or effect, and anyone who was concerned with the execution of a valid judgment is considered in law as a trespasser.
A void judgment which includes judgment entered by the court which lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment. Can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally…” Long v Sureshank Development Corporation 180, 3d, 548 (C.A. 111 1999)
“Where the court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the course, and whether this decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and for no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments are considered in law as trespassers.” Elliott v Petrsol, 26 US (1 Pet.) 328, 329 (1828).
“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it… acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Margolis v Johns, 660 F. 291 (7th Cir. 1981).
Justices and Judges Oath of Office: The Constitution and Article 6 Clause 3 provides in pertinent part for the prevention of arbitrary exercise or abuse of “the judicial power of the United States,” id., by way of requirement that all justices and judges of the United States be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution; to wit:
Denial Is Treason: The denial of Habeas Corpus is a denial of due process, protected by the 5th Amendment and specifically ordained and demanded by Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2 “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended” this is a well-known remedy for the deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone “the most celebrated writ in the English at law, and the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement.” 3 Bl Comm. 129. The “great writ of liberty,” issuing at common law out of the course of Chancery, Kings Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer. Ex parte Kelly, 123 N.J. Eq. the 489, 198 A. 203, 207.
Due Process: Amendment V - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" therefore if a court is going to deprive a person of their life, liberty, or property they must be first be indicted and then tried in a COMMON LAW court and then found guilty by a petit jury also sets the punishment with an eye on a remedy for the injured party.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury… Amendment VII in suits at common law… The right of trial by an impartial jury shall be preserved… Amendment VI
JURISDICTION of the COURTS ...the following video tells it all!
CLICK HERE: All Courts Are For Profit Corporations and Have No Authority