Saw this on our friend, Ron Van Dykes wall and did a little snooping into it, more unlawful practices. Had to share.
“Bing it, Google it, snoop it, or look it up at the library, it’s there, there for US. WE THE PEOPLE!
Dick Act of 1902 – Gun Control “FORBIDDEN!!!!!!!!!!!”
Were you aware of this law?
Obviously the current administration wants to ignore this, because it doesn’t fit their political agenda. By law, they can’t ignore this. Wake up America…
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG RECORD: LINK:
CAN NOT BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)
The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable. The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia
and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the
Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the
Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National
Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).
These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National
Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, the Organized Militia (the
National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917,
proved that the action of President Wilson in that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.
Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.
In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.
This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and
purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.
intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…”It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. pgs. 500-519).
in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.
The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National
Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate
combined. Did you understand what the Supreme Courtsaid here? No Executive Order,
Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty,
passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; 7Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that, “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our
government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT
OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT!!!