The presentation here is clever and amusing, but note the state's self-serving fiction adopted by the writer in order to have his fun-- "by making legal what once was not."

AARGH!!

ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING DOESN'T BECOME LEGAL BECAUSE THE ILLEGAL WIRETAPPERS START LABELING IT THAT WAY, OR BECAUSE THEY GO THROUGH A LEGISLATIVE EXERCISE BEFORE DOING SO!

But as presented by this writer, that's exactly what happens. As presented by this writer, re-labeling through a legislative exercise is all that need be done for a violation of the Constitution to become "legal", a term many folks take as meaning "legitimate" or "proper" or within the scope of the actor's lawful authority. This fellow even went so far as to describe the amendment act as the "warrantless wiretapping law" before going on to make the statement quoted above, describing the violation as having become "legal" merely by passage of this pretense of legitimization through the Congressional colon and the bestowal of a presidential kiss.

Thank goodness it's not really that easy for law-defiers to overcome the law. As discussed in 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256, the reality is that:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed."

"[A]n unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Further, even if a court DOES enforce it, an unconstitutional law is still unconstitutional, and void. As discussed in one of the opinions in the Michigan Supreme Court case of Fritts v. Krugh, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (1958), even judgments issued by a court and treated for the time being as dispositive mean nothing if actually based on invalid law or facts (or tainted with bias, corruption, jurisdictional infirmity or due process violations):

“A "void" judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by habeas corpus). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wounds and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been.”

What is unconstitutional yesterday is unconstitutional today, unless there's been an amendment adopted in the interim. Invading someone's privacy without a warrant based on a sworn, credible and specific allegation that evidence of a crime will be found is a Fourth Amendment violation. There are no exceptions, and the Founders actually made perfectly clear that "unreasonable" in the amendment doesn't mean "out of the ordinary" or "excessive" or "in violation of reasonable expectations of privacy". Instead, their writings make clear that what they meant (and what is therefore still meant) by "unreasonable" is: "not based on a sworn, credible and specific allegation that evidence of a crime will be found".

In other words, the ONLY kind of search that is permitted is one for which a proper warrant has been sought and granted. The amendment isn't designed to allow "reasonable" searches without a warrant, and require warrants for "unreasonable" searches, even though that's what the state would like you to think today. "Unreasonable" searches are flatly prohibited, and that includes any unauthorized by a warrant from an independent (and skeptical) judge based on a sworn, credible and specific allegation. Click here to see this discussed in full and with the Founders' words on the subject.

The same is true (that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, regardless of the ambitions or corruptions of the political class) concerning any other plainly invalid effort to "legalize" or "authorize" what is prohibited or out of harmony with the law we the people laid on the federal government we created through our agents in the governments of the several states. There are, and can be, no "authorizations" or "legalizations" of indefinite detentions, extrajudicial executions, punishment for inconvenient speech or any other behavior by the state in conflict with the fundamental law.

And no rational person leaves deciding whether the state's behavior is in conflict with the law to an organ of that same state. The Constitution is OUR law. We can read it and apply it ourselves, and nowhere do we impose on ourselves an obligation to let it be "interpreted" for us, or in any way other than by our own judgment.

UNFORTUNATELY, SLOPPY, TIMID OR CORNER-CUTTING journalism gives the law-defiers' pretenses of self-authorization a break, and actually supports and amplifies their destructive effect on the rule of law in America. This is especially true (and most obnoxious) when the buy-in to the pretense appears in a piece like the one that caught my eye here, which purports to be critical of the violation in particular and the state in general. Calling the violation "legal" in that context simply strengthens the impression some will have that everyone agrees that the state can legalize what it really cannot.

Indeed, it may well be that this offending writer himself says what he does due to having been taken in by similar sloppy expressions of others who he otherwise had reason to respect, or which appeared in venues which are believed to be scrupulous in serving as jealous guardians of the people's liberties against the encroachments of an ever-ambitious state. Whether this is so in this case or not, each such error-- original or adopted-- cuts the bad guys a break they don't deserve, and transforms a little of what should be firm ground beneath the peoples' cognitive feet into sand. I call on everyone to watch for such errors and call them out whenever possible.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

-Thomas Jefferson

CtC Warrior Dennis O'Connell has prompted major gyrations from the IRS's Rook 'em, Soak 'em Robot by simply filing an educated return claiming the return of property which the government agrees was improperly withheld from him, because his earnings during 2011 don't qualify as "income" and are not subject to any related taxes. On May 21, 2012, the government acknowledged these facts very unambiguously:

You knew there had to be a "but", or this wouldn't be a proper "ring-around-the-robot" episode, right? Click here for the rest of the story...

Are You Ready For More Power?

"Peter Hendrickson has done it again!  'Upholding The Law' does for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did for tax law compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable truth!"

-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado

CtC-Educated Lawyers: It's Way Past Time For You All To Queue Up!

[Y]ou really need to familiarize yourself with Pete Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and in his book(s).  He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the code" regarding the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."

-Mark C. Phillips, JD

"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."

-Jerry Arnowitz, JD

"Your book is a masterpiece!"

-Michael Carver, JD

"Received your book yesterday.  Started reading at 11 PM, finished at 4 AM."  "I have 16 feet (literally 16' 4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer before being admitted to any Bar."  "I hope you sell a million of them." 

-John O'Neil Green, JD

“Thanks again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot to a lot of people.” “…as an attorney, I am humbled by your knowledge and ability in navigating the law.  THANK YOU for your hard work and sacrifice.”

-Eric Smithers, JD

"I am an attorney and want to give a testimonial to your book, which I find to be compelling. I am exercising these rights for myself and my adult children. I'm even considering making this my new avenue of law practice."

Nancy "Ana" Garner, JD

Learn what these colleagues already know, then step forward and become part of a coordinated, mutually-supportive squadron focused on developing strategy and deploying the law in courtrooms across the country.  There's a lot of suing that needs doing right now.

Are you ready for a challenge that'll put some real meaning behind all the effort you went through to get your credentials?  Send me an email. 

Find The Solution Here