American Constitutional Research Service
Perhaps it is wrong, but the evidence seems to be quickly mounting that one of
America¹s most formidable contemporary groups which can be defined as a domestic
enemy [those who work to subvert our constitutional system], are an
identifiable group of practicing attorneys at law who argue constitutional
issues, not from a point of view defending its “legislative intent”, but from a
viewpoint either supporting or acquiescing to stare decisis [precedent setting
decisions of the Court] which are not in compliance with the “legislative
intent” of our Constitution as contemplated by those who framed and ratified
the Constitution.
It is not only an irrefutable fact, but one of common sense, that one of the
most basic rules of constitutional construction is to carry out the intent of
the constitution as contemplated by those who framed and ratified the document.
Unfortunately, this fundamental rule is not given the necessary attention it
deserves to law students when the subject of constitutional law is discussed.
What is being taught is an adherence to “case law” or, stare decisis, which is
the means by which our Constitutional System is being subjugated. But, even so,
the doctrine of stare decisis may not constitutionally overrule the legislative
intent of our constitution, and thus, an understanding of the most fundamental
rule of constitutional law becomes even more important to law students.
The burden of refuting bad case law involving the legislative intent of our
constitution lies with those who assert the unconstitutionality of such
decisions, and this can be done via Judicial Notice, but, if lawyers have not
been properly trained, they are helpless and serve as the useful idiots of
those who act to subvert our constitutional system.
For example, to expose the unconstitutionality of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, the proper course of action is not to argue the hardships,
inconveniences, or intent of the statutory language of the ADA as written by
Congress and interpreted by the Court, but rather, that said prohibited
discrimination contained in the Act was never intended to be covered by the
limitations of the 14th Amendment, nor is it within the legislative intent
under which Congress was granted the power to regulate commerce.
Sad to say, the evidence indicates the Brother Hood of Lawyers is not about to
kill the goose which lays the golden eggs, and so, arguing the legislative
intent of our constitution, via Judicial Notice, has become a forbidden means
for redress. See the following piece.
The question is, when will those who claim to be Americans, reject the bread
and circus game created by the media which is liberal vs. conservative, and
begin to understand the distinction between a real American, and all others,
which is, real Americans support and defend our constitution as contemplated by
those who framed and ratified the document.
The above was reprinted from the Jefferson Review