(Thanks, A. :)

Reader AC writes;

***************************************************************************

Re: Reader: 'Anna Von Reitz has no legal leg t....

U.S. Laws and Treaties are NOT automatically on par with the Constitution.

Under our political system, power was always intended to remain in the hands of the people, hence the limits to power and authority that the Constitution imposes upon the federal government, and the reason for the first ten amendments to our Constitution.

"Federal law supersedes state law" or "federal law is supreme" is one of the big lies that we have been sold... and it could not be any further from the truth! Please review the following and see if this is not made perfectly clear to you.

The Supremacy Clause:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution creates what is clearly a conditional statement in that with regard to U.S. law being the supreme law of the land it states that; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof"... the meaning of this of course being that all U.S. law must be “made in Pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution in order for any such laws to hold a place together with the Constitution as being the supreme law of the land. United States laws therefore do NOT automatically share the status with the Constitution of being "the Supreme Law of the Land" unless the new laws first meet the all important criteria of having been made "in Pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution, and thus an unconstitutional law is void from its inception... And this also hold true for treaties. The U.S. Government can NOT "lawfully" make laws or enter into a treaty in order to circumvent the Constitution. Obama was going to do this very thing by entering into a treaty with the United Nations to ban all small weapons and thereby make guns illegal in the hands of individual citizens. This attempt failed, but barely, and so they will keep trying again and again. And I believe that this is in great part because the right argument has never been made in defense of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is NOT about any technology and it isn't even about guns or an individual's right to self defense. It is about a principle. It is about the people having the Right and also the ability and the means with which to overthrow a tyrannical government if and when that should become necessary in order to preserve their freedom. And that principle is as valid today as it was back in 1791.

Our Constitution is a Covenant:
Under our system of law, once a document is amended, the new provisions, conditions and the directives of the amendment override and supersede all that came before it. And should there be any areas of conflict or dispute between what is in the original document and what is in the amendment, it is always the provisions and the directives of the amendment that shall and must prevail. In any and all contract dispute cases, this is how the courts have always ruled and continue to rule to this very day... And we must not forget nor overlook the fact that our Constitution is in fact also a covenant and has been considered such from day one, and so our U.S. Constitution is therefore also subject to the same rules of contract law. The government relies incorrectly on the "supremacy clause" and on the "commerce clause" of the Constitution for their claimed authority to regulate the firearms industry, but this is very much an overreach. U.S. laws can only be made part of the "supreme law of the land" together with the Constitution when these laws are "made in Pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution... Just read carefully Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution to see that this is clearly a conditional statement.

With that in mind, the Founding Fathers used a very clear command directive in the Second Amendment that was intended to override and supersede everything and anything that the government may attempt to rely upon for their claim of authority to regulate the firearms industry. And because only a new amendment can change the provisions of an existing amendment; Until such time as a new amendment is passed that specifically addresses firearms, the Second Amendment stands unaltered and as originally written and with its original meaning and with the force of its command directive that very clearly states that, "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall NOT be infringed". The Second Amendment does NOT provide nor grant this Right to own and have guns and weapons for it is assumed that the people already have this Right... Instead what this amendment does by its command directive is to prohibit the government from interfering with or in any way infringing upon this Right. In fact, the use of the word “SHALL” or in the negative, "SHALL NOT" implies mandatory and compulsory and thereby removes and eliminates all discretion and also makes clear that it is not subject to any reinterpretation of its very clear meaning. The truth of the matter is that any anti-gun law or regulation seeking to prohibit or license firearms in America is in fact a direct infringement and therefore a violation of the command directive contained in the Second Amendment.

Understand also that history supports this notion that only by a constitutional amendment can the Constitution or any of its amendments be altered or reinterpreted or changed in any way. And one clear example of this is the fact that it took passing the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol in order to bring about the era of Prohibition. But once the mistake of Prohibition was realized, the decision to correct that mistake then took the passing of another amendment (the 21st Amendment) in order to put an end to Prohibition. Any new act that would have been passed by the Congress or any presidential executive order intended to end Prohibition would have been wholly insufficient to have lawfully accomplished this task as the 18th Amendment had made Prohibition "the supreme law of the land". And that as a result of passing the 18th Amendment, this clearly made it a requirement that in the future in order to make any kind of formal change to the manner in which Prohibition was enforced or reinterpreted, that a constitutional amendment would first be required in order to proceed with changing or altering any part of Prohibition. And the same holds true for the Second Amendment. Acts of the Congress and/or presidential executive orders, and also treaties, can have NO lawful effect on the Second Amendment. The Constitution is very clear that only via the constitutional amendment process can the Constitution be changed. And understand that the constitutional amendment process was put into the Constitution in order to guarantee that each and every state would have an equal vote and an equal say in matters having to do with any proposed changes or radical re-interpretations to the Constitution.

However, we have a corrupt government that does not abide by the conditions and limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution. Instead as Catherine Austin Fitts has said; "Our government operates as a criminal enterprise".

In addition, remember that Washington has never bargained in good faith.

"Every single treaty the Indians made with the U.S. Government was broken by Washington; the U.S. Constitution is the treaty that the American people have with the Federal Government, and it too is now also being broken". – Russell Means, Indian activist.

p.s. Here also is some of what the high court has already had to say on this matter:

“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” - Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

Constitutional Right – “A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith”. - Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, 567, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685. – Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition.

”The Constitution is a legal binding contract between the government and its employer (the American people). The U.S. Supreme Court was right when it said, "The Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it meant when it was adopted, it means now!"” U.S. vs. South Carolina (1905).

"The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that licensing or registration of any Constitutional Right is itself unconstitutional." -- Follett vs. McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944).

***************************************************************************