Rewrite a law repugnant

Posted on 11 May by Ron Conte Janet Smith has decided that Humanae Vitae contains a translation error, which, when corrected by her, results in a stunning change in Church doctrine, suddenly limiting the condemnation of contraception to the marital state.

Rewrite a law repugnant

If we want to live under that system of law, we have to do the same thing. CHOOSE to live under Common Law, form a jural assembly for our communities as brilliantly summarized by the Michigan Jural Assembly which has already had their Common Law System in place for decades, elect judges to fill the vacant judicial offices, and live accordingly.

This is the way this country was set up and so far as I am concerned, the way it is still supposed to run. Those who do are law abiding.

Guantanamo Bay | HuffPost

We are free to accept, amend, and reject laws within that system as every jury sees fit. Such a jury can rewrite a law they find unfair or impractical or they can utterly reject one they find unjust, vague, or unworkable.

Jury nullification is where the average people called to jury duty get to enforce their will on the entire system— in Common Law, that is. The jury does that. He listens to the arguments along with the jury, maintains fair rules of evidence and argument, asks questions, but at the end of the day, the JURY makes their own decision and the judge executes their sentence.

That is also why there is no appeal from a jury trial unless substantial new evidence likely to have changed their reasoning comes to light. The judge is just a referee and servant of the court and the clerk is just that, a clerk keeping good records of the proceedings and testimony, evidence and filings.

Under Common Law, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under Common Law, there has to be an actual, identifiable injured party— someone has to stand up and accuse you of harming them or their own property.

The only exception is in the case of murder or disabling injury of a victim, such that the injured party cannot bring suit for themselves. The Justice is just there to organize things properly and impose a level playing field for both sides to get a fair hearing of the issues.

This is the system that we are heir to once we clearly decide to adopt our birthright status as American State Nationals. In their courts the judge is all-powerful and juries are rubber stamps for him.

rewrite a law repugnant

The judge interprets the law in these admiralty courts, tells the jury what to think, tells the jury what they may or may not consider as evidence, tells the jury everything but how to wipe their noses. Their courts operate just as everyone can see them operating—- as prejudicial military tribunals where everyone is considered guilty until proven innocent and where no constitutional guarantees apply.

In their courts, there are endless codes and statutes and regulatory infractions and abundant cases of victimless crimes. The majority of cases in such courts never present an actual injured party and both plaintiffs and defendants are represented by attorneys acting as Third Parties giving hearsay evidence that would be immediately thrown out of any Common Law court.

You all know or should know that you are supposed to be operating as people on the land and not as persons on the sea. Mulligan Ex Parte very clearly states that wherever our American Common Law Courts are up and operating, the admiralty courts must cease operating as military tribunals and revert to their proper place as courts merely concerned with actual maritime contracts and other admiralty issues.

These foreign international courts which are doing so much damage to our property and our people are merely opportunists filling a gap that we left open through ignorance. When our courts stand on the land, their courts cannot usurp— but when we allow our Common Law Court System to stand vacant, the cat is away and the rats can play.

I can hear some people asking— what do you mean, our courts are vacant? The moment you incorporate anything, it leaves the jurisdiction of the land and sets sail on the international jurisdiction of the sea. So the simple act of incorporating a county government changes its jurisdiction and its character and its law form.

They were assigned and limited to international jurisdiction and under international law from the start. The state and county governments on the other hand, are responsible for operating the land jurisdiction.Sep 05,  · Seems to be a great misunderstanding about a law, a law does not enforce itself.

A law does not prevent crime. The Constitution is the supreme Law of the land and it prevents neither a violation, nor a usurpation, of it. • Why do courts have the power to decide the power of the constitution? Declaring a law void is not a usurpation of legislative power because leg.

power is sovereign. • Gibson’s issues in Marbury: 1. Constitutional Law versus Legislative Law 2. Court’s power 3. Legislature can police itself.

American Atheists, the group that has been trying to remove the Ground Zero Cross from the National 9/11 Museum in New York, has been asked by a federal appeals court to explain why it finds the artifact to be "offensive," "repugnant," and a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Feb 01,  · The President cannot repeal or veto a law that is already on the books. 2. Congress cannot veto any law that is already on the books.

that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Whichever chamber of Congress originated the bill may also rewrite the.


What is REPUGNANT? definition of REPUGNANT (Black's Law Dictionary)

law is quite clear on the fact that anyone convicted of terrorist attacks is barred from entering the country. In raising funds for a murderer and perpetrator of fraud, SJP seeks to rewrite history and blemish the good name and moral principles of DePaul University.

Plagiarism is repugnant, punishable by law Fanfiction Please recognise this book as the rights of mine, though I have no rights to the real Warrior Cats series.

Alpha & Omega Development, LP v. Whillock Contracting, Inc. | California Anti-SLAPP Project