OBAMA ON IMPORTING MUSLIM JAHADISTS
IN TO THE UNITED STATES
This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our freedom. County, State, and National Assemblies are forming across our world nullifying the corrupt corporations. Watch and become AWARE! Participate and be a part of making history! 62 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”Conclusion
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.”Marshall concluded:
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”In other words, the high court’s decision gave themselves the authority to nullify any law passed by Congress and state legislatures and even by the majority vote of the people, if they believe it violates the US Constitution. Thus part of The Judiciary Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional.
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled President Obama cannot use executive privilege to keep records on the "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking program from Congress.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the administration to release documents that it has been attempting to withhold by asserting executive privilege.
The ruling also requires the administration to release to Congress all "segregable portions" of records they are withholding that are considered "attorney-client privileged material, attorney work product, private information, law enforcement sensitive material, or foreign policy sensitive material."
"Judge Jackson's statement, 'I don't want to know,' clearly bars the parties from divulging the contents of their settlement discussions only to her; a broader bar, if any, would have to be inferred for it is not explicit," Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for a three-judge panel.
The statement does not clearly refer to third parties, let alone protect responsive records from a Freedom of Information Act request, the court found.
"The Department offers a good reason Judge Jackson might have wanted to prohibit disclosure to third-parties - because protection from disclosure promotes more open dialogue during settlement - but there is no extrinsic evidence that was what the judge intended; indeed, that concern is nowhere mentioned in the record in this case, and it is equally plausible that Judge Jackson wanted simply to preserve her objectivity in case she ultimately were to preside over a trial," Ginsburg continued.
On remand, Judge Jackson must clarify what she intended by her statement.There is no question that the Justice Department and Eric Holder knew exactly what they were doing when they trafficked thousands of weapons into Mexico. That criminal action has cost the lives of hundreds of Mexicans, two US federal agents and no telling how many more that we have yet to discover.