"�If they remain quiet under misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to public liberty...� - Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787

Obviously, silence isn�t golden; it is a death sentence for liberty. It is the death sentence for the United States of America, a union founded by brave people speaking out in the face of sure death if captured and the willingness of people to take up arms, protect, and ultimately secure their God-given rights.

The union of states founded was formed in part on the principle that all men are created equal in the eyes of God, a fact that is represented clearly in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America. The only exception to this writer�s knowledge is that members of Congress on the way to, or while in session, are exempt from arrest. This, however, does not mean they may not be arrested on the way home or while at home, or impeached during session.

How has the death sentence been slowly but surely carried out? To begin with, Congress is only supposed to meet once a year but not for nearly all year long. After all, the Constitution is the law of the land and Congress does not have the authority to make laws concerning the citizens of the many States; it may only make laws concerning its jurisdiction stated in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8).

For the most part, all needful laws by Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) were made at least a 100 years ago, if not 200. Thus, the only constitutional reason for any lengthy gathering is in the event of a war or comparable national emergency. The annual meeting is not, and never was, intended for the legislative body to get and stay together all year in order to arbitrarily make laws.

Here is what the Constitution states concerning the Constitution and law-making:

�The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.� Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution for the United States of America

Does this give Congress any power to make any law repugnant to the Constitution? Does it give any judge or other judicial officer the authority to make any ruling contrary to the Constitution? Actually, judges have a special clause all their own:

�This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State not withstanding.� Article VI, Clause 2, Constitution for the United States of America.

Clearly, neither Congress nor any executive of any level of government may make laws that are contrary to the Constitution. And nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision allowing any law to be made based on what elected officials think is best (Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143). Nor can a law be based on what the majority thinks is best since unalienable rights are not dependent on the majority but only on what has been granted by our Creator.

Just as clear is the fact that no judge nor any judicial officer can do anything against or make any rulings contrary to the Constitution and the rights of the sovereign. In fact, judges are supposed to rule in favor of the sovereign and not the government anytime there is even the slightest question as to the meaning of a law. [�Doubt relative to statute construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government.� Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2nd 863; Lexington Mill & E. Co., 232 US 399, pp. 409. (1914)

Here are the basic rules of laws:

(1) If a law infringes upon the rights of even one sovereign (by birth right citizen of the United States of America, the law is null and void ~ Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. (2 Cranch) 147, 180: �All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.� (See also 16 Am Jur 2nd Ed, p. 177)

(2) If a law is not interpreted by two citizens the same, then it is held void for vagueness. A valid law must state what it means and mean what it states (United States v Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 195). Although moot in the face of constitutionality, there are thousands of thousands of laws that are void for vagueness. Just for example, IRS employees and supervisors interpret very little of Title 26, Subtitles A and C correctly or the same and Rossotti (head guy of the IRS), is afraid to put anything in writing in response to questions demanding specific sections of authority.

Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that lawmakers should make certain determinations when �fixing to� write a bill. If not made, then the odds are the bill will be an attempt at deprivation of rights of the People, and that it will be based on what the lawmaker �believes� rather than what lies within his authority. And, since at least 90 percent of bills are never read by 90 percent or more of congressional members, then the bill could very well be passed into law based just on what the lawmaker(s) says it does.

How many thousands have been unlawfully passed into law (unlawfully pertaining to Constitutional limitations on government)? Well, just concerning firearms, there are over 20,000. If an accurate count is desired, count every law passed by Congress that is within the limits of the Constitution. Then, determine the total number of laws made that allegedly affect the sovereign. Subtract the former from the latter.

Of course, this doesn�t include those laws made by State and state political subdivisions. All these are done under color of law excepting (maybe) those defining punishments (redress) for crimes. Remember, though, that no action is a crime unless there is a victim (sovereign damaged in some manner).

Or, if you want to simplify the matter, remember what it means to be �sovereign�.

Thus, all laws affecting the rights of the people, including those applied to property and rights (including taxes excepting laid on property obtained through privilege), drugs, personal automobiles and trucks owned by right, licenses of any kind, fees of any kind for a specific activity, travel on public owned highways, and so on (to the total of laws made outside of Article I, Section 8) are null and void based either/both on vagueness/unconstitutionality.

Of course, we citizens are expected to know and obey any invalid law made by any level of government. It doesn�t matter if a thousand new ones were created in the next few days. If we are expected to know all the laws and obey them regardless just because some elected officials have made the law, the writer doesn�t think it is too much for officials to know two basic rules:

(1) No law may be made which is repugnant to the Constitution for the United States of America, which means no law may be made that adversely affects the rights given by God. Unalienable rights are unalienable.

(2) If a bill cannot be written simply enough to assure any citizen reading it that it has a specific meaning (and a meaning not infringing upon his unalienable rights), then the bill should never be presented to the lawmaking body and, if it is, the lawmaking body is obligated by Oath to trash it immediately for being either repugnant to the Constitution or void for vagueness.

To summarize: (a) bills written repugnant to the Constitution have only one true purpose � to infringe upon the rights of citizens; and, (b) bills written to confuse can only have one purpose � to infringe upon the rights of citizens.

Do you believe it is beyond the abilities of those elected to office to assure constitutionality? And, the writer does not mean constitutionality as determined by courts and high dollar lawyers but by what the Constitution states. There is a world of difference between these two as thousands of rulings (in traffic cases alone) are made every year that are repugnant to the Constitution by corrupt, treasonous judges.

Is it too much to expect that lawmakers have enough intelligence to assure bills and laws are written so that any citizen can read them and derive exactly the same meaning as any other citizen?

Is it too much to expect that judges obey their oaths of office and obey only the Constitution as is required of them?

This writer thinks not but, of course, this writer believes that unalienable rights are unalienable and that no body of politicians and appointees, nor any body of the People, has the power � no, make that the �authority� � to remove rights given him by his Creator.

And, the Constitution for the United States of America, the document securing the rights of the Sovereign (the People), agrees.