<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lewis: Supreme Court Opinions v The Inherent, Inalienable Rights of Man</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/11/28/lewis-supreme-court-opinions-v-the-inherent-inalienable-rights-of-man/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/11/28/lewis-supreme-court-opinions-v-the-inherent-inalienable-rights-of-man/</link>
	<description>Re-examining &#039;Truth&#039; in America</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:30:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/11/28/lewis-supreme-court-opinions-v-the-inherent-inalienable-rights-of-man/comment-page-1/#comment-5892</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.federalobserver.com/?p=6237#comment-5892</guid>
		<description>Ed, Bill Walker did not suggest that Congress has the authority to call a constitutional convention. He is simply referring to the text of Article V, which outlines the amendment process. It describes two separate processes to propose amendments for ratification. The first is the commonly known one which has been used to effect 27 amendments to date: both houses of Congress approve proposing the amendment with a two-thirds vote. The other is the (apparently wrongly) unused one of proposing amendments via a convention convened specifically for that purpose. According to Article V, Congress SHALL call such a convention once two-thirds of the states&#039; legislatures have applied for such a convention. In either case, the proposed amendment(s) must be ratified by three-fourths of either the states&#039; legislatures or of special ratification conventions elected by the states individually (the choice of which resides with Congress).

At any rate, the outcome of a convention if called (as Congress appears constitutionally obligated to do with all 50 states having applied) is not the question. Rather, it is whether our elected officials, especially Congress, see the Constitution as the rules by which they must play. Their complete ignorance of the question of an Article V convention despite clear Congressional Records entries showing the required two-thirds of states&#039; applications indicates their lack of concern for the authority of the people&#039;s Constitution. WIthout the proper enforcement of this Constitution, our government degrades into tyranny.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed, Bill Walker did not suggest that Congress has the authority to call a constitutional convention. He is simply referring to the text of Article V, which outlines the amendment process. It describes two separate processes to propose amendments for ratification. The first is the commonly known one which has been used to effect 27 amendments to date: both houses of Congress approve proposing the amendment with a two-thirds vote. The other is the (apparently wrongly) unused one of proposing amendments via a convention convened specifically for that purpose. According to Article V, Congress SHALL call such a convention once two-thirds of the states&#8217; legislatures have applied for such a convention. In either case, the proposed amendment(s) must be ratified by three-fourths of either the states&#8217; legislatures or of special ratification conventions elected by the states individually (the choice of which resides with Congress).</p>
<p>At any rate, the outcome of a convention if called (as Congress appears constitutionally obligated to do with all 50 states having applied) is not the question. Rather, it is whether our elected officials, especially Congress, see the Constitution as the rules by which they must play. Their complete ignorance of the question of an Article V convention despite clear Congressional Records entries showing the required two-thirds of states&#8217; applications indicates their lack of concern for the authority of the people&#8217;s Constitution. WIthout the proper enforcement of this Constitution, our government degrades into tyranny.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/11/28/lewis-supreme-court-opinions-v-the-inherent-inalienable-rights-of-man/comment-page-1/#comment-4594</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.federalobserver.com/?p=6237#comment-4594</guid>
		<description>Mr. Walker,

As far as I know, Congress has no authority to call a constitutional convention.  All that I believe can be done is to amend it, with the Amendments then becoming part of the Constitution.  If it did occur, I believe it would most assured the results would be a mirror image of the damnable UN Charter, or give the UN complete control.

Besides, I think that no matter what is written, the controlled officials will do whatever their masters want, just as they have been since the Jewish International baking cartel led to just three senators passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  No doubt there were many crimes committed by government prior to that, especially by Lincoln but the main thrust of overthrowing America has been the last 60 years.  

Others will disagree, I am sure, but it is quite difficult to pinpoint an exact date or administration but it seems since the advent of &quot;attorneys&quot; allowed, a group associated with the IBA of London, England (might be in the Rothschild City of London) to essentially infiltrate every government branch, many of them holding two offices at once.  And, the first two were created in America during Lincoln&#039;s administration.  But, that is, of course, another slimy story of perverted Law.

The only fault I find with the Constitution is the somewhat confusing commercial clause, as it seems most people do not know &quot;among&quot; does not mean &quot;between.&quot;

In other words, if every official obeyed the Oath of Office, we would have none of the problems we have now.  But, we people failed in our duty to our land and have aided and abetted every act by out of control governing bodies politic, in particular as we are now treated as their property (artificial persons in law created by them for their pleasure).

But, we shall see what we shall see, as the overthrow continues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Walker,</p>
<p>As far as I know, Congress has no authority to call a constitutional convention.  All that I believe can be done is to amend it, with the Amendments then becoming part of the Constitution.  If it did occur, I believe it would most assured the results would be a mirror image of the damnable UN Charter, or give the UN complete control.</p>
<p>Besides, I think that no matter what is written, the controlled officials will do whatever their masters want, just as they have been since the Jewish International baking cartel led to just three senators passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  No doubt there were many crimes committed by government prior to that, especially by Lincoln but the main thrust of overthrowing America has been the last 60 years.  </p>
<p>Others will disagree, I am sure, but it is quite difficult to pinpoint an exact date or administration but it seems since the advent of &#8220;attorneys&#8221; allowed, a group associated with the IBA of London, England (might be in the Rothschild City of London) to essentially infiltrate every government branch, many of them holding two offices at once.  And, the first two were created in America during Lincoln&#8217;s administration.  But, that is, of course, another slimy story of perverted Law.</p>
<p>The only fault I find with the Constitution is the somewhat confusing commercial clause, as it seems most people do not know &#8220;among&#8221; does not mean &#8220;between.&#8221;</p>
<p>In other words, if every official obeyed the Oath of Office, we would have none of the problems we have now.  But, we people failed in our duty to our land and have aided and abetted every act by out of control governing bodies politic, in particular as we are now treated as their property (artificial persons in law created by them for their pleasure).</p>
<p>But, we shall see what we shall see, as the overthrow continues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fizz</title>
		<link>http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/11/28/lewis-supreme-court-opinions-v-the-inherent-inalienable-rights-of-man/comment-page-1/#comment-4508</link>
		<dc:creator>Fizz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.federalobserver.com/?p=6237#comment-4508</guid>
		<description>HOW dam unreal can it get I askl myself.........

OUR brilliant partici8pants AKA  Senators?  Look like they hAVE BEEN SHOT THREOUGH KNOT HOLES  PERHAPS  EVeN BACKWARDS?  it IS TAKING A TOLL...but LET THEM ATTACK our constitution....AND i AM THINKING THERE WILL BE MORE THAN THREATS AND KNOTHOLES.  Say what?:????

Thanks Jeff for workin all week-end.. Get some rest...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HOW dam unreal can it get I askl myself&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>OUR brilliant partici8pants AKA  Senators?  Look like they hAVE BEEN SHOT THREOUGH KNOT HOLES  PERHAPS  EVeN BACKWARDS?  it IS TAKING A TOLL&#8230;but LET THEM ATTACK our constitution&#8230;.AND i AM THINKING THERE WILL BE MORE THAN THREATS AND KNOTHOLES.  Say what?:????</p>
<p>Thanks Jeff for workin all week-end.. Get some rest&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Walker</title>
		<link>http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/11/28/lewis-supreme-court-opinions-v-the-inherent-inalienable-rights-of-man/comment-page-1/#comment-4506</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Walker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:53:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.federalobserver.com/?p=6237#comment-4506</guid>
		<description>Mr. Lewis I&#039;m sure will be interested to learn about the following. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention, some 20 times the number required to compel Congress to call a convention. Congress has refused in criminal violation of its oath of office. This fact was admitted in open public court by the attorney of record for the members of Congress and is a matter of public record.

The texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org. The lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress can be read at FAQ 9.1 on that site.

The basics of the suit were that the court agreed that under the political question doctrine the Congress may veto the Constitution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Lewis I&#8217;m sure will be interested to learn about the following. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention, some 20 times the number required to compel Congress to call a convention. Congress has refused in criminal violation of its oath of office. This fact was admitted in open public court by the attorney of record for the members of Congress and is a matter of public record.</p>
<p>The texts of the applications can be read at <a href="http://www.foavc.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.foavc.org</a>. The lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress can be read at FAQ 9.1 on that site.</p>
<p>The basics of the suit were that the court agreed that under the political question doctrine the Congress may veto the Constitution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

