Posted originally on Feb 11, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

I have listened to the oral arguments and have considered this entire 14th Amendment nonsense. Some have tried to argue that it is self-executing, meaning that Congress does not need to write a statute. That is really absurd, for we are talking here about trying to overthrow the entire foundation of democracy when pretending to be defending it. That is like pushing the button to attack Russia because I knew they wanted to do so; therefore, I was acting in self-defense by pushing the button first.

States have the right to control their local elections. However, they cannot interfere in federal elections. To do so would mean that they are depriving the rest of the country of their right to vote, for a federal election cannot take place if some states remove a candidate and others do not. This is a justified argument for separating the United States.

While nobody raised the Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers may have never anticipated a rouge action like Colorado and Maine in banning Trump from the ballot. Still, they did address this issue of one state interfering with the rest of the nation. The Commerce Clause PROHIBITS any state from trying to impose a ban on the exports of another state to boost its own production. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Commerce Clause expressly forbids a state from interfering in national commerce. That jurisdiction is reserved strictly to Congress. I cannot imagine how any state can claim such a power to interfere in the federal election for the national office of the Federal Government that is not a local state office.

If the Supreme Court upholds Colorado’s decision, then it is time to break up the UNION, for it is no longer viable. I fear we will see violence regardless of how the court rules.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s Absolute Immunity claim, saying: “We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter,” the judges wrote.”

The Constitution does not directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, this privilege has evolved over time through the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It is generally accepted that the President is absolutely immune from civil liability for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the “outer perimeter” of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct. In fact, nobody was actually given immunity by the Founding Fathers. It has been the course have have credited immunity – not the Constitution.

“Prosecutorial immunity” is also a judge-made doctrine that cloaks prosecutors in near-absolute immunity from suit. Under this doctrine, prosecutors cannot be sued for any actions related to their job as a prosecutor, no matter how egregious the behavior. For example, prosecutors cannot be sued for knowingly prosecuting an innocent person, withholding evidence of innocence, or even fabricating false evidence of guilt.

Prosecutors can do whatever they want, and you have ZERO rights, even human rights, against those in the Deep State. This entire question of immunity to me defied the Declaration of Independence, and this is the intent of the Constitution to restrain government. With ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, they can fabricate evidence, put you on trial, and execute all knowing that you were innocent. This defies everything that the Constitution intended.

Declaration of Independent Complaint #15

“For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.”

In 1768, two citizens of Annapolis, Maryland, were murdered by Marines from a British ship. Even though there was overwhelming evidence against them, the Marines were acquitted.

I doubted that the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals would ever rule in favor of Trump. They have their marching orders. To me, either nobody has absolute immunity, or everyone does. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants such immunity to anyone! That very proposition stands in direct confrontation with the Declaration of Independence. If this disgusting Jack Smith, who indicts Trump in Washington, which he can control for a crime he has to prosecuted in Florida, shows that he is violating the very intent of the Sixth Amendment. But he is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE for anything he does to the nation or Trump. That is wrong!

They had President Nixon hands down, and yet they pardoned him to save dividing the nation. Those ideas no longer exist, and the entire problem here is these prosecutions have torn the nation apart and polarized the people. They have set in motion the ultimate division of the United States – it cannot stand as a united nation when one side tries to impose a dictatorship, their ideas offending even the religious beliefs.

In Greek Democracy, it is true that women had no right to vote. What is overlooked is the fact that they did not need one. This was all before SOCIALISM, and there was not even an income tax. The head of the household voted like a congressman for everyone in the house. But those were questions like war. Even if someone killed another, the victim’s family is prosecuted – not the state. The ONLY crimes where the state became evolved were those directly against the state of offending the gods, as was the case with Socrates. With socialism, then laws were made directly against behavior, and income tax was applied to everyone. Thus, everyone then had a right to vote. This is what is tearing the country apart – this belief that one side gets to dictate behavior. What if Muslims gain political control and then dictate you have to have four wives? What if Mitt Romney were president a issued an executive order allowing multiple wives? This is the whole problem that is terminating the union.

So, unfortunately, this entire immunity question is NOT law – it is the discretion of judges, and therein lies the crisis. The Founding Fathers relied upon the definition of law articulated by Lord Coke and Blackstone. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Categories:RULE OF LAW