Senate Amendment (SA) 1126 would "clarify" Section 1031 to explicitly state within the section that the authority of the military to detain persons without trial until the end of hostilities does not apply to American citizens. This was voted down 55-45.
What this means is that 55 Senators voted to NOT protect Americans from indefinite detention should they be deemed a "terrorist."
"The detention provision was hashed out in secret by Senators Carl Levin and John McCain. Lindsay Graham, a supporter of the bill, explained that it would, "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield' and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial "American citizen or not.'" (click here)
What can constitute "terrorism" in the clearly deranged minds of the government?
Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?
- Attacking the Pentagon
- Hate crimes against racial groups
The correct answer they had to choose before continuing with the training was "protests." Yes, now, the 1st Amendment is being turned into a "terrorist" activity, and our own Senators voted for this treasonous piece of legislation. This is proof of their treason and they, themselves, by the government's own definition of "terrorism," have branded themselves as domestic terrorists if they act on this bogus law:
Terrorism = "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce... the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 CFR 0.85(l)).
Besides being traitors to their oath of office and the American people, these antics by Congress are also illegal and void, despite what they may try to tell us...
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886).
"...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ...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 to the Contrary not withstanding." Article six of the U.S. Constitution.