America's Best Illusion
by Mark Yannone
You wouldn't think it would be too easy to steal $8.5 billion a day, every day of the year, including Sundays and holidays. But with the help of the old media and lots of preconditioning by government educators, skilled speakers like Andrew Napolitano pave the way for our 100 senators, 435 representatives, 9 Supreme Court justices, and one acting president.
The role that FOX News judicial analyst and former judge Andrew Napolitano has been playing is to convince Americans that the US Constitution has been changed by acts of Congress and executive orders from the White House. He performs this duty in his books, on FOX News appearances, and in speeches like this one in Washington, DC. Using carefully chosen words, he artfully pretends to validate this gang's unlawful seizures of power.
Most of his unsuspecting readers and audience appreciate his apparent patriotism and join with him in bemoaning the "loss of rights." Wherever the likable Andrew Napolitano speaks, the audience is led to think that the federal government is wretched and evil for "taking our constitutionally protected rights away." Who could disagree with that?
I can. So can the United States Supreme Court:
"[a]n unconstitutional act is not a law; . . . it imposes no duties; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).How to Amend the Constitution
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one." Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97, 101-02 (1887).
"An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime." Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376 (1880), quoted with approval in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 408 (1963).
The Constitution describes clearly the processes for amending the Constitution. The processes are found in Article 5. If these procedures are not followed, then the Constitution remains intact and unblemished by the corruption attempted by Congress, the president, and FOX News' judicial analyst, the blustering Judge Andrew Napolitano. We should not be too surprised to find that this is not taught in government schools, just as government schools also fail to teach American children that jurors have the right and the duty to judge not only the facts of a case but also the law itself.
Article VIn other words there are two ways to change the Constitution, with two variations in each method:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Method 1: A minimum of two thirds of the US House of Representatives AND a minimum of two thirds of the US Senate must agree on a proposed change to the Constitution, AND then a minimum of three quarters (38 of the current 50) of the state legislatures OR state conventions must agree to every word, comma, and period of the proposed change to the Constitution. Passage in the state legislatures is by simple majority in the state House AND in the state Senate. Passage in the state conventions is also by simple majority. Typically, a time limit of seven years is imposed for ratification, after which the proposal expires, worthless. This is the only method that has been used to date. The requirement for a state convention has been specified only once.
Method 2: A minimum of two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of the current 50), House AND Senate, must call for a Constitutional Convention. The convention proposes one or more amendments, which must then be approved by simple majority by a minimum of three quarters of the state legislatures (House AND Senate) OR by a minimum of three quarters of the state conventions. This method has never been used.
An outline of the means by which the United States Constitution can be changed looks like this:
- Congress proposes, state legislatures ratify.
- Congress proposes, state conventions ratify.
- State Constitutional Convention proposes, state legislatures ratify.
- State Constitutional Convention proposes, state conventions ratify.
We don't have a constitutional crisis in this country. All we lack is the education to enforce our laws, which we, as final arbiters of the law, have a right to do. Teach your friends and relatives and neighbors to see through this grand illusion. That's the recipe for freedom you've been seeking.
Watch: Who Is the Ultimate Arbiter?
See also: High Court: Gitmo Detainees Have Rights in Court



























































5 comments posted. Click to read or comment.:
It was mentioned recently on cyberspace, under the Federal Reserve, is organized crime...
Napolitano your name will be added to the list, ...er black blook after NY's whore-monger Spitzer.
Too much clever writing and not enough point. What precisely is your beef with Andrew Napolitano or his book? Napolitano is one of the closest things we have to a libertarian critic in the senior government service. I don't see him saying that "the constitution has changed" as much as he is saying that "the government is acting as if the constitution has been changed," which is quite a different message.
Good idea, Chumgrinder. Although the subject is covered elsewhere, this is a good place to pull it all together. Thanks for the suggestion.
I'm not impressed with the rewrite. Napolitano speaks de facto -- you speak de jure. The difference is clear as crystal to any one of us "final arbiters of the law" who find that our power to demand our rights is curiously ineffective against the MP-5 stuck in our ear by a badly "educated" civil "servant."
Did you forget that you are in the militia? Lock and load.
Post a Comment