Four articles by Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, senior professor of the Organic Laws of The United States of America plus United States judges no longer take oaths to support the Constitution of September 17, 1787!

Date:   1/1/2013 2:20:16 AM ( 11 y ago)

"... The Article VI oath 'to support this Constitution' means to adopt 'this Constitution,' and no President of the United States or member of Congress has ever taken an oath 'to support this Constitution'."[1]

Also lower down on that page; "It is a government secret that all courts administering written law in conformity with the Constitution of the United States are legislative in power and not judicial. Proprietary power is the authority exercised by the judges sitting in these courts."

This supports my earlier blog that says the case against Vernon Hershberger (a private farmer in Wisconsin, living with his family on their own private farm who provides agricultural support to his private food club members) needs to include a jurisdictional challenge re: the proprietary power that should be proven as the true foundation for any lawful action against Vernon. Read the very brief "O.J. Simpson ..." piece and wherever you see "Nevada" substitute it with "Wisconsin" and then think of Vernon Hershberger. It could begin to give you an introductory understanding about the usurpation of Vernon's case.

***
January 4, 2013 - More from Ed Rivera in support of the above.:

Law and Government According to American Constitutional Law

"My course of instruction in the law and government, the Basic Course in Law and Government, shows the Student how to use the Organic Laws of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 to prove all governments in America are legally limited to the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America. Public education is an unrelenting extolling of the magnificence of the American Democracy minus the revelation that the democratic State is limited to the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America.

The first Organic Law the Declaration of Independence served written notice to the world that an oppressed people could DE CLARE themselves free of an ancient government. The second Organic Law established the Confederacy of the United States of America, which would prosecute the American Revolution to a negotiated peace with Great Britain.

The third Organic Law of the United States of America, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, is a direct refutation of the notion the Confederacy, the United States of America, was without the legislative power to tax or enact laws. The Northwest Ordinance is proof at the Organic Law level the Confederacy possessed taxation and legislation power over the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America and no other. ..." See "A REVIEW OF WHAT IS AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" - Jan 2nd[2]

Furthermore, every state legislature that has agreed with the "Constitution of September 17, 1787" should be able able to answer any question as to the meanings of the terms and phrases (i.e. "the United States") that are written in that constitution including what land/s the constitution refers to when it says "the supreme Law of the Land"

***
September 9, 2015 -

Just released! - "... a perfect introduction to ... 'This Constitution'[3]

***
September 19, 2016 -

More revelation from Dr. Ed Rivera:

"...We are captives of government because we have allowed ourselves to become the subjects of legislation. Such a transformation and resulting imprisonment is only possible if government has taken the place of the Creator. Despite the national motto: In God We Trust, the Creator has ceased to be the origin of unwritten law and unalienable rights. In America, God has been replaced by the cult of the Constitution in which unalienable rights have been replaced by constitutional rights. The amendment of the Constitution with the so-called Bill of Rights confirms the adoption of the Constitution by the United States Government for the further creation of legislation for the people of the United States living on government territory."[4]

Another professor who idolizes a former teacher who would thump her copy of the Constitution down on her desk in the spirit of "the cult of the Constitution". Fortunately after hearing that story told a few times I finally seized an opening to respond saying the Constitution is only 1/4 of the Organic Laws and that the other three are required as the greater context within which an enlightened view of the Constitution can begin to be had. My professor friend agreed!

***
December 19, 2016 -

"...Both Trump and Hillary have claimed the November 8 election was rigged in some way. This Post will discuss how the May 25, 1787 Constitutional Convention made rigging a part of every Presidential Election."[5]

***
January 17, 2017 -

In a Washington Times article Richard Posner was quoted as saying: "I see absolutely no value to a judge ... studying the Constitution".[6]

I posted a "comment" of quoted legal reference that I believe reveals the basis for how the Seventh Circuit Judge could make such a statement with apparent impunity.

The "legal reference" -

In the "Judicial Improvements Act of 1990" [H.R. 5316 (101st)] you will see:
SEC. 404. "AMENDMENT TO OATH OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES." as follows:

"Section 453 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out ‘according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to’ and inserting ‘under’."[7]

To understand the significance of this "amendment"(sic) you'll need to read the following:

"The Constitution at Art. VI, cl. 3 provides in pertinent part for the prevention of arbitrary exercise or abuse of 'The judicial Power of the United States,' id., by way of requirement that all justices and judges of the United States be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution; to wit:

'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; . . .'

Justices and Judges’ Oath of Office

In respect of the above requirement of Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution, Congress on September 24, 1789, in 'An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States,' 1 Stat. 73 (the 'Judiciary Act'), at 76 supply the oath or affirmation needed for federal justices and judges to be authorized to exercise the judicial power of the United States; to wit:

'Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit : "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."[8]

***
January 26, 2017 - "Understanding the Constitution"

I have a book that I must have gotten before I became a student of Professor Rivera. Yesterday I took the book out to review it and determine whether to keep it or not. The title is "Understanding The Constitution" by J.W. Peltason who gives full credit to his teacher "Professor Edward S. Corwin" whom "JW" says "knew more about the Constitution of the United States than any person who ever lived". I guess that means "the General" (as his students called him) knew more than the second set of "Founding Fathers"! If so I do not believe the claim!

After I did my review I changed the title on my copy of the book to read: "An Incomplete Understanding of The Constitution". It took me some time to come to this conclusion as I was attracted to the read as much as I could (at least of the fifteen page "Background of the Constitution" that included The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation). However what wasn't included was the third Organic Law!

The "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government" continues to this day to be acknowledged by Congress as the third Organic Law (following the first two mentioned above) and immediately preceding the fourth Organic Law that I (like Dr. Ed Rivera) refer to as The Constitution of September 17, 1787. The reason why "Understanding the Constitution" is incomplete by omitting the "Ordinance of 1787 ..." as an essential part of the "background" is because this Ordinance shows us the proprietary nature of government! Without the awareness and knowledge of this Ordinance we do not have the most real most - "down to earth" understanding of where government can Lawfully exercise its authority (except for the few who realize that Article I Clause 17 means exactly what it says). In any case omitting the third Organic Law from the "background" leaves a gap large enough to fall through! Unfortunately this writer is a witness to a "nation full" of people who have fallen through - that I now realize with this book at hand! I think I'll keep it as an example of the "gap" that is completely out of the awareness and therefore the knowledge and understanding of what appears to me to be most Americans.

***
April 15, 2017 - Here's why gaining total clarity regarding the legal definition of the term: "United States" is so crucial in each and every instance.

"... the linchpin of the judicial-authority scam is the special statutory definition of 'United States' created by Congress exclusively for use in the courts, and used sub silentio (under silence; without any notice) by every executive and judicial officer."[9]

***
December 16, 2017 - “the best Constitution, we believe, ever devised by man.”

What constitution is this statement referring to? See "Comparing Constitutions"[10]

***********^***********
Notes:

[1] http://edrivera.wordpress.com/

Consequential to this fact in law - one wonders what archetypes of the psyche people are projecting onto "the president".

"New, Improved Oath Of Office For The President Of The United States

'I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and take on the psychological projections of 300 million Americans, and to a great extent, the other 6 billion people in the world, too'":

http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/max-reif/new-improved-oath-of-office-for-the-president-of/

"In this context, I strongly recommend the book Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag, by Carolyn Marvin and David Ingle (Cambridge University Press, 1999). In the religion of American nationalism, they argue, the god is the group symbolized in the totem fetish (the flag), and embodied in the totem leader, the President. The mass media perform the same functions that sacred and priestly texts perform in other religious systems.":

https://madnessatthegates.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/barrys-blog-40-the-ritual-of-the-presidential-debates/

[2] http://www.edrivera.com/?p=1778

[3] https://organiclaws.org/introduction-to-this-constitution/?utm_source=Organic%20Laws%20Update&utm_campaign=afe6375dbc-9_7_15_9_7_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4c3080ecc3-afe6375dbc-51507105

According to the Constitution the primary function of the PoTUS is stated in this paragraph:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, ...":
Article I, Section 7, Clause 2:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The "U.S. National Archives & Records Administration" titles the Constitution of September 17th, 1787 as: "The Constitution of the United States" whereas the preamble cals it:
"this Constitution for the United States of America". The term: "Constitution" appears a total of 19 times in this document and of those 19 there is only one time where it appears in the phrase: "the Constitution of the United States" and that is at Article II, Section I, Clause 8:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

There are 12 times where we find the phrase: "this constitution" in this document. Dr. Ed Rivera teaches that there is a difference in the meanings between "the Constitution" and "this Constitution" and that when the individual who is taking the Oath or Affirmation ("before he enter on the Execution of his Office") "swears (or affirms) his faithfulness - it is not about "this Constitution". In fact there is no obligation whatsoever by the President of the United States to actually support "this Constitution" at all! Instead he "solemnly swear"(s) to execute the Office to "preserve, protect and defend" the property of the United States of America which altogether constitutes "the United States" that includes lands within the fifty states that have been seceded to the United States of America.

4]
http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2

[5]
http://us10.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f8e38d415be497134eee68415&id=bae3e72c66&e=a0fab7067b

[6] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/richard-posner-no-value-in-studying-us-constitutio/

[7] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/101/hr5316/text

[8] https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/fatal-defect-in-every-federal-case-since-march-1-1991-all-such-decisions-and-judgments-void/

[9] https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/houston-irs-summons-case-exposes-linchpin-of-judicial-authority-scam-lufkin-motion-to-vacate-final-judgment-update/

[10] https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/comparing-constitutions/

***********^***********
Keywords:

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera, ed rivera, law, government, American Constitutional Law, organic laws, Democracy, taxation, supreme Law of the Land, president of the United States, electoral college, presidential election, constitution

 

Popularity:   message viewed 10548 times
URL:   http://curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2021083

<< Return to the standard message view