portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

actions & protests | imperialism & war

United States v. Kebodeaux, due to be heard by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS

United States v. Kebodeaux, and due to be heard by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on 17 April, will be the most important ruling in all of American history [V.K.D.]
A startling report prepared by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is today warning that the case known as

United States v. Kebodeaux  http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-kebodeaux/
A startling report prepared by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is today warning that the case known as United States v. Kebodeaux, and due to be heard by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on 17 April, will be the most important ruling in all of American history as should it be lost, the Obama regime, and all of those to follow, will have gained total power to rule the lives of US citizens "from cradle to grave".

Important to understand, this report says, is that under the United States Constitution, the "general power of governing," commonly known as the "police power," belongs to the 50 individual American States— not to their Federal Government.

Because the US Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the States do. The exceptions are laws regarding Federal property and the military; the Federal government was also granted broad police powers by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

The main effect of this "balance of power" between the States and the Federal government, this report continues, are the different laws seen among the many States, the most contentious of them being abortion, health care, gun rights and homosexual marriage.

Not being understood by the majority of Americans, this report says, are that States are "free and able" to ignore Federal laws almost at will, but fail to do so because of the Federal governments "carrot and stick" relationship with them. For example, this report cites the mandatory seat belt laws adopted by the States after their being enticed to enact them by the Federal government offering tens of millions of dollars in funding bribes, but should they have failed to make them law they would have lost billions in matching highway funds.

So dependant upon Federal government "bribes to enact laws" have the States become over the past century, MOJ experts say in this report, the percentage of State budgets dependant upon these monies range from the lowest of North Dakota's 25.99% to Mississippi being the highest at 49.01%, with the average being nearly 40%.

An adverse ruling in United States v. Kebodeaux, however, this report says, would forever change the current relationship between the States and Federal government giving to the latter the police power they have so long coveted, yet been denied by the US Constitution.

The case being pushed by the Obama regime to enable the Federal government to gain police power over the States has at its center a 34-year old Texas man named Anthony Kebodeaux.

In March 1999, Kebodeaux was a 20-year-old airman stationed at Peterson Air Force Base, in Colorado when he began a consensual sexual relationship with a 15- year-old girl, who would sneak out of her home at night and take a cab to the base to be with him. This relationship led to charges that Kebodeaux had "carnal knowledge" of a "female under the age of 16," in violation of Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that he disobeyed orders to have no contact with the girl and to remain on base.

In special court-martial proceedings, Kebodeaux pleaded guilty to the charges and the tribunal sentenced him to three months confinement and a bad-conduct discharge on 17 May 1999. Kebodeaux served his sentence in the Air Force Corrections System, was unconditionally released from custody, and returned to his home in Texas sometime before 18 September 1999.

Between the years 1999-2006 Kebodeaux lived trouble free in Texas until he failed to register as a "sex offender" during a short move and a time of great personal upheaval in his life. The State of Texas had no interest in prosecuting him, but the same could not be said of the Bush regime.

Arrested by Federal police, not the State of Texas, in 2006, Kebodeaux was charged under a Federal law recently enacted, and 7 years after he had been unconditionally released. Though he was tried and convicted by a Federal jury, and served 1-year and 1-day in Federal prison, his conviction was overturned upon appeal by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a unanimous decision, who ruled his arrest and prosecution were unconstitutional.

At this point, MOJ experts in this report say, and using past US Federal government precedent, this case, and the issues surrounding it, should have been settled... that is until the Obama regime came to power in 2009.

Seeing in United States v. Kebodeaux a "unique" chance to overturn the US Constitutions application of police power, this report continues, the Obama regime pushed two similar cases through the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit obtaining rulings in conflict with the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, thus insuring it would ultimately be ruled on and decided by the US Supreme Court.

To how frightening this case has become, this report notes, can be see in the Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent filed with the US Supreme Court by the public policy research organization Cato Institute (CATO) which, in part, warns: "Stripped to its essence, the government's argument would ultimately allow perpetual jurisdiction over anyone merely because they were once subject to federal jurisdiction and are now deemed to be dangerous to the public."

Critical to note is that United States v. Kebodeaux is the second case the Obama regime has used during the past years in their effort to gain for the Federal government unlimited power, and as we can also read as reported by the American legal scholars at CATO:

"Last year's partial victory in NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case) is already being applied to new cases reaching the Supreme Court. Recall that, in that case, the Court accepted our argument that the government cannot use the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to compel someone to purchase health insurance. The Court held that allowing Congress to compel commerce into existence would be an improper use of a great and limitless power. In United States v. Kebodeaux, the Supreme Court will once again address an assertion of power that, if upheld, could give Congress nearly limitless power."

To which Americans are "subject to Federal jurisdiction" is the "key" to this titanic struggle, this report says, and which the Obama regime in United States v. Kebodeaux is, once again like Obamacare, asserting that even those who don't engage in commerce are still doing so by just doing nothing, because if they wanted to they could.

With the US Pentagon now listing Catholics, evangelical Christians and some Jews in the "religious extremists" category along with the KKK, Hamas and Al Qaeda, this report concludes, and with the Obama regimes "official mouthpiece" MSNBC now telling Americans that their children no longer belong to the parents but, instead, "belong to the collective," and should the Federal government get total police powers granted to them by the US Supreme Court, the United States will effectively cease to exist.

source:  http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1673.htm

"alarmist" is an understatement 09.Apr.2013 14:18


Can you show us where MSNBC said children don't belong to parents, but to some kind of collective?

all cases, in law and equity 10.Apr.2013 14:30


consider the pool hall: a shark can play but a hustler has that blade slipped between your ribs before you hear the mosquito's wings. similarly, you as a person, claimed citizen by government and state, are likely engaged, by virtue of your geographical status, in a struggle for your own personhood antedating the birth of your grandparents. thinking large on this struggle, resolving to either fight or disengage, remember that tactics may decide battles but strategy utilizes these battles for an overall victory.

now consider your opponent. its justices appointed for life with hallowed salaries, the supreme court faces neither review nor appeal on its rulings. only the supreme court deems acts of the president or congress illegal, essentially allowing the federal government to define its own constitutional bounds--no checks, no balances. one might look to the senate, but the senate cannot try officials (except, of course, senators, but then only the senate may try senators), vote on treaties, nor confirm supreme court nominations. to boot, only a third of the senate's members are affected for each senatorial election, the rest sitting comfortably in an office without term limits.

not that any of the above matters: the united states government cannot even be sued in a court of law unless it so consents. furthermore, corpus juris secundum (19:xvii, sections 883-884) defines the united states government as a foreign corporation to the states, with no liability. the stacked decks of peaceful revolution aside, your opponent (strategically) had the rules of the game skewed, cleared, and stamped before you ever stepped up. so alas, perhaps, for what the system allows and what remains, true activism is a warm gun.