Accusing any widely accepted theory of having been motivated to fool people is not a position we choose. However, Lincoln’s quote does make us believe that anything deviating from truth must have its day in which its erroneous nature is unveiled. Therefore, we do choose a position to encourage closer scrutiny on many of them.

Any Justice in Supreme Court Can Be Removed

―100% Guaranteed by the US Constitution!

The Judges in the Supreme Court are called Judges by the Constitution, but they call themselves the Justice.

For 230 years, American people have been made believing that the Justice can be on the bench forever, unless one quits on his/her own choice, because, they are told, the Constitution so guarantees the judge's employment with this statement “The Judges,… shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” [Section 1, Article III]

The key of this statement is “good Behaviour”, but by whom is the behavior considered good or bad? By the Republican Party, or by the Democratic Party?  By the Christianity followers, or by the evolution believers who have uncompromised hostility against the concept of Creator? It can be for sure that any judge would not be viewed as having conduct of good behavior if he officially supported atheism in the late 18th century after the establishment of the Constitution.  It could be even viewed as committing a criminal act if any one of them would attend a homosexual marriage ceremony to give support in those days.  

So, the Constitution obviously embeds in itself the guidelines that conduct violation can constitute a reason with enough legitimacy to have a judge removed, and that anyone can formulate an opinion defining good behavior or bad behavior on a judge.   Of course, not anyone who considers the judge carrying bad behavior can remove a judge.   But, then who, and how?

Logic and practice in all human history must make this truth indisputable: He who has the power to employ has the power to revoke the employment, and he who is employed can be dismissed by his employer. Therefore, according to the following rule set in the Constitution, any Justice can be discharged by those who install him to the office:    

The president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint …Judges of the supreme Court”. [Section 2, Article II]

Subsquently, whenever the president encounters enough information, whether acknowledged directly by himself or by the contribution from the others, to formulate an opinion that a particular Justice  shows behavior not up to the satisfaction of the president, he can nominate such a person as a candidate to be unseated from the bench.  Then, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” he shall dismiss this person from the office of the Supreme Court.  Fair and square!

The Constitution has statements covering how to terminate one’s office power from the office of Congress and the presidency. It is inconceivable that, with the wisdom that the Founding Fathers showed, they would leave the third branch of the Federal government alone, allowing the Court to become a niche where an officer’s responsibility can be exempted from other’s review and so that he can abuse power. 

If the president is alleged committing the crime of treason, he is sent for impeachment, and if the impeachment is validated, he is removed from the office.  What if a Justice is so alleged? He cannot be isolated from his office to wait for fact finding?  It is absurd.  If he is finally found guilty of treason, he cannot be removed from the bench with such obvious bad behavior because proper way of having him removed is not found in the Constitution? It is even more absurd.

The constitutional keys left to the American people by the Founding Fathers to have any Judge uninstalled from the Supreme Court are (1) good Behaviour, and (2) the procedure how a judge is hired for such an office.  Both keys come together certainly assert that the Judges in the Supreme Court are personnel of comparatively lower rank in the power cascade of the Federal government.  To strip any of them from employment can follow a procedure that is far less complicated than something like impeachment. In fact, in the list of employment priority, the judges of the Supreme Court are placed in about the same rank as “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” in the text of the Constitution.  The only difference between the Judges and the rest is that they are given an armor of behavior.  But if the armor is soiled with undesirable characters in other's scrutiny, it can  become a reason leading the Judge to be yanked from his office.   

Whenever any Form of Government (such as in the form of Supreme Court) becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it....[Declaration of Independence].        

Lecture one


Sanctuary City


Sanctuary city is a concept that openly and boldly challenges the Constitution of the USA.  Its existence must only function to dismantle the Constitution and divide this country.  It is absolutely violating the purpose of common defense provided in the preamble, which is stated in the following:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If the US politicians ever have people who genuinely understand the Constitution and truly possess the will and soul to defend America, they should have long trashed the outcry of sanctuary city, allowing no single inch of land for it to stay.  But now, this evil concept is endowed with a halo of democracy, poised to file lawsuit against the US president’s move of stopping its funding.

  1. The US president, the current one or all who preceded, does not seem to know he could and should use executive power to immediately crush all sanctuary communities and no court procedure or Congress debate can stay in his way; any sanctuary community exists in the form against common defenseis insurrection, and should be removed without negotiation.  Need to waste time and energy to attack them via funding? No kidding! “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.
  2. A big number of the Congress members are now preparing themselves to show support or opposition to the president on this issue.  If they feel the need to give even one second of time for the negotiation on the matter of sanctuary cities, American people should ask where the Congress gets the power to allow insurrection gaining legal status to negotiate.  As a matter of fact, if they ever have any sense about the Constitution, they should have long ago pressed the president to have any sanctuary city removed.
  3. US Supreme Court is a joke.  It has a long history in pioneering the destruction of the US Constitution in the name of explaining and defending the Constitution.  If it ever accepts to preside over a lawsuit in which any sanctuary city is a plaintiff, the Court would have implicitly and preemptively asked people to accept the sanctuary city as an entity with legality and legitimacy no lower than common defense emphasized in the Constitution.

American people have been misled for too long by their politicians on the understanding of the US Constitution.  Some politicians even make themselves ready to collapse the current Constitution for their personal gain.  For this purpose, they put up all kinds of lies and misconception to noose people’s mind, such as that sanctuary cities are a democratic practice in this country.  Really?  The Constitution must have statement to destroy itself in order to be complete? Some serious review on the US Constitution is critically needed to the continuing existence of this country. There will be more lectures coming in this hall.  Everyone is cordially invited. 

“Freedom” of Speech,

Where America’s Suicidal Message Is Read

© 2015 Cameron Rebigsol


1.Purpose of speech

2.Defending or Trashing

3.On The Benghazi Attack

4.Taboos and Land Mines

5.NBA, Clipper, Sterling

6.“Due Process of Law”? Or Not!

7.Smell of Conspiracy


  PDF copy also available

1.  Purpose of Speech

With nearly no exception, speech, or expression in any form, is put up to serve one purpose: to influence others. Then, freedom of speech or expression, also serves only one purpose: exerting such influence without risking consequence, particularly the consequence from the government. Almost anyone spending energy to exert influence is expecting to gain something in his favor.  Therefore, freedom of speech has one ultimate goal: being able to gain something but at cost that is politically free. America does have law for her citizens to pursue this goal.

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” mandates the 1st Amendment. As such, the American government cannot make law to stipulate what kind of speech, or expression, is allowed or disallowed. Strictly speaking, the 1st Amendment makes the government powerless even if someone makes speech threatening the president’s safety or makes sexually vulgar statement to a nine year old girl, so long as the speech maker takes no action to realize what his speech suggests.

However, at where there is influence, there is usually anti-influence. In America, both of the opposite expressions must have equal right to exist if the 1st Amendment and the 1st Amendment only is genuinely applied. It is natural that influence and anti-influence must cause conflict, from slight to sever. Many blood shedding events just starts from “free” speech. To smooth the social disturbance so agitated by speech, government action is imperative.  

In most countries, particularly the socialist countries, government taking action for any purpose, including quelling speech, is extremely convenient. All these countries also have law to “guarantee” free speech, but the priority of such guarantee is proportional to power; such a priority appropriated by power is also stressed by another part of the same law body. No one can have higher power than the few chiefs who have monopolized the government power.

Being aware of the government’s unsurpassed power, our Founding Fathers use the Constitution to clip away the government’s power of speech controlling. In their eyes, the government is merely an employee of the governed, who otherwise have no power if not the Constitution. However, at time that the government takes action to mediate the conflicted pair of speech, suppressing either side based on any reason is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. A separate power endorsed by the Constitution must be found for the U.S. government to decide which side can retain the freedom while the other side correspondingly cannot. Otherwise, the government would have acted like a despot, determining everything based on personal preference; lawlessness thus naturally begins, and begins from the few oligarchs holding power in the government office.  

Does the American Constitution provide the government with such a separate power in question? Yes, it does! Before 1868, only one of such power is found, but it can only be applied to certain issue. Beginning 1868, one more is added and can be universally applied to any issue in American political life. Such a power is enacted in Section 1, Amendment XIV.

Through Section 1, Amendment XIV, the government is given the power to “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” provided that the power of abridging is executed with the satisfaction of the condition of “due process of law”.   Of course, the law herein referred to is assumed to have seamlessly conformed to all parts of the Constitution in case it is not a direct text quotation from the Constitution itself. With this power, the government can take away anyone’s privilege of expression if such an expression, either influencing or anti-influencing, is desired to be removed by someone.

Before the adoption of Amendment XIV, what could have given the government the constitutional power to settle the competition between conflicting speeches, particularly after the First Amendment is adopted? Frankly, the resource is very limited although powerful. Its power is only applicable to argument involving religions, in particular, between Christianity and non-Christian beliefs. This power is found in the Supreme Law adopted in 1778, i.e., The Article of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which has a special article stressing the protection of Christianity:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship….binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion

This statement arbitrarily makes separate due process of law unnecessary if conflict between Christianity and any non-Christianity belief shows up. The status of Supreme Law of the above statement is so affirmed by Article VI of the Constitution of 1787:

All debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…

The power so granted to the government, and so mandating the government, to give spiritual privilege to Christianity over any other belief must still steadfastly stands uncompromised today, so long as the Article of Confederation continues to stay as the only document ever to have given the formal name to this Country.

2.  Defending or Trashing

Naturally, in mediating the conflict between speeches, the government is inevitably making law abridging the freedom of speech of one party while equivalently giving favor to its opponent. Then, depending on how the favor is granted, the government cannot escape from the responsibility of having had the 1st Amendment defended or trashed; there is no neutral position for the government to dwell in.

Sadly, event after events beginning the early part of the 20th century with the court case of Scopes Trial, the US government has been more and more openly telling the American citizens in their open eyes that it is leading the way to alienate the 1st Amendment. The act of alienation by itself is not that dreadful, although tragic enough, because government chiefs are human beings, and every human being has his moment of making wrong decision. What is dreadful is the intensity of alienation is incessantly escalated, one step at a time, with stronger and stronger smells of conspiracy, either in the name of defending the 1st Amendment, or getting power from it. As such, “freedom of speech” in America has become a powerful political instrument to persecute people whose speech is not found in tune with what the few powerful ones want to hear.

It has been well experienced by Americans today that speech favoring Christianity can entrap a citizen to face serious legal consequence. Simply, a principal in a Texas high school reading a few lines from the Bible to the students is fired by the government. The firing absolutely has no legal base. The only reason from the principal’s boss is that the principal is doing something not matching his responsibility. How is reading Bible to the students not a teaching? Is Bible a forbidden book in schools? But which law says so? How firing him based on what he is reading has not violated “no Religious Test shall ever be required”? Is the 1st Amendment a higher law or the boss’s decision a higher law in determining this principal’s privilege? Which part of the Constitution says that atheism has higher legal priority over Christianity in this country?

There are more examples flooding in this country about persecution against Christianity speech. Will anyone dare to pledge “One Nation under God,” and “In God We Trust” in any public school?   A nurse in hospital praying for a patient with Christian wish is a good reason for her to get fired. Merry Christmas is a taboo for a sales clerk to mention to the customers in more and more stores.   Today, even Easter Egg Hunt has been prohibited in many schools.

3.  On The Benghazi Attack

One most typical example of persecution against Christianity can be seen from the incident of Benghazi attack. Before we go into more details about this incident, let’s review one Islam message.

“We will decimate this Christian empire of capitalism,” declared at a big assembly by a renowned Muslim, who leads the major mosques in Boston and Harlem. That a message so offensive to the Constitution and so threatening to the sovereignty of America suffers no consequence from our government is a typical signal showing that our government has chosen to be religiously oriented―but in the direction against Christianity.  

Of course, one may say that the 1st Amendment is in his protection. Really? Then, can the same person explain why the film maker of “Innocence of Muslim” is not protected by this amendment but immediately arrested when the Benghazi terror incident occurs? “We have arrested the film maker for your son,” the government told the mother of one of the four American citizens murdered in this incident. With this message, the US government has further delivered to the world the following messages: (1) The Islamic world cannot be offended by our people in any way, even only in words. (2) He who so offends must be punished without hesitation. (3) This country has made itself ready to sacrifice Christianity as the number one scapegoat if doing so can please the Islamic world. (4) In the name of religious freedom, Christianity has been made subjected to the approval of Islam by the American government. (5) Most critically, the US Constitution has lower sovereignty compared to that of the Islamic world in resolving the conflict between the U.S. and the Islamic world.

It is true that the film maker of “Innocence of Muslims” did commit some crimes before the arrest, but none of the crimes is related to what his film advocates, and these few crimes are not the purpose of the arrest. They are just some ‘by-products” serving as fig leaf to cover the ridiculousness of the arrest. Ironically, indeed, he is not charged with a crime of making such a film upon the arrest although the arrest is directly motivated to punish such film making.   What if the government cannot find these few criminal by-products from the film maker but just the film? Then, what else would legitimize the government’s action to “have arrested the film maker for your son”?   How could the punishment of the few crimes irrelevant to the film be justified to the arrest and compensate the loss of the mother who lost the son to this country’s enemy? Does it mean that if the government making random arrest of anyone else can also serve the purpose to compensate this mother’s loss?

Currently the government admitted that it knew the Benghazi attack was not a consequence of the film even at the time the arrest was made. This is a pointblank manifestation of our government that some Christians must be punished so long as the Islamic world feels unhappy about America, regardless of whether or not such Christians are the source inciting the Muslims’ unhappiness.   Let’s suppose that the Benghazi attack did have been agitated by the film. So what? The theme of the film is making some foreigners hostile to this country unhappy. Is making them unhappy with words a crime in this country? Whom is our government chosen to align with? In history, many U.S. presidents have statements making the Islamic world unhappy, should we arrest all these presidents? It is true that many of those foreigners attacking our embassy may have relatives or associates in this country holding the same belief. Making those foreigners feel hurt may make these relatives or associates feel hurt, too. Is that a good reason for this country unable to say anything offensive to those foreigners? Then, Dwight Eisenhower, a German decedent, must be prosecuted for having led the ally troops crushing Germany in WWII; many of those German military people must have relatives or associates in America during the war.      

Compared to what the above renowned Muslim is allowed to advocate without consequence, the arrest of the film maker shows that our government has naked cruelty against Christianity. What is truly incredibly puzzling people’s intelligence, however, is that the American Christian world is silent in front of the government’s naked anti-Christian stance. After extensively long time of Christianity being demonized by atheists and the corresponding brainwashing and persecution promoted by our government in various ways, many Christians have chosen apathy toward the persecution against the belief they hold. Many of them even have developed the Stockholm syndrome, giving full sympathy to those who mudsling at their belief and persecute them. Many in the Christian population are also very successful in their professional fields, and this makes them too busy making living other than protest. To them, so long as they feel they still can go to church next Sunday, persecution is some reality too remote from them.   We have heard flooding complain like “the liberals have endangered our country.” Can these apathetic Christians resign themselves from having taking the role of providing collaboration to the endangerment?

4. Taboos and Land Mines

Aside from religion, that “someone feels hurt” can be a law to arbitrate how much one’s freedom of speech would be protected by the 1st Amendment. As such, a collection of taboo expressions has been created by someone and adopted by our government in arbitrating persecution. Be careful, though, all these expressions are not necessary legally black and white to your awareness for you to avoid, it is more in the form of land mine. When you use them, you may feel they are legally neutral enough, but when they explode, it may cost your arm and leg. Here is a glossary of a few of those taboo expressions.

Negro (Comment: To avoid this term, color-people is once used. It has quickly become an unwelcome expression, then, African American is used―even the word “black” is to be avoided as much as possible. However, how someone with African trait must be an American? Should this country someday specify people with Asian American, Hispanic American, European American, Polynesian American, West-Indian American, Arabic American, Australian American…? But we are in a country that is said to be against racial division or ethnic division.)

Redskin (Comment: Is it a crime or sin for any skin carrying color?)

Oriental (as a person) (Comment: It seems so far a taboo only in Washington State. But why a word related to location or direction has law significance?)

Queer, dike (Comment:Someone has the pride to do what these words denotes but rejects to be labeled with what these words describe. What a contradiction!)

Male, female (Comment: In some universities, the professors stipulate that using words of gender distinction would lead to failing grade point. But then, the traditional usage of the word “he” in referring human beings in general is offensive to women. For example, “He who has enough votes can be the president” must be replaced with “He or she who has enough votes can be a president.” How could the students avoid the gender reference? Are you puzzled how “he” and “she” have not been “male” and “female”? Maybe common core education can give you some answer. Of course, the sentence “He who commits murder must be sentenced to death” does not have to be governed by this “rule”―Relax, women will not protest.)

Illegal immigrants (Comment: In its place are the so called undocumented immigrants. However, currently even undocumented immigrants are not allowed to be used by some reporters―Just say “immigrants”, period. So far, the illegal immigrants still only invade this country unarmed. Someday, someone can invade this country openly armed, and Americans would have lost any legitimacy to say even a damn―all invaders are just immigrants.)

Anchor baby (Comment: The best comment is given by Jeb Bush: “If you can give me another term to mean the same thing, I used it.” Why is the term so neutral in every sense hurting people, but creating the existence of what this term means not hurting the same people? Why must we care how people creating anchor people get hurt, but not how Americans having been hurt by the anchor baby creators?)

Hussein (Comment: This is the middle name of Barack Hussein Obama II. However, the Texas high schools disallow it from appearing in their textbooks in order to avoid “confusion” with Saddam Hussein. In case Obama is the first person ever having this name but someone notorious in the future also takes this name, what should people do? Tell Obama to give up this name? Or forbid this future person from using this name? Or burn all the textbooks?)

Islamic Terrorist (Comment: Using these two words separately is OK, so far, but putting them together is forbidden in media practice and in government document. Equivalently, “Islamic extremists” has the same arbitrating power in determining the fate of someone who uses these two words. What is strange is that those terrorists must exclusively choose the label Islam to identify themselves.   Are these terrorists actually some kind of secret agents from some Christian sects but using the label of Muslim to defame Islam? But why do they only show uncompromised determination in destructing the world where Christianity roots?)

Alien (Comment: Currently a bill is proposed in the Congress to forbid using this word to mean illegal immigrant. He who proposed this bill openly trashed “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Even worse, if this bill is passed, it will begin an era that American citizens are subjected to the dominance of non-American citizens. Besides, if some Americans can call the policemen pigs, why the illegal immigrants cannot be called aliens?)

One general question from us is why “someone feeling hurt” can be above our Constitution. Should we remove all of our laws so that no one can feel hurt? Isn’t “making someone feel hurt” exactly one of the way for law to maintain its authority as well as one of the purposes of law enactment everywhere in the world? One can rest assure that any law not allowing anyone to get hurt must end up hurting everyone.    

A government worker in San Francisco calling an unfamiliar customer Mr. or Miss/Mrs. may risk his (Oops, should this author herein include “or her”?) job if the customer feels the gender so implied has been “disrespectfully” forced on this customer. So greeting a drag queen is a risky business over there. If you call the “queen” Mr., the queen can sue you, as the queen has robed “her”self with an apparent female appearance. If you call the queen Miss/Mrs., the queen can sue you, too, as the queen may have some business depending on being recognized as possessing a human male body―makeup has never been standardized by law for male or female. Those drag queens have the freedom of forcing you to lose your common sense but you do not have the freedom to express what your common sense guides you to express.  

Even just color usage may entrap a business with danger. In 2008, a newspaper publishing the portrait of Barack Obama who had secured the presidency was splashed with accusation of racism. The reason was that, according to all those accusers, the portrait had been printed too dark. It is certainly puzzling what may happen if the color happened to be felt too light. What is in your expression, Americans? During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s in China, an artist was accused of portraying the flags in a propaganda picture with red colors that was too light. He was then sent to jail. In those days, red is a sacred color in China.  

We all know that the teaching of evolution has been enthroned with all the legitimacy to crush the teaching of Christianity in all public schools. However, while evolution is madly promoted, no person is allowed to carry the study of evolution into the exploration concerning how natural selection has resulted in different innate quality for each race. While the same group of people insisting education of evolution holds that racism exists everywhere in the political society, they also forbid anyone from distinguishing races in the biological society. “There is only one race among human beings,” say they. Can they answer how racism would exist within only one race?  With the idea of only one race, are they going to thaw the “black lives matter” movement?

To the same group of people, mentioning statistic facts related to race is a crime. Therefore, for example, the size of brain of the African origin is not allowed to be mentioned. Instead of actual size, only the word elongate can be used. Any scholar publishing such data must prepare to risk his job and his academic future is ruined. The same treatment extends to the publishing of statistic description, such as crime rate, about a community where certain race is concentrated. For example, if a property own wants to put an ad for his rental property with a statement that “the major population in the neighborhood is white (or black, or Asians…)”, he is asking for legal punishment, let alone that he may even want to limit the prospective tenants to a certain race. It is also because of racial concern, red-line practice in the real estate loan business is forbidden by the government, while red-line was originally drawn based on income statistics other than racial statistics. “Someone getting hurt” can be above any law. So, people must learn when to recognize there is only one race and when there are multiple races. Failing to do so can lead one into serious trouble. If contradicting “facts” can be positively affirmed and endorsed by the same mouth, the citizens’ freedom of speech has been dictated by some liars. The 1st Amendment they entrust with for their protection has been made a zombie by the liars and commanded by the liars.

5. NBA, Clipper, Sterling

No more disrespectfulness to the 1st Amendment by American law workers can be seen in the event centered on the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball franchise in 2014. Based on a remark made by Mr. Sterling in some private environment but recorded and published by somebody else without the permission of Mr. Sterling, NBA banned him from the league for life, punished him with the maximum fine, and pressured him to sell the team. The entire development conducted by NBA is not seen having referred to any part of the Constitution, but a “higher” law―someone feeling hurt.  

It has been well known that recording someone’s private activity without the consent of this person is a crime, and that publishing such activity without corresponding consent is an even more serious crime. It has also been well known that evidence illegally obtained cannot be used to support allegation in court. However, NBA’s attention has not been focusing on the legality of the recordation of the remark and the corresponding Constitution application, but on who feels hurt.  

Frankly, if law is genuinely applied, even if Mr. Sterling made the same remark openly in public, other than boycott, no one, not any governmental officer or private citizen, has the right to punish him based only on this remark.   Honestly, racial discrimination, for or against, has never been a specific concern in the US Constitution. Therefore, no law, for or against racial discrimination, conforms to the U.S Constitution. As a matter of fact, it is exactly because language from someone may make someone else feel offensive that the 1st Amendment is established. Should law forbid all expressions across the board to guarantee no one getting hurt? Why should someone’s feeling be given the privilege to dictate whether or not a speech giver is entitled to the protection of the 1st Amendment?

It has been obvious that the action taken by NBA is not based on satisfying the US Constitution but to satisfy a racial sentiment overwhelming in the league. How has this practice conducted by NBA not been motivated by racial discrimination against Mr. Sterling, who looks white? If the punishment from NBA against Mr. Sterling is based on racial discrimination, Mr. Sterling can use the same reason to fight back. The catch is how much chance Mr. Sterling will win if he does fights back. Reality has told us that (1) racial discrimination as a law has never been congressionally and precisely enacted; its application is very subjective and thus very arbitrary, (2) racial discrimination as a law works one way, with black people being the major beneficiary of this undefined law, enjoying higher priority over others most of the time.   Facts supporting this view are overwhelming in America. The flexibility in the application of racial discrimination in law practice shows that blacks have been a preferred race in America, if not a supreme race. If not having been confident of the existence of certain sanctuary in their favor, no people of any group or race would and could rally with shouting such as “Goddamn America,” “We want a dead cop, now!” All this kind of expressions is of insurrection nature.

Currently and repeatedly, the “black life matters” movement sends hecklers to various rallies or assemblies held by non-blacks. There is no action from the government to stop this kind of actions that have obvious violated the right of other citizens. Can we imagine the same government being equally idle if it is the black assembly but being interrupted by non-black hecklers?   If law has stipulated that black people have privilege over any others, fine, we must all abide by the law until the law is overturned. However, this is the country whose government vows to disallow racial discrimination. Disallowing? Really? Or whether it is just promoting discrimination in the reverse direction but under the veil of disallowing?

6. “Due Process of Law”? Or Not!

Law workers are human beings. So law application and the decision following it cannot be guaranteed to be free of prejudice in every case. This is normal and understandable, although not desirable. However, if the prejudice can be seen with a pattern case after case, people can have full legitimacy to draw conclusion that deliberate discrimination is in the making and enforced. To maximally prevent the prejudice or even discrimination from dominating the law application, our Constitution, specifically through Amendment XIV, stipulates that legal decision made between groups of people of different background competing for law protection must satisfy due process of law.

Unfortunately, through the incompetent Congress, which has become an arena where only party interest is diligently pursued, Americans have given the Court the power of granting “equal protection” while due process of law is nakedly stripped of. Due process of law eliminated, equal protection becomes an instrument of persecution, as the Court can grant protection to anyone but strip of the protection of someone else and tell people that the granting has been motivated by equality and balanced with equality.  

Only through the measurement of “due process of law” can people find out whether or not two social components competing against each other deserve equal protection.   To earn equal protection, both components must possess equal social value. Suppose that a heckler bursts out with protest during a president’s addressing and the heckler is removed from the auditorium. Can the heckler apply the 1st Amendment as well as the “equal protection” clause from the Amendment XIV to defend his action? Yes, as a citizen he has this right to apply both. But “due process of law” must find him deserving protection of neither; the social value of this heckler and his speech of protest are far lower than what the president processes.  

By the same token, one can tell how absurd the Court has been in granting marriage license to homosexual couple in the name of equal protection. Due process of law can immediately find that heterosexual couple and homosexual couple possess absolutely different social value, no matter from the point of view of social law or natural law. Natural law must reveal the homosexual couple’s barren nature that can only discontinue offspring. Social law subsequently reveals that their behavior must result in the elimination of “posterity” in our Constitution, thus the termination of the nation. So, if due process of law is ever applied, the Court must find itself to have lost any ground to grant marriage license to homosexual couple. Issuing marriage license to the homosexual couple just legalizes the most fundamental destruction of the U. S. Constitution and subsequently the nation.

Forcing the issuance of marriage license to homosexual couples, the Supreme Court wreck our Constitution in two folds: (1) dethroning the spiritual privilege of Christianity that is emboldened in the Constitution―Christianity cannot tolerate homosexual, (2) dethroning the sacredness of the condition of due process of law.

Tossing away due process of law, the Supreme Court begins the era of oligarchy politics in America―”we the few are the law!” Of course, grantingthe same-sex marriage license is not even the first example of the beginning of this oligarchy politics. As early as in the 1960s, the Supreme Court already abused this power when mediating the arguments between Christianity and atheist/secularists regarding the education of evolution in public schools. Again, the reason the Supreme Court can be so spoiled is because of the incompetence of the Congress in controlling the power of law-making.  

If the Founding Fathers are still alive today, they must regret not to have had the First Amendment written to read as “Congress and the Supreme Court shall make no law…”   Why they have not so done is understandable for several reasons. First, in their days, because of the heavy soaking of Christianity teaching in people’s daily life, people’s minds are more law and moral abiding. Second, party politics in their days is not yet in shaped. So the Founding Fathers confidently assume that he who serves in the government will place national interest as the top most consideration in policy making. Third, in their vision, the way the Constitution drawn has stipulated that the Congress is the strongest branch of the three while the Court is the weakest. Not only the power of law making is denied to the Court, but any decision from the Court is subjected to the appellate power of the Congress that is so stressed in this statement: “In all the other Cases…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…with such exception, and under such Regulation as the Congress shall make.” Who in more than two hundred years ago can foresee the Congress so succumbs to party interest feud as seen today?

With the appearance of party politics, not only Congress has relinquished the power of law making to the Court without bound, but it is also not even seen to have ever exercised its appellate power over any court’s decision. With the Congress being so incompetent in restraining the Court, the Court runs wild, making law after law without ratification by anyone. Progressively, one step at a time, the Court has more and more enforced the oligarchy politics in America, unlawfully forced this nation to be converted into a country worshiping atheism and secularism. Subsequently, Christians are limitlessly persecuted.

To realize one party’s interest, which is fundamentally to get maximum votes in power grabbing, more and more anarchy elements are relentlessly unbridled in the society to make “victimized” people happy. Furthermore, no more efficient way can be found to purchase votes than using the unsurpassably formidable government treasure and national resources. Government power in hand, each party competes to satisfy the Socialist demand of the population, leading those who have been “victimized” limitlessly to access the national wealth, including relentless selling out the nation’s sovereignty. The cost is from Uncles Sam’s pocket, the power benefit so procured is for each “Robin Hood” to secure.   Where can anyone find better business than this if not in the Congress? The Court runs wild because the party politics in Congress runs wild. Never in history is America in such a great danger―potentially crumbling from within. If so many pillar components of a nation stipulated in the Constitution, such as posterity, official language, Christianity, and capitalist economy can be sacrificed for party interest, what is freedom of speech?

Loss of freedom of speech is not yet dreadful enough, because, if you do not want to be punished, you guess you can try to avoid the situation and stay silent. What is dreadful is that today the government, or the few with power, has created situation where a citizen cannot escape but must say what the powerful few wants to hear. Staying silent can be a crime and thus punishable! Too many of us have been familiar with this kind of stories: A Christian store owner declines to put up a message that a homosexual person wants him to put up; the content of the message violates the store owner’s subconscious. Then the Court orders that the owner either has to express the message in the way the homosexual person desires or risks a hefty penalty―all the way up to closing the business plus heavy monetary fine. Where is the 1st Amendment? It doesn’t matter. The Court, quoting “equal protection” while obscuring due process of law, has made the First Amendment not written for everyone, particularly not for Christians, but for the anti-Christians. The cruelty resulted by the obscuration of due process of law has even had the store owner‘s right to stay silent emphasized in Amendment V altogether scrapped. Hasn’t it been too familiar in history that in a big part of the world one must either utter “long live Stalin”, or “long live Chairman Mao”, or “long live leader Kim” or go to jail, or even get shot? History repeats itself today in America!

7. Smell of Conspiracy

The way how freedom of speech has been jeopardized shows an obvious pattern, a pattern in which all social components that the Constitution once took as pillars for the nation are devalued, such as the white, the Christians, the male, English, the rich… The devaluation serves one purpose: to crumble the authority of the Constitution. As these pillars are so sternly targeted at, and the targeting can be so frequently and more and more intensively escalated, the smell of conspiracy of regime replacement through constitution replacement with someone promoting behind the scene is getting stronger and stronger.

Yes, the world is changing; the value of each component is also gradually shifting. We must all rationally accept the change if we want to have a harmonic world. Our Constitution provides room for amendments to be added. However, the devaluation so done is always unmistakably riding on demonizing the components. Among all these components, the whites as a race are most profusely demonized as if they are all born criminal―all of them are either slave owners or perpetrators promoting genocide. People, if you ever have a heart toward this nation, let’s never forget that one white is sacrificed in the American Civil War for every 6 slaves to get liberated.   The next pillar placed in the altar to be cursed is Christians. This website has had plenty articles on this topic and will not repeat here. One thing Americans should not forget is that, although relying on these pillars for the success of this country, the Constitution does not have any statement to give them special favor, except it does give Christianity spiritual privilege over any other belief as well as enthrone English with the status of official language. However, Christianity and English are spiritual wealth that any citizen can share. The demonizing snatches every opportunity for its success, not even let go of the opportunity of creating division between men and women, such as the constant reprisal of “War on Women”. Who would launch war on women? If not men, who else?  

“It is time for a woman president,” claimed a president candidate. As far as speech is concerned, nothing can be found wrong in this claim with respect to law. But the political idiocy of this message can be immediately mirrored if someone claimed “it is time for a man to continue the presidency.” Sadly, Americans, particularly the women, are fanatical about this “women president” message. National interest, or political principle, is not what is in their consideration. Instead, in the consideration is what sex should control the power. In a country that is said pursuing the elimination of racial discrimination, Americans conduct their voting of the president in 2008 with heavy racial preference. History of president voting relying on physical characteristic other than principle is highly likely repeating in 2016, but his time gender may replace race as the guideline for choice. Sexual equality? Forget it!   Any male candidate dares to deliver a man-president message would be immediately disqualified.   Governed by the same mentality, a male chancellor in a university is forced to resign because his one message is found with doubt about women’s capability. However, a woman can sail to the position of Justice while openly declaring that minority woman can make better decision than white men. Those who say pursuing equality for people have never so pursued. What they truly pursue is just inequality in which they are the dominant ones.   History has never failed this truth, which is particularly made valid by the Socialists, and especially their leaders. Our Founding Fathers also claimed to lead the pursuance of equality. However, they told people the equality is endowed by God, but not something created by them, or any human being.

Oh, possibly it is an unfair reprisal to accuse the U.S. government of having completely taken away the 1st Amendment from its citizens. The following expressions do enjoy unlimited protection from the government: “we want dead cops”; “we will decimate this Christian empire”; the phrase “have sex” can be heard 24 hours a day on TV by any age group; graphic suggestion of act of intercourse can appear in any movie and any performance platform; complete nudity can be seen in any magazine, near complete nudity can be displayed in any part of any city.   Make no mistake, however, any expression objecting the above expression can be immediately strangled in court. If not handling carefully, he who so objects may even get punished as racist, gender discriminator, Christian theocracy promoter, hate crime commiter...

In 1960’s, a political joke circulated in the Soviet Union. With pride, an American visiting Moscow told a Russian: “We Americans can go to Time Square in New York anytime and loudly criticize our president in any way we see proper. Can you do the same thing in Russia?” With no less pride, the Russian answered: “Yes, of course! We Russian can go to the Red Square in Moscow anytime and loudly criticize the American president in any way we see proper.” Well, the proud Americans of modern days may repeat what this Russian said in an equivalent way: “We Americans can go to Time Square in New York anytime and loudly chant ‘death with the white, the Christians, the male, English, the rich, the cop, even the country of America itself.’” But death with anything else? Think twice, fellow Americans!

On the one hand, our government abusively legalizes the destruction of our Constitution such as issuing the same–sex marriage license. On the other hand, the same government does not hesitate one minute to criminalize people who hold view against the country’s enemy such as the film maker in the Benghazi incident. Americans, no more obvious, you have allowed this government noosing you to dig a grave for this nation!

Many Americans still dream of the world leadership. Forget it, fellow Americans! To be a leader, one must first earn the trust from those to be led. If you cannot even show reasonable integrity in respecting your own Constitution, which is so noble and brilliant in word, how can you make them trust that you would respect their interest when accepting your leadership? In their understanding, what you say and promise as a leader is words only. Can these words surpass the nobility and brilliance of your Constitution? But look at what has happened to your Constitution that is supposedly so sacred to you? And look at what a disaster Middle East has been resulted today because of your mediation that has been so short sight and incompetent, either viewed from the side of the Israel world or from the Islamic world. To those who you intend to lead, what is seen as valuable is no longer your words or principle that you advocate as lofty, but your wealth. When the wealth is gone, your leadership is also gone. But your wealth has been unrestrictedly running to the ditch but with $19T of national debt. When your wealth finally drained, even your Constitution would become a piece of worthless paper.

Bye, Uncle Sam! People deserve only the government they shape. For some moments of hedonism abusing, Americans are rephrasing the Declaration of Independence to read as: “to secure the Rights of the few, Government is instituted above men, forcing just its power to get the Consent from the Governed…

8. Conclusions

The forcing of the issuance of same-sex marriage license reveals that the U.S. Court Branch has been sternly taking anti-Christian stance (ever since its promotion of evolution education beginning from the 1960’s);

The Benghazi arrest of a Christian film maker reveals that the U. S. Executive Branch steadfastly aims at pleasing anti-Christian force (ever since Jimmy Carter helping Khomeini usurp Iran’s state power in the late 1970’s);

Anti-Christianity in America means anti-U.S. Constitution because of the spiritual privilege emboldened for Christianity in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. So, what do the above two findings tell people what kind of job the American government has been doing for her people?

The anti-Christian stance of both of the above government branches is indulged and thus encouraged by the incompetence of the Congress, which is busy fighting for party interest other than national interest. As such, the U.S. Constitution has lost most of its authority in protecting the American citizens. It is why, for example,

  1. One group of non-governmental citizens can strip of the constitutional protection of another group of citizens constitutional right without due processing of law, as seen in the NBA vs Mr. Sterling case;
  2. Illegal immigrants can limitlessly filtrate this country without limit and enjoy increasing dominance over the citizens;
  3. A dreadful national debt of $19T is hovering above the head of Americans and keeps increasing.

A country model of Socialism in which citizens can be limitlessly persecuted for any reason has been looming closer and closer in this land.

Americans, how much more marginal space do you still have before the verge runs out and you must fall over the cliff of losing your country?

PDF copy also available


Instant $50,000 

for One Law Document

This website,, hereby posts this instant cash award of $50,000  to the  person who is the first one to deliver to us the following law document:

document that has the authority to annul THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND THE PERPETUl  UNION (AOC), which is found  in the national Archives  in Washington DC.

Warning He who believes the US Constitution has the authority to retire and rescind the AOC is suggested to read the Constitution more carefully so that he/she would not fail him/herself in an effort this award may entice.  Please be confident that the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is so profound that no one should ever rest any hope or fantasy on that our most supreme law can end up self-disintegrating. 

 Someone has been preaching for too long that the AOC is no longer valid in law practice since after the Constitution of 1787 began its authority. Amazingly, for an unknown reason, a big population of Americans give consent with silence to this preaching, too. We need help from the public to clarify which should stand out to prevail: (1) the AOC still has its full authority on this land, except where the Constitution contradicts, or (2) the  AOC has been made lost of any legal authority over the land of the USA.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞      ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

The document qualaified of winning the above award must meet the following Criteria:

    1. Said document has clear statement declaring to have the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION made invalid;

    2. Said document is found serving as an active law in the legal system of the United States of America;  

    3. With the legal power so invested, this document must find it unacceptable to tolerate the existence of the first clause (or paragraph) of Article VI in THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.   

A little reminder:  Do not waste time, yours or ours, by sending us any writing from any prestigious politician or institution as the document in our hunting.  

Anyone who can deliver the document we seek can do the following to claim the award: Notify the existence of said document with valid source where to find it via the Contact Us button shown in the top menu bar and request the payment.

The webmaster of is hereby bound by all legal liability regarding the above award so offered.

Note 1. THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION hereby referred to is the document that was created in 1777 and ratified in 1781 by the Continental Congress in the land of America.

Note 2.  Text quoted as the first clause of the Article VI  in THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: All Debts contracted and Engagement entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 



How Is the U.S. Constitution Violated?

2015 © Cameron Rebigsol


  PDF copy also available


What is the nature of the U.S. Constitution? It is a will that our Founding Fathers commonly shared and expected the nation to follow generation after generation. There are two essences in this document: material essence, which is capitalism, and spiritual essence, which is Christianity. With this Constitution, the Founding Fathers expected these two essences to espouse each other, and mandated the government to defend both essences.  

Americans have a popular motto: no one is above the law. Ironically, they have long made violating the Constitution their “tradition”. The number one target of the violation is exactly the Constitution itself. The groups of people violating the Constitution cover a wide political spectrum, from the so called liberals to those so called conservatives, from left to right, and from the head of the three government branches to the grassroots.  

Section 1   Violation in General Principles

(1) Language Violation. English is the official language of this nation. English is the only language that the Founding Fathers utilize in establishing The Declaration of Independence and other two supreme law documents for this nation. This indisputably implies English being the only language that the Founding Fathers determine to use in communicating with their citizens. As such, they have imperatively enthroned English, and English only, as the official language. Using any other language in any governmental documents, even something as common as voting pamphlets and ballots, or test for driver’s license, is to create a language barrier between comprehension and trust and the Founding Fathers and their citizens. The only exception for our governmental documents to use other language is in something related to diplomatic matter with other countries. It is absolutely unconstitutional for any candidate to use any language other than English in his campaign for any government office.   It is not the job of that office to understand the non-English speaking people’s language, it the job of the non-English speaking people to understand English if they want the service of this office.  

(2) An entire document of Supreme Law revered by the Constitution is put to sleep without the Congress’ ratification; not even any legitimate reason is found accompanied when it is so done.   The document herein referred to is called THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION (referred as AOC from here on). With its Article VI, the Constitution expresses how it has revered the AOC:

All Debts contracted and Engagement entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…

This statement therefore indisputably affirms that the AOC is still there and actively alive, no matter one would consider the AOC as a debt, or engagement, or treaty against this nation. Indeed, besides the above statement, the AOC itself monopolizes one statement to have maintained the heartbeat of the nation and the Constitution of 1787. This monopolized statement, appearing as the First Article in the AOC, so claims:

The stile of this confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.

Reject or retire the AOC, anyone? Dare you!

(3) The spiritual essence of the nation, Christianity, is exposed to no protection from law while any non-Christian belief is tightly placed under the guarding of “law”.  

If the Americans do not even care about to have the First Article of the AOC trashed, it is only natural for them not to pay attention to the Third Article in the AOC, which so states:

The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

With the complete obscuration of this statement, the Supreme Law of the land is made powerless in defending Christianity, the spiritual essence of the nation, but made becoming to facilitate the full attack on this teaching.   To further reinforce someone’s scheme promoting the separation of Christianity and the US, the anti-American factions have also peddled the following concepts through distorting our Constitution:

(3)-a.  Equating “establishment of religion” in the First Amendment with religion.   Today, so many Americans have accepted and believed that that “Congress shall make no law respecting religion” is how the 1st Amendment should read. Reinforced by the obscuration of religion protection clause in the AOC as mentioned above, Christianity is made losing its spiritual privilege enthroned in this nation by the Constitution. Among the competition with other religion or faiths, Christianity is pitifully made to fight for freedom of religion instead of constitutional privilege. The deprival of such constitutional privilege only offers convenience for someone to make Christianity lose hand after hand and battle after battle in all this competition when “law” being applied. There is one essential point that Americans’ focus has been misled but should be recovered: an establishment of religion is not a religion. This is the same concept as that a citizen of America is not America.

An establishment of religion = a religion ? What a sinister insult to the profound wisdom of the Founding Fathers!  

(3)-b Contorting “no religious test shall ever be required” into “no religious test shall ever be tolerated”.   Because of this contortion, a principal reading the Bible to his students is fired, and a Christian supermarket owner is penalized for firing an Islamic employee who refuses to handle pork.   Persecution against Christians has been all over in this country that is established by Christian founders.

(3)-c Placing a dead treaty above the Constitution as evidence to disprove the Christianity nature of this nation. The treaty herein referred to is the treaty of Tripoli. It is the 11th Article in this treaty that the anti-American factions constantly quote for their support. Here is how it said:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

Clearly, the expressions Government and said States have been distinctively used in different parts of the above statement and cannot be interchangeably replaced with each other. No one can read “As the Nation (or Country, or said State) of the United States of America…” from the above text. Indeed, so worded, “no pretext arising from religious opinions” hereby conversely allows a suggestion that religion opinion can potentially become a candidate of reason in the case that “interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries” does occur. In a war legitimized by religious pretext, opposing Muslims, what religion would the then United States inevitably choose to stand for? If not Christianity, what else? Atheism? Forget it! Political reality has shown that atheists would only fanatically embrace Muslims as their ally for their purpose of defeating Christianity.   Atheists have only two choices toward Muslims: (1) befriend with Muslims when they themselves are still politically valuable to the Muslims, (2) when such value fades, knee buckling at Muslims, who must stone death homosexual activists.

(3)-d Allowing words from celebrities to be more authoritative above the Constitution in law application, such as Jefferson’s “Separation of church and state”. In the Constitution, while the spirit of separation of church and government is evident, no one can find any statement demanding the separation of church and state; the word state means a nation or country most of the time. Because Jefferson is such a political giant, people then just follow and gobble this phrase without second thought. Without clear distinction between the meaning of government and country about the word state, “separation of church and state” could someday serve to provide the legitimacy of dispelling Christianity from this country. The anti-American factions just use any opportunity and mean they see fit for their purpose; there is absolutely no mercy.   It is exactly because of this political instinct that they have obscured the AOC meanwhile reviving the political corpse of the Treaty of Tripoli with all the energy they can find.     In too many cases, instead of pursuing the true meaning of the words of the Constitution, people often take what some professors said for granted.   It is said by many scholars that James Madison told people AOC no longer carrying any power as soon as the current Constitution took effect.    Very simply, however, for example, can what Madison said, if he did say, remove (I) the First Article of the AOC, or (II) the Union that the preamble of the Constitution of 1787 wows to perfect while this union is formed with the AOC ?   As a matter of fact, both theoretically and technically, wording as “in order to form a more perfect union”, the Constitution has placed itself as an amendment to the AOC. That the AOC continuously stays as the Supreme Law of the land is further reaffirmed by those statements of Article VI in the Constitution, as pointed out in (1) above.    

     With all is said here, the point is that, regardless of who said what, whether Jefferson, or Madison, or any egghead in the academic campus, unless such saying is ratified by Congress, none of them can be accepted as law above the Constitution and thus be used to dictate the Constitution.  

Only congressional ratification can have the power to retire the AOC!


(4) The Americans have flooded their political arena with too many “laws” that are never strictly defined, and no part of them can be found with conformance to the Constitution.   Nearly all these laws are centered on “rights” and enjoyment, such as human right, civil right, poor’s right, weak group’s right, gay right, animal right, fairness, sharing, income equality, woman’s right, fetus right, democracy, American dream, illegal immigrant’s right, inmate’s right, minority right, anti-discrimination… Almost any demand or human instinct topped with “right” can be used to dispel the sanction of Constitution in law application.  

 (5) The American government even leads to establish laws that are directly against the Constitution, such as Affirmative action policies, anti-Trust Law, Affordable Care Act and many welfare programs that are strictly based on ideas of Socialism.   Anything that is of Socialism must be anti-capitalism.   There is no room for compromise between capitalism and Socialism. The U.S. Constitution is a document very typically enforcing and defending capitalism. So, anything against the operation of capitalism has to be unconstitutional in America.   From the Declaration of Independence, to the AOC, to the Constitution, one word is repeated besides God/Lord. The word spanning across all these documents is commerce.   Commerce is nothing else but free-trade. Trading is free only if the parties joining the trade can obtain something without the escort of violent power.   Socialism is exactly an idea to guarantee someone to obtain something in a “trade” with the presence of only power, the most irresistible power, which is the government power.   Trading accompanied with violent power is robbery. Therefore, Socialism is nothing else but a theory to glamorize robbery.   So unbelievably, lacking the sense of genuinely understanding its own Constitution, but abducted by all sense of various “rights”, a supposedly capitalist government has been so zealously creating so many socialist laws to shackle and rob its people, the most creative people in the world.    

(6) The Supreme Court is allowed to invented Laws without the ratification of Congress, such as the so called (religious) neutrality, secularism, religious clause (said to be in the First Amendment), equal protection (without due process of law), and also qualifying academic subject as science in spite of the fierce controversy involved, legalizing various “human right” demands, such as the same sex marriage, which is in a position directly bleaching the text of the Constitution. To make it worse, many cases have shown obvious selective application of law by the Court in mediating cases of the same nature. Typically, in cases of faith competition, protection is given to anti-Christian party, disregarding whether or not the practice of the anti-Christian party is in violation of the Constitution.  When a court is allowed to do all this, the Court is above the law, declaring “I am the law”. When a tiny group of people can invent law and apply the same, tyranny oligarchy appears; Constitution becomes only a piece of paper.

Section 2   Violation in Literal Details

Here we make a list about the violations that we found in close literal comparison with the text of the Constitution.  The list so enumerated and displayed follows the sequence how the text appears in the Constitution.  

(1) Same sex marriage is an action to bleach the word Posterity from the preamble. Bleaching the word Posterity is a direct action of rooting out the Constitution. Here is how the preamble would read without the word posterity: order to…secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves (only), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Today, the Founding Fathers, those biological beings indicated by the word “ourselves”, have long gone. Naturally, without posterity, according to the above text, the country they established must also have long gone. Then, what can have been more efficient in murdering their nation than to have their posterity terminated? Not George III, not the war of 1812, not the attack of Pearl Harbor, not Bin Laden’s horrific September-11 slaughtering… Let’s go extreme: A people allowing only same-sex marriage must hopelessly perish in about 60 years, regardless; but a people allowing no same-sex marriage can biologically exist forever. Americans have created an environment to allow their court to legalize an act of nation murdering.   The Founding Fathers handed down to us an unprecedentedly brilliant country; we return them an action of utmost cruelty against them. Shame on us!

(2) Illegal immigrants are in the front line of collapsing the preamble in every aspect involving “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare”. However, the “liberty” of Constitution violation allowed in the American tradition even goes as far as criminalizing many law enforcement agents as well as ordinary citizens who try to resist the pouring in of the illegal immigrants.   Without any sense about the grandeur of the Constitution and the sovereignty of the nation, one former president promised to a Mexican president to clear up the action of the southern “villains”, who self-organized to put up the effort to block the invasion.   As if it is not enough to have this nation disintegrated, the currently incumbent president even issued an executive order to give amnesty to all these illegal aliens.   American media overall cares far more about the hurt agitated by the term anchor-baby than the hurt raised by the murder of an American citizen in many cases committed by illegal immigrants.


(3) The U.S. Supreme Court has a long history of seriously violating “all legislative Powers   herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” (section 1, Article I). Equally pathetic is that Congress is apathy all the time about this power evasion. Why does the Congress stay silent? One open answer is that certain judgement made based on violation of the Constitution meets the interest of some individuals, or group of members, the so called caucus, or even a party, in the Congress. A less open answer is that many of them have very vague idea about what Constitution is. Their being there is not for defending the Constitution, but for having a job and power. That is why a joke like this can happen: A congress member told the reporters that that our legislature body has three branches guarantees democracy in our country. A third reason can also be easily found: They themselves already motivate to violate the Constitution.  The Court’s violation just serves them an opportunity to avoid having their own true face from being exposed.  

(4) Section 8 in Article I, where powers of the Congress are listed, is one of the sections where the Constitution is found most liberally violated.

(4)-a First of all, the USA, a typical country of capitalism has been driven along the direction of nationalizing private business.   Nationalizing business is a typical syndrome of Socialism, which is a social system that our Constitution has open statements not to allow. In general, the Congress has power to “regulate Commerce”, but no power to force “commerce” or operate commerce.  

The very first victim having been nationalized in America is the school system. Schools are actually markets where knowledge is sold. Setting up public schools just places schools under the absolute monopoly control of the government. Public school is a concept started with a noble idea, and that is why public schools are set up early in the history of the United States. However, any noble idea also inevitably exposes itself to the exploitation of people who are not that noble. Human greed is always a more overwhelming element than nobility. Today, our public schools have been hijacked by anti-American factions and converted into temples where students are made to worship hedonism and various atheistic nonsense, such as that the universe and life are created from nothing, and that 1+1<2 from special relativity is a result of ingenious thinking.

To retain the noble idea of education supported by government without violating the Constitution, the proper way to do is to return all schools to private enterprises, while government supplies tuition, and tuition only, equally to every student, regardless of each student’s family financial status.  

The second victim having been nationalized is the personal health insurance business, which is lately placed under the control of Affordable Care Act. The establishment of Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution in two folds, because it is a combination of (a) nationalizing business and (b) welfare program.   The enactment of any welfare program is absolutely unconstitutional and is the result of absolute power abusing by the Congress. We will go into this topic again soon.

A third victim is the various municipal transportation facilities at many local government levels. With three victims already successfully being hurled into the barn of nationalization, who will be the forth one? In this author’s expectation, media may potentially be the next target. Haven’t Americans heard enough how arduously some government heads are promoting the so-called speech neutrality? Of course, no “neutrality” is neutral enough unless it meets what these government heads want to hear.   If a fourth victim is successfully reined into the barn, a fifth target would soon be spotted, then the sixth, the seventh…

(4)-b Nowhere in Section 8, or even in the entire Constitution, has statement to empower the Congress to enact welfare program. It is easy for anyone to see that the purpose of the enactment of welfare program can serve only two purposes: (a) to purchase domestic peace, or to appease, (b) to help politicians to purchase ballots.   No matter how one may glamorize the welfare program, the money spent for welfare program must be sourced by an irresistible power, the government power, and end up purchasing only one merchandise―poverty, and more poverty.   It is only a natural human rule that everyone tries to pay as little tax as possible―but he has to pay because of the government power.     It is also the rule of the welfare system that when the welfare money reaches the hand of the recipient, the recipient does not have to contribute anything but poverty in exchange.   Such a process of money changing hand is thus absolutely outside of any sense of commerce emphasized in the Constitution, but fits perfectly the definition of robbery.   A constitution supposed to promote capitalism is thus turned into an instrument for Socialism to set sail.   Our socialist welfare program not only has crumbled our economy, but also corrupted the moral of the society―violation of the Constitution has confused so many people as to take crime as justice.

(4)-c Monopoly is protected in our Constitution! Therefore, Law of anti-Trust is anti-Constitution, particularly when this law is only set up against business owners while favoring labor monopoly. The protection on monopoly, though,is emphasized as time limited in the Constitution.   Here is how the Constitution presents the protection:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.  

A successful business under the leadership of a successful business owner or a group of owners definitely fits into what this clause presents: useful art of business management, authors and inventors of the successful management, and the discoveries of such management.

Too bad, monopoly has its born criminal nature encouraged by human greed. When it gets to a certain level or power, any monopoly must tend to gain social control in its own favor and then promote forced-trade to a certain degree. As such, according to the Constitution, the protection on monopoly can only be provided up to a certain time limit. Beyond this time limit, the protection must be removed, and the monopoly must be made split and exposed to competition. To protect monopoly is to encourage creativity in business. Any society that needs to move forward must depend on the growth of successful business.   To split the monopoly is to avoid the society being controlled by special interest. One of the famous actions in cracking down monopoly in American history is the split of Ma-bell in 1984.

To protect and to split, both are constitutional; purely “anti-Trust” is thus unconstitutional.  

(4)-d If the government’s nowadays practice that we see along this nation’s southern border makes any sense, the Founding Fathers must have all committed crime of no excuse by embedding the expression “repel Invasions” in the Constitution. Today, so many laws, codes, rules, regulations have been made to restrict or even punish those people who faithfully carry out their duties of expelling invasions.   Those who are against the expelling have occupied every level of the government offices.

What is invader? To a country of sovereignty, anyone gets in or stays without permission is an invader, armed or not armed.   However, the unprecedented scale of violation of the Constitution promoted by so many government agents/officers has allowed tens of millions of illegal personnel in this country to do all things harming Americans, from murdering to robbery to “legally” sliding away their jobs.  

This author is sure that the Founding Fathers would have never expected that what they created with blood can be so worthlessly converted into easy meal to be relentlessly pecked by vultures from all over.  

(5) Withthe confusion on the Constitution, Americans must prepare themselves to welcome another violation: the requirement of birth status for a presidential candidate. There are only two statuses meeting the constitutional requirement: (I) natural born Citizen and (II) citizen of the United States, but only those “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. (Section 1, Article II)

Before the Constitution was established, there must have existed thirteen official versions of concept how an American citizen was recognized. The definition most inarguable and readily acceptable by all thirteen states for a person, if not born in the land of America, to be a Citizen (non-natural born) of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitutions, was a person whose birth was given by an American citizen. As to how this parent giving birth to this citizen outside of America was recognized as an American citizen was up to each of the thirteen state’s acceptance, and the Congress accepted all thirteen versions.   Then, we ultimately come to a point that the Constitution only recognizes the birth place as the prerequisite to decide whether or not a candidate has been a natural born. Subsequently, anyone born anywhere outside of where the power of this Constitution can reach is not a natural born. For such a non-natural born to become a presidential candidate, he must meet the sole time mark requirement in history at which this Constitution is adopted.

Today, we have the Naturalization Act of 1790 to help us to define what is natural born for a person. It states that children born to U.S. citizens abroad may have chance to be regarded as a natural born citizens. However, the Act is passed three years after the establishment of the Constitution, and the Act was not made with a power to retrospect and redefine a presidential candidate’s prerequisite in the Constitution. Therefore, legally, the natural born definition adopted in the Constitution for a presidential candidate stands by itself, having full power to decline the measurement from the Act.   In other words, today, after all those citizens who were citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution having long gone, the Constitution allows only birth place singly to determine a presidential candidate being natural born or not.  

In history, controversy arose concerning many candidates’ birth prerequisite.   George Romney, born in Mexico, was accepted to run in 1968 while he should not be qualified according to the Constitution.   Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP nominee, born in Arizona before it was a state should also be disqualified unless the Constitution can have fully governed that territory by then.   Sen. John McCain, should not have raised the birth issue in the 2008 campaign although he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. When he was born, his father was stationed there. It would be different had his father lived there as a private citizen. Any child born anywhere but by legally married parents who had been American citizens when assuming duty assigned by the U. S. government is natural born to meet the prerequisite of the president candidate mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise, it is not. If we do not abide by an absolutely rigid definition, very soon, Americans will allow someone to introduce too many kinds of people all over the world to run president in this land. Consider how many bastards were made in Vietnam alone by American soldiers. When Arnold Schwarzenegger successfully secured the California governor office, many people did try hard to find crack in the Constitution to see if it is possible to sham in someone not natural born to run American president.

However, all such natural born definition is only applicable to the presidential candidate, which is an office provided by the Constitution and therefore must follow the definition that the constitution sees proper. The citizenship for anyone else today must follow the Naturalization Act.

However, all such natural born definition is only applicable to the presidential candidate, which is an office provided by the Constitution and therefore must follow the definition that the constitution sees proper. The citizenship for anyone else today must follow the Naturalization Act.

Currently, a political-correct term has put up heavy political pressure in this country, which is the so called anchor-baby. People supporting this term in defining citizenship obviously take birth place as the determining factor, disregarding the citizenship of the mother and thus disregarding what the Naturalization Act stipulates.   This Act defines a baby’s citizenship by its parent. According to this act, no anchor-baby can be an American citizen, and this Act is one of the Jurisdictions of the U.S. emphasized in Amendment XIV: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…   People must meet two requirements to earn the citizenship: (1) place to be born or naturalized, (2) and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.   Jurisdiction of the U.S. says, through the naturalization Act, that a baby’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the mother.    

Some so called scholars wrote that "natural born" had a longstanding definition dating back to colonial times. British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects, and were described by law as "natural born". Do these group of “scholars” realize that the purpose of an American Revolution war is to topple what the British law sees right? If we go strictly according to the British definition, we are all British other than Americans today. America borrows the model of common law from the British, not duplicating this law system term by term. America is a country of sovereignty, absolutely independent of the United Kingdom. We too use English, but it does not mean that we use passport issued by the UK to travel in the world.

(6) Any American president allowing the promotion of “separation of church and state” or hindrance of the separation of church and government equally violates his oath of “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” unless he restricts the word state to mean government. We have had plenty arguments how the Constitution mandates the government to defend the spiritual prestige of Christianity in this country. No more elaboration on this topic is given here.

(7) An Achill’s Heel is created in the Constitution with a statement that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior”. What is good behavior and determined by whom? Even when the behavior is found not good enough, who can remove them from the office, particularly “the supreme”? Is facilitating the act that can bleach the word posterity from the preamble a good behavior? Is invading the power of the legislature by inventing law a good behavior? Should the behavior meet the merit approved by Republicans, or Democrats, or atheists, or Muslims to be called good? Is allowing the dominance of some undefined law, such as human right, illegal immigrants’ right, over the Constitution a good behavior? Frankly, this Achill’s Heel is the primary source leading America to have evolved into such a lawless state as we see today.

Even in the most unbiased situation, not every decision from the courts, including the Supreme Court, would necessarily conform to the Constitution. Simply, many court decisions are the outcome of voting made by the judges. Between the voting groups for and against, it cannot be that both are constitutional. What if the outcome is produced by the prevalence of the opinion that is more deviated from the Constitution?

If the Congress really carries out its constitutional duty, it has the constitutional power to correct many decisions made by the court, all the way up to those made by the Supreme Court, based on the power so stated: “…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” (2nd clause in Section 2, Article III) This quotation from the Constitution therefore clearly declares that the Congress has higher power over any decision made by even the Supreme Court. No decision from any court can be final in this country if the Congress chooses to intervene. However, the bipartisan politics would easily eclipse this power to invisible unless at some point common interest can necessarily lever both parties to seek “such Exception, and under such Regulations…”

(8) Behaviors of Treason and policies encouraging treason are flooding in this country if we measure many government officers with “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in…adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (Section 3, Article III). What are considered enemies by any country? Any invader who jeopardizes a country’s sovereignty, armed or not armed! Here is a simple question for those officers: will you open your own house for anyone to intrude freely? “No” must be the answer―you would consider the sovereignty of your house being inviolable, because you have exclusive ownership of this house. Then, for those who make and promote policies favoring the invaders, why do you open the land belonging to the rest of the population for free intrusion made by more than 12 million invaders? Is it only because you do not have exclusive ownership of this land? If these invaders are so “legal”, why are those worldwide colonists of two, three or four centuries ago are seen so criminal and must be so demonized?

(9) Sanctuary city is a concept openly defies “A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the crime. (2nd clause in Section 2, Article VI) Dear fellow citizens, do you remember the heartbroken tragedy of murdering of an innocent American citizen, Kate Steinle in July , 2015, by an illegal immigrant? This is a direct result of allowing the establishment of sanctuary city by our government.

(10) Bipartisan politic, or any political operation within government under the influence of party or parties, is in direct conflict with “…nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States (Section 3, Article IV) The main theme of this quoted statement is to prohibit states from ganging up. However, party politics is exactly the activity of ganging up of states, no matter how partially or fragmentally it can be. The parties involved just split each state’s resources and extend the violation so that “new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State.” Let’s imagine an extreme case: what happens if some states are coincidentally grouped under the dominance of one party and other states under the dominance of another party, and further, all those states belong to the same gang happen to be geographically contiguous to each other? Is this good enough to serve as the base to split a country? Indeed, the ripening of the America Civil War was because 10 states had ganged up; they were dominated by a group of people favoring one dogma, enslaving, and these states were geographically contiguous. And so were the other side that held opposite dogma.

Whenever and wherever party politics exists, politicians belonging to certain party must place party interest above national interest; national interest is then hijacked as a political tool to serve party interest. With all the due respect to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, these two super giants in politics are the initial promoters of party politics in this country; George Washington persistently opposes party politics.

It is the party politics that has factually made the Supreme Court the strongest branch of the three, instead the weakest as how the Constitution mandates with “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” (2nd clause in Section 2, Article III) It becomes the strongest only because the party interest can drive a party, any party, to silence when the court’s decision favors a party’s interest, even if this silence means relinquishing of certain congressional power to the Court, and even if the Court’s decision is not conforming to the Constitution. The advantage that can be gained through Court’s decision for a party is the reason why both parties fiercely fight to have its own people to fill this vacancy each time a vacancy happens in the court of any level.

Party politics is not democracy, but it is oligarchic politics in nature, except it does extend the number of rulers to include a bigger population. However, the same nature applies: we are the law!

(11) Siding with more than 12 million invaders to this country, a big number of our “leaders” have made invisible the following statement: “The United States shall protect each of them (states) against Invasion” (Section 4, Article VI). This has become an open fact, no need to elaborate in detail.

(12) Nearly the entire Article VI has been thrown to the ditch. For this, a reader can refer to our argument presented in (2) and (3) in Section 1 above. The only part that our self-converted government diligently follows is the last sentence of this article, but with a twist so that it reads “no religious Test, unless anti-Christianity, shall ever be tolerated as a Qualification…”

(13) An obvious theistic sentiment in our Constitution is allowed to be contorted as atheistic/secularistic. The obvious theistic sentiment in our Constitution is emboldened with “ the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth.” The calendar cited in this statement is apparently a Christian calendar; the Declaration of Independence apparently worships a supernatural that are commonly revered by the Christian signers. In order to eclipse the Christian halo of the Constitution, anti-American factions have long put up lies to smear the Founding Fathers as deists, which mean people believing that god no longer intervene after his creation of the world. However, the liars must fail to fit into the perception of deist in their propaganda the following expressions from our Founding Fathers: Nature’s God; …(they are endowed by) their Creator; Supreme Judge of the World; the protection of divine Providence; Great Governor of the World; Sunday excepted.

(14) Amendment I seems the most favorable part of the Constitution that Americans frequently refer to in settling political competition between different faiths. However, so far, nearly everyone takes “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” in this amendment as “shall make no law respecting a religion”. This popular misunderstanding gives our Court so much convenience in law creation as well as violation. In the case that the Supreme Court forces a Christian bakery owner either to comply with a gay couple’s wish of decorating their cake with message favoring homosexual behavior or to have his business closed, the 1st Amendment is violated in two counts: (a) the court makes law respecting atheistic faith; (b) the Court abridges the freedom of press. The cake on which a message is to be laid is the bakery owner’s medium of publication. As such, altogether, the Court further violates the “equal protection” clause in Amendment XIV, because, so far, business owners of conventional publication still have the right to refuse to publish any message they decide to decline. Why such a right is not allowed to be had by the Christian business owner?

(15) In the name of anti-discrimination, private property right is taken away from the protection of Amendment III, which disallows even soldiers to be quartered “in any house, without the consent of the Owner.” However, in the current society, any premises open to public but owned by private organizations, such as churches, have been forced to open door to personnel whose entering is not seen at the interest of these organizations. Anti-discrimination of any kind but based on natural background of a human being has no base in our Constitution. Law making based on such “anti-discrimination” concept is also violating a famous motto of the Supreme Court: “Separate but equal is inherently unequal”.

To set up discrimination, human beings are first separated into different groups in the perception of some people. To set up anti-discrimination, exactly the same perception must be applied; otherwise no need for anti-discrimination to exist. Then, how can anti-discrimination, which is supposed to promote equality, escape from “separate but equal is inherently unequal”? Typically, for example, the promotion of Affirmative Action has madly promoted discrimination.

(16) Violation of Amendment III can easily lead to the violation of Amendment IV, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. This violation always leads to some tragedy that a house owner has less security than a thief/burglar who breaks into the house. If the self-defense put up by the house owner against the illegal intruder ends up not to have the thief killed but injured, the thief can come back to exert immeasurable damage to the house owner through court procedure. The loss incurred to the owner may lead all the way to the loss of his house.

Favored by the anti-Trust Law, picket lines can “lawfully” prevent the in-and-out traffic of a business premises, such as a store or a factory, and strikes can lock up the normal operation of a business. These activities harming a business are also a violation of Amendment IV. In some bigger business, a union can grab a certain job titles as union job, and the business owner’s decision to hire or to fire employees covered under such particular job titles is subjected to the union’s approval. The invitation of employment offered by the owner thus becomes an invitation to have someone to quarter in his business premises in spite of his consent, and also becomes an invitation to jeopardize his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures.

(17) Amendment V is brutally “restructured” and made powerless in the name of human right according to the need of anti-America factions in the War against Terrorists. Here is the text of this amendment:

No person (note: not citizen!) shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury, except in case arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…

Do people remember the so called waterboarding gate against the CIA? With the word except, Amendment V clearly gives the CIA the full power to deal with any person in any necessary way satisfying the CIA in order to hold a person “to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime” as long as this person fits himself in the definition “in case arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” Depriving the CIA of this power is anti-Constitution, serving no purpose but only treason! Remember, only the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, not human right or civil right that can be put up by anyone according to his instantaneous need.

(18) Sometimes people must wonder how America has raised its formidable troop of law workers among whom so many are so illiterate about the US Constitution. Now, we have piles of law suits in various courts against this country in favor of the illegal immigrants. Can illegal immigrants sue America? Here is what Amendment XI says:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

So clearly, suing America in behalf of or on behalf of illegal immigrants, or the acceptance of any law suit of this nature by the court, any court in America, is to single out Amendment XI for an open trampling. There is no doubt that some lawyers are against this wave of suing against the American government. But where are they? Have they applied Amendment XI? If Americans are so lost in respecting their own Supreme Law, should they wonder why they are so widely disrespected abroad? It is why a border patrol was successfully sued and punished by a foreign drug smuggler who conducted illegal business across the border and was injured by this border patrol on duty.

(19) Slavery or involuntary servitude is absolutely constitutional and is compulsory in this land according to Amendment XIII:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Being able to ignore completely the existence of the section “except as punishment…duly convicted”, some “laws” developed from human right or civil right have turned the US prison system into some secured clubs. Inside these clubs, prisons receive anything that can be enjoyed by a free citizen, but just not government punishment. The only punishment they receive is from the gangs organized by the prisons, while the oppression from such gangs is criminal in nature. The advantage for a prison to get what a free citizen cannot get but at no cost of government punishment was a theme for story as early as in the time of O. Henry (see The Cop and the Anthem, 1904). Today, this advantage has even been elevated to full cover on every luxurious aspect of life, such as kidney transplant and gender reassignment surgery. Even more ridiculously, some convicted criminal can even make multiple female correction agents pregnant for him, placing the prison under his command.

(20) Amendment XIV is another disastrous area showing people how the US Constitution has been trampled.

(20)-a Concerning citizenship. As pointed out in (5) above in this section, the Naturalization Act of 1790 sets up the concept that a person’s citizenship acquired upon birth is determined by the mother’s citizenship status. Then, according to that “All persons born …in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” no person born in the US can acquire American citizenship unless the mother is an American citizen―this is the jurisdiction of the U.S. Some media says that the term anchor-baby hurts. But hurting whom? Frankly, any law making must hurt a certain group of people, and our Constitution is no exception; otherwise King George can come back to this land with his law. The best way to avoid hurting anyone is not to produce any anchor-baby, and if the anchor baby must come out, let the American sovereignty determines what to do according to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(20)-b Concerning Equal Protection. We have seen too many cases how the Court granted special privilege to special people by referring to “equal protection clause” in the name of anti-discrimination, particularly in case related to faith competition. In so granting, the Court completely disregards the clause of due process of law. To make the matter described in amendment XIV a little more clearly visualized, let’s present it with a little rearrangement of the same exact text in the following:

Without due process of law, no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Therefore, it is no more apparent that this amendment requires that equal protection is applied only with due process of law. In a human society, protection is made equal between two social members only if these two members present equal social value to the society. To find out such social value is exactly the purpose of due process of law. It is unacceptable that any ordinary person should be equipped with the protection equal to what is equipped with the president. Without due process of law but only equal protection, no policeman can arrest any criminal suspect. But in daily life, common sense just obscures the necessity of due process of law in court for many obvious situations. The application of such process in these situations, such as the protection provided for between an ordinary citizen and the president, is only wasting time and social resources. He who makes equal protection an issue between an ordinary citizen and a president can only end up silencing himself. However, all this does not mean that due process of law can be deleted in every case that controversy must come up. So, let’s inspect how the Court has skipped due process of law in granting “equal” protection to favor some special group of people.

First, Christianity vs. atheism/secularism. In the name of equal protection, the court actually gives absolute dominance to atheism/secularism in our public school while Christianity is absolutely dispelled there. The Court even does not allow equal time of teaching proposed by the churches. Christianity and atheism/secularism each has absolutely different social value from the other in this nation, and therefore, if due process of law is applied, they must enjoy different level of protection according to Amendment XIV. As we pointed out in (3) of Section 1 above, Christianity is a teaching that the Constitution mandates the government to defend, but atheism and secularism is not found so protected by any part of the Constitution. Furthermore, in the name of promoting rational thinking, atheism and secularism actually advocate nonsensical thinking. All the three theories, namely, the Big Bang theory, Darwin’s Evolution, Einstein’s relativity, are self-defeated, but the atheists and secularists use all these “theories” to fortify their legitimacy of usurping the education power in this country. For the proof of the self-defeated nature of these three theories, a reader is cordially invited to visit Sizable awards can also be found in this website for the support of refuting these theories. Not only has the Court skipped due process of law, but it has even invented laws, such as religious neutrality, “religious clause” that the Court asserted existing in the 1st Amendment, Darwin’s evolution being science. With all these laws invented by the Court, the Court has given atheism/secularism the “equal protection” that Christianity cannot enjoy. A visitor can find more details about all this from the article “Court Cases―Analysis on Court cases over Education between Christians and Their Opponents” in the home page of .

Second, concerning the same sex-marriage license. It is also under the same consideration of “equal protection” that gay couples are granted the privilege of obtaining marriage license like a heterosexual couple. But, will the due process of law find that the heterosexual couple and the homosexual couple contribute the same value to the society? It would not have to take a genius to conclude that they at least bear different biological value to the society. Let case go extreme. Giving two counties, one allows only heterosexual marriage, another only allows homosexual marriage. Can you, dear readers, predict which country must go perish and which one would continue on? Someone puts up argument that homosexual couple can overcome their barren nature by artificial insemination. This is a straightforward manifesto of removal of family value, because a third party must get involved. Ironically, people supporting same sex marriage usually also support evolution. How could termination of biological offspring give any material support to their idea of evolution? Because of their biological function, “families” organized under the same sex marriage license must end up bleaching the word “posterity” in our Constitution.

Third, due process of law is also made obscured by the Court in many situation concerning matters like murdering and death penalty. So wording, Amendment XIV obviously states that death penalty is constitutional so long as due process of law is applied. Therefore, no law of any kind in America, no matter at what level of court, can be found confirming to the Constitution if death penalty is prohibited by this law. By scarcely allowing the application of death penalty, we have made too many innocent people lose their life to social scums. Why must those innocent people be made losing their life to those scums without due process of law?

Forth, some of our laws are made on the base of obvious violation of equal protection, such as the anti-Trust Law and various affirmative action policies. Anti-Trust Law openly stipulates that this law will not apply to labor organizations, such as unions. Affirmative action openly states that if someone possesses certain natural characteristics, he would enjoy special privilege over those who do not. At this point, someone may challenge us with a question “do you support racial discrimination?” If so, we would like to have him first clarify what racial discrimination is. Is using racial discrimination as a reason to acquit a murdering suspect a practice of racial discrimination? If Amendment XIV is restrictively applied, we must say that all races have the same social value. However, the social value of each race carries does not guarantee each member of the race carrying the same value. It is the individual from each race, any race, that has made himself different from the others in social value. When he has made himself different in social value, he cannot expect to have the protection that is equal to that of the others, regardless of his race, gender, or any other natural characteristics. Any law or rule helping to advance or suppress the protection on this person not matching his social value, but at the obvious absence of due process of law, is a law or rule of promoting discriminatory “protection”, regardless.

In general, any law made to promote discrimination or anti-discrimination based on human natural characteristics is unconstitutional, because each of this kind of law must make absent the due process of law in establishing the comparison of social value between the social members involved. On the other hand, any so called anti-discrimination law is also anti-Constitution if it is made to forbid different human ideas, thinking, efforts or behaviors from receiving different social consideration. Our Constitution is exactly established for a purpose of protecting discrimination with respect to human ideas, thinking, efforts or behaviors. Absolutely fundamentally, how did our Constitution forbidden King George from being discriminated in this land when it was established?

(21) Prohibiting ID verification of voters, in the name of anti-discrimination, i.e., the so called equal protection, further promotes the violation against all these Amendments: XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI. All these amendments contain this clause:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

but not just simply the right of persons to vote.

Citizens are a group of social members carrying social value that is different from persons who are covered by a word that is not qualified with further condition. ID verification is a due process of law. Forbidding identification between these two groups of social members in the name of anti-discrimination is straightforwardly declining due process of law, which is done with verification of ID in this situation. Equal protection? The “protection” is straightforwardly made unequal but the court, just lowering the citizens’ social value, depriving them of the protection that the Constitution  specifically endows them with.

Ending Note

Now, we can see that, violation, or even trampling, of the US Constitution spans across the entire body of the Constitution, beginning from the Preamble, all the way to Amendment XXVI, while the last amendment of the Constitution is only numbered as Amendment XXVII.

Under the two-party system, or the so called bipartisan politics, the Constitution has long lost its dignity, but become a tool for each party to gain party interest and ruin political opponents at the same time. The reason for some politicians being so successful in so manipulating the Constitution is that people have long been “educated” to place another set of law above the Constitution. This set of law has never been defined. The typical components of this set of law are the so called human right, civil right, democracy, freedom, love, fairness, sharing, American dream, and class division of wealthy and poor… Under the pressure of the undefined law, many anti-Constitutional agendas can be promoted with honor, and nearly any Constitution abiding action can be shamed and punished. It is why the welfare programs can be so overwhelming in this country, and the population of children without father can be so explosively multiplying. It is why a mayor advocating “let them loot” is not facing impeachment, but a county clerk refusing to issue same sex-marriage license is jailed.

That the undefined laws, or laws of will, can satisfy immediate human instinct is one of the reasons why they can be so easily accepted as a higher law above the Constitution. In many cases, its acceptance by an individual feels no need to respect the others, or the community, or the nation, because any “right” so enabled by the laws of will is “my right.” Riding on the mentality that “rights” can be established outside of the Constitution, but our Constitution has been made losing almost any power to restrict such rights, Socialism found itself easily and deeply permeating in our society. To establish the right, any right, outside of legitimate law is some form of robbery, but Socialism is exactly an idea of advocating robbery done through government power. Contrary to satisfying immediate human instinct, however, Constitution abiding needs education, self-disciplinary, self-restraining, and sometimes even sacrifice. So, for a people who have more and more taken satisfaction of human instinct for granted, abiding by the Constitution gradually loses favor in every aspect of their daily life.

Because abiding by the Constitution needs self-disciplinary or even sacrifice is why the US Constitution has been established by no one else but a group of people like George Washington, who put up his personal fund to sustain a near collapse military force for the revolution, and firmly resigned from the most powerful office to set up an example telling the nation that government power is not for personal purpose. Unfortunately, if nothing can be done to curb the “moral” trend currently developed in this nation, people should not be surprised that George Washington may be exhumed someday. When this time comes, “he owned slaves”, hysterically yelled some figure of “sublimate” moral standing next to Washington’s grave. Didn’t people already hear “God damn America, God damn America, God damn America” chanted by a flock of descendants of slaves in a church at the eve of the 2008 presidential campaign? If America can be damned, what is George Washington?

The political world is rapidly evolving globally. Sometimes the evolving pace in a certain part of the world can be described with the word avalanche, such as the spreading of ISIS. Among the events shuffled up in this evolution, one political mechanism more and more prominently shows itself as a dominant lever goading the evolution. This mechanism is called family. It has been getting clearer and clearer that those communities prioritizing family value are ascending with ever increasing potential, shortening their distance to the control end of the lever, regardless of other born defects of such communities. For those communities that must place the satisfaction of human instinct above family value, history can only give them the cruelest exit: PERISH. Haven’t we heard enough many intellectuals warning of that the Western culture will soon be no more? Family value is the key. It has been more than apparent that the West is making every effort toward digging its own grave by decimating family value, engraving its tombstone with script of increasing national debt but decreasing population of legitimate born children, both in Europe and America. In so digging, the West honors adultery, honors single mother, honors homosexuality, honors atheism that must worship stupidity in every way of life, even in science, where rigid logic is supposed to prevail. The honoring includes material awarding, fame awarding, legality awarding and power awarding. In comparison, the Islamic world tightly grabs the family value, allowing no denting on it in any form. In front of the seemingly irresistible conquering launched by the Islamic world, many Western people feel very lost with overwhelming despair.

“The Muslims hate the United states,” complain many Americans, who try to figure out a reason why their country must be so suffering, such as the catastrophe of September 11, 2001, and find a way to fix the loss they are suffering.

They do, unfortunately. Americans want the Muslims not to hate a society that glamorizes all behaviors that they conceive as evil acts, such as adultery, unrestricted divorce, homosexuality, parent defying, single mother of early teen age, female nudity exposure, drug abusing, and indeed anything that must lead to family vanishing? The Yankee men must be kidding. Do spend some time to explore and understand why they hate. Indeed, the hatred may not have completely started with the Muslims, but with some among us. In the war with Afghanistan against terrorists, an American born young man having no Islamic family background was found serving the terrorist militia. The American society seemed shocked about this sudden unexpected finding. But then, today, more than a decade afterwards, in place of a single young man, Americans have only found that terrorist cells, even with training camps, multiplying and provokingly infiltrating in this land. Self-started rottenness is an invitation to the infestation of maggot. Do not complain the flies.

Of course, hatred of what Americans do may only be their flag issue. Their core issue is to grab this honey land with effort as little as possible. Seeing this society so relentlessly decays itself, it is time for them to come to further exert pounding force from within to accelerate the collapse. Americans, if you are smart, do not hate them who hate you, but hate what you have become and wake up.

With the Constitution being so unrestrictedly abused, the American society should have long been a lawless society. It is the remnant of centuries of moral teaching of Christianity that still escorts the society with certain healthy operation. However, how much longer can this remnant sustain itself before the pus of lawlessness must someday pop? Whether one likes it or not, indeed, open declaration of insurrection has been on the way.

“What do you want?” “A dead cop!” “When do you want it?” “Now!”

Should it be time for the Founding Fathers feel restless in Heaven yet?

PDF copy also available

Using any other language in any governmental documents, even something as common as voting pamphlets and ballots, or test for driver’s license, is to create a language barrier between comprehension and trust and the Founding Fathers and their citizens.