Post from Truth Social

But before we get to them, I've been doing a lot of thinking, as most of you have, about what took place in that courtroom last week and its implications beyond getting into the weeds of grand juries and jury instructions and collateral evidence and so forth and so on. Because it's so much bigger, so much bigger than the rules of evidence and so forth. What am I talking about? The Democrat Party, the Democrat Party is cheering what took place. Their surrogates are cheering what took place. Joe Biden went to a microphone and lied about what took place and then sneered after it. This is part and parcel of their war on the Constitution almost from day one, almost from day one. This is the party that supported nullification and slavery. This is the party that supported separate but equal, that is segregation. This is the party that supported Jim Crow. This is the party that supports and embraces American Marxism, which rejects the Constitution and the founders and the framers. They use the 14th Amendment in order to try and prevent Donald Trump from running for president, and this is what they do. And that's what happened in New York. Let me put it to you bluntly. South Carolina. Was the point. In which the Constitution came under attack, came to a head. It resulted in the Civil War. New York is the new South Carolina. That is the Confederacy. What do I mean by that? I'm not arguing here that there will be a violent civil war. I don't know what comes. Nobody does. What I'm arguing here is the Civil War was about slavery and about the attack on the Constitution and the attack on the Union, the nation. What took place in that courtroom? The jury should never have been impaneled. A Soros prosecutor and a Biden judge, in effect, decided that they were going to launch a war against our constitutional construct. How so? By nullifying the Due Process Clause of the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment, by nullifying the Due Process Clause that applies to the states through one of the post Civil War amendments, the 14th Amendment. And if this stands, the consequences will be very dire for the future of this country and the Constitution. Let me put it to you this way. New process goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. But the phrase itself appears in a statute that was passed in Britain to incorporate the Magna Carta in 1354. And that was during the reign of King Edward the Third. And so we have this process where we have the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment. And what do they say with respect to due process and equal protection? They say exactly the same thing. In essence, no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The 14th Amendment was adopted by Congress in 1866 before it was an amendment. They proposed it to the states, which then ratified it in 1868. The Fifth Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791. So this is ingrained now in our country, ingrained in our country. And what took place in the Magna Carta was the first massive assault. Massive assault on the Union. A due process on equal protection since the Civil War. There have been individual cases, but the impact of this, the presidential candidate, your former president, the purpose of which is to influence a national election, we've never seen anything like this, anything like this. And it has now been resuscitated after we thought the Civil War put the whole idea of nullification to bed. Now, let me go further on this. Our friends at the National Constitution Center, nullification is the constitutional theory that individual states can invalidate federal laws or judicial decisions. They deem unconstitutional. And it has been controversial since its assumption in American history because the Constitution doesn't provide for nullification per se. Now, that said, this is even worse than nullification than we've seen in the past, nullifying federal laws. This is a nullification of two amendments to the federal Constitution. A nullification of amendments to the federal Constitution that basically enshrine the entire belief system in the Declaration of Independence. Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. James Madison is considered Mr. Constitution. This issue of nullification was raised with him by a former Senator, Edward Everett, and James Madison wrote a very long letter back to him on August 28th, 1830. And he said this in part, being thus derived from the same source as the constitutions of the states, it has within each state this idea of nullification, the same authority as the Constitution of the state, and is as much a Constitution in the strict sense of the term within the prescribed sphere as the constitutions of the states are within their respective spheres, but with the obvious and essential difference that being a compact among the states, that is, the Constitution in their highest sovereign capacity. The states adopted the amendments, excuse me, the Constitution. And constituting the people thereof, one people for certain purposes, that is, you're a citizen of a state, but you're also a citizen of the United States or the federal Constitution, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the states individually as the Constitution of a state may be at its individual well. In other words, a state constitution or state legislature cannot nullify the nature of national citizenship that was adopted by states, by states. These amendments later we'll get into. It's worse in this case in Manhattan because the state as an entity is enacting. It's a piece of the state, a small piece of the state, one judge and one prosecutor. So it's worse. He says between these different constitutional governments, the one operating in all the states, the others operating separately in each with the aggregate powers of government divided between them, it could not escape attention. The controversies would arise concerning the boundaries of the jurisdictions and that some provision ought to be made for such occurrences. A political system that does not provide for a peaceful and authoritative termination of current controversies would not be more than the shadow of a government, the object and end of a real government being the substitution of law and order for uncertainty and confusion and violence, which, of course, is exactly what Bragg and Mershawn have done, have done in their courtroom, not the state legislature, not the governor. Two people, two people. He goes on, quote, that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, too, that the judges of every state shall be found thereby by anything in the Constitution and laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding, three, that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made under the authority thereof. Well, the issues that took place in that courtroom arrives under the federal Constitution, which is why Joe Biden, an old confeder who supported racism and segregation, opposed Brown versus Board of Education by opposing the integration of our public school systems. That's why he got up and said this is a state court issue. No, it happened in a state court. That doesn't make it a state court issue. Madison goes on, he says, with respect to the judicial power of the United States and the authority of the Supreme Court in relation to the boundary of jurisdiction, between the federal and state governments, I may be permitted to refer to the 39th number of the federalists for the light in which the subject were discarded by its writer, meaning him, he wrote it, at the period when the Constitution was depending, and it is believed that the same was the prevailing view then taken of it, that the same view has continued to prevail and that it does so at this time, notwithstanding the imminent exceptions to it. He said, there is no nullification right under the Constitution. Period. And what I'm saying is what took place in that Manhattan courtroom was the nullification of a part of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, one of the Civil War amendments. Finally, he says, in part, what the fate of the Constitution of the United States would be if a small proportion of the states could expunge parts of it, particularly valued by a large majority and have but one answer. And he meant by that a civil war. That's 1830. He could see it coming. In 1834, he wrote a long treatise on this December about nullification, and I'm not going to read it to you in full, but I'll read one section. It follows from no view of the subject that a nullification of a law the US can, as is now, contended, belong rightfully to a single state, is one of the parties to the Constitution. The state not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution, a plainer contradiction in terms or a more fatal inlet of anarchy cannot be imagined. He said that New York's part of the United States of America. It signed on to the Constitution. I can't now say, OK, but as far as the due process rights go in modern time, we're going to allow Mr. Bragg and Mr. Mashan to have their way. To basically eviscerate it to nullify its application. In that courtroom. To a presidential candidate and a former president. Well, who wrote this 14th Amendment? Section one, which is what we're focused on at the 14th Amendment, the main author was a congressman from Ohio, a Republican by the name of John Bingham. And he went to the floor of the House when he was arguing for his amendment. And he said, among other things, this is 1866. The amendment was ratified or adopted in 1868. I think, sir, that the honorable gentleman from Vermont has uttered words that ought to be considered and accepted by the gentleman of the House when he says that the action of this Congress in its effect upon the future prosperity of the country will be felt by generations of men after we shall all have paid the debt of nature, I believe, Mr. Speaker, as I've had occasion to say more than once, that the people of the United States have entrusted to the present Congress in some sense the care of the Republic, not only for the present, but for all hereafter. Your committee, sir, would not have sent to this House for its consideration, this proposition, this proposed amendment, the 14th. But for the conviction that its adoption by Congress and its ratification by the people of the United States is essential to the safety of all the people of every state. I repel the suggestion made here in the heated debate that the Joint Committee on Reconstruction or any of its members who favor this proposition, seek in any form to mar the Constitution of the country or take away from any state any right that belongs to it or from any citizen of every state of any state, any right that belongs to him under the Constitution. The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States by the consent of the people of the United States through the ratification process with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It has that extent and no more, he points out. He says, gentlemen, admit the force of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that the citizens of the United States shall be entitled to all privileges, immunities of citizens in the United States and the several states and that no person, none, shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due presence, the law. But they say we were opposed to its enforcement by act of Congress under an amended Constitution as proposed. That's the sum and substance of all the argument we have heard on this subject. Why are the gentlemen opposed to the enforcement of the Bill of Rights as proposed because they are very it would interfere with the reserve rights of the states, whoever before heard that any state had reserved to itself the right under the Constitution of the United States to withhold from any citizen of the United States within its limits, under any pretext, whatever any of the privileges of a citizen of the United States to oppose upon him, no matter from what state he may have come, any burden contrary to that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens shall be entitled in the several states to all the immunities of a citizen of the United States. He ends the question is simply whether you will give by this amendment to the people of the United States, the power by legislative enactment to punish officials of states for violation of the oaths enjoined upon them by their Constitution. That is the question and the whole question. The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the states no rights that belong to the states. They elect their legislature. They enact their laws for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty or property. But in the event of the adoption of this amendment, if they conspired together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty or property, that Congress is thereby vested with the power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of their oaths and the rights of their fellow man. Why should it not be so? Is the Bill of Rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter as in the past five years with 11 states, a mere dead letter? And therein, ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line. Why do I want this case to get before the Supreme Court so they have the opportunity, whether they take a

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.