CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: "The NDAA and the PATRIOT ACT are VOID and of NO legal FORCE or EFFECT" : 12 January 2012

Thursday, January 12, 2012

"The NDAA and the PATRIOT ACT are VOID and of NO legal FORCE or EFFECT" : 12 January 2012

Images like this perversely serve to convince the American public that the President and Congress have the power to pass any law they please, and to destroy the constitution. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Disinformation from the 10th Amendment Center and countless others:
"NDAA Obliterates Large Portions of The Bill of Rights"
Source: by Harold Pease, on Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 12:09 am

You've got it backwards, Mr. Pease:

Unconstitutional laws are "VOID" -- in your country and in mine, and under any "WRITTEN" Westminster-model Constitution of the former British colonies, as well as in other modern constitutional nations. The fundamental principle of the INVALIDITY and VOIDNESS of unconstitutional laws is the written cornerstone of Canada's Westminster-model federal Constitution, just as it is of the American constitution:

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.


This is more clear from Mr. Justice Field delivering the opinion of the court in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). Justice Field correctly said:
"Their position is that a legislative act, though unconstitutional, may in terms create an office, and nothing further than its apparent existence is necessary to give validity to the acts of its assumed incumbent. That position, although not stated in this broad form, amounts to nothing else. It is difficult to meet it by any argument beyond this statement:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."


However, a pretense that a VOID law is law, and does confer "rights" (or powers upon officials) and does "impose" unconstitutional "duties" to act in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, together with misguided public behavior in accordance, based on widespread DISinformation from posts the likes of yours, Mr. Pease, would, "de facto", cause the people to ROB THEMSELVES OF THEIR RIGHTS, being falsely led to believe that the "law" had, in fact, already taken their rights from them.

The NDAA 2012 and other so-called "laws" of its kind are NOT LAW, precisely because they are unconstitutional. Such VOID laws are incapable of any valid legal effect, let alone the preposterous effect alleged by you and by others that they "obliterate" or "repeal" huge parts of the constitution!

To repeal a part of a constituti­on, including America’s, an amending formula must be resorted to. An amending formula “ENTRENCHE­S” the constituti­on (legal word) to protect it from alteration by ordinary legislatio­n like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

The USA has FORMAL constitutional amending procedures. There are also likely limits to the application of those procedures. The U.S. constitution is thus entrenched and protected against implied or arbitrary “amendment” by ordinary legislation such as the NDAA and the Patriot Act:

“The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).”


Q.: When did the States RATIFY?

Did the Patriot Act and the NDAA pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority and then go on to the States for ratificati­on?

If not, one would normally be looking at ordinary legislatio­n with the NDAA & the Patriot Act, and other similar “void” laws which infringe constituti­onal rights and liberties.


Delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 in 1803, Chief Justice John MARSHALL said this of unconstitutional laws:

"If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."


America's rights were never "repealed", never "obliterated", it’s a BLUFF. Or, in other words, as attributed to Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

The NDAA and the Patriot Act are VOID laws which have NO POWER to amend the constitution by "repealing" any part of it.

What is the cause of all this lurid sensationalism around these void laws, which serves only to assist the police-state aims of those who illegally pretend to "pass" them?

Whence comes this nihilistic, suicidal orgy of public constitution shredding & burning, this extraordinary American death wish?

In referring to such void laws as "now the law of the land", and as having "obliterated" or "repealed" "huge parts" of the Constitution, people like Mr. Pease are aiding and abetting the imposition of an illusory slave-state upon the American people.

Furthermore, the self-serving LIE by politicians seeking office that these constitutionally VOID laws ARE "law" which can ONLY be reversed by political action to get themselves elected is, at best, the basest, lying political prostitution.

These VOID "laws" must be challenged in competent court immediately! The solution is LEGAL, not POLITICAL!

In addition, there is the further finely tuned question of whether there are limits to the power of constitutional amendment.

This issue arose in 1935 in Ireland in the case of State Ryan v Lennon [1935] I.R. 170

(You can DOWNLOAD that case in this zip file and read the dissent of Chief Justice Kennedy: – along with some notes, and some Irish and Indian case law pertinent to attempts to amend the constitution into a police state).

In Ryan, Chief Justice Kennedy dissented from the majority which had held that the amending power conferred in the Irish Constitution was unlimited.

Justice Kennedy said that a constitution has basic features, or a basic identity, beyond which it cannot be said to be “amended”.

Past such a point, one would be looking at an overthrow, i.e., an entirely new and different constitution. In the Irish case, the government was claiming to use the amending power to convert Ireland to a police state.

Could the American Constitution be lawfully amended to become a police state, even if the States did the unthinkable and RATIFIED the alleged amendments? I think this is highly doubtful, given Article IV, Section 4 of United States Constitution which declares:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

In my view, those words establish the legal identity of the U.S. Constitution; and this is the benchmark, the high water line beyond which even constitutional amendment cannot go.

This is more apparent from the words of Professor F. R. Scott (later, Dean) of the McGil Law Faculty, who in a 1948 article in the Canadian Bar Review entitled "Administrative Law", compares this feature of the U.S. constitution to a legal doctrine governing the constitution of Canada:
"Every sovereign parliament may delegate its powers to subordinate authorities. This is true of the Dominion Parliament [Canada]; whose most famous and extreme example is the War Measures Act, and of the provincial legislatures. Without such a power modern government could not be carried on. But limitations appear to exist (a) in that no legislature could abolish itself, substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo, and (b) in that neither the Dominion Parliament nor provincial legislatures can delegate powers to one another. Proposition (a) is hypothetical and need not detain us, though it might be a useful principle with which to oppose -- should the occasion arise -- the setting-up of some dictatorial, unparliamentary government, perhaps serving for Canada something of the purpose of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to every state of the Union a republican form of government."
Source: "Administrative Law", published in volume 26, No. 1 of the Canadian Bar Review in 1948, free download at:

Question: Can the U.S. Congress, by passing any and all legislation, effectually "abolish itself", as well as the State Republics, "by substituting some totally different kind of body in perpetuo", i.e. a Hitler-regime police state?

Article IV, Section 4 of United States Constitution declares:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
This would appear to be a hopeful alternative to the highly limited prospects touted by Mr. Lyndon Larouche as "THE ONLY" method of removing Mr. Obama, i.e. with Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

Cornell has annotated the U.S. Constitution, including its Article 4, Section 4. See online:


In one of its annotations of Article 4, Section 4, Cornell observes:
"the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored".


At Note 331, Cornell says:

"More recently, the Court speaking through Justice O’Connor has raised without deciding the possibility that the guarantee clause is justiciable and is a constraint upon Congress’ power to regulate the activities of the States. New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 2432–2433 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991). The opinions draw support from a powerful argument for utilizing the guarantee clause as a judicially enforceable limit on federal power. Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988)."
In the same annotations we learn that a letter from Madison to Randolph in April, 1787 seems to imply that what lay in part behind Article 4, Section 4, was a determination to prevent any State converting itself to a Monarchy:
"Unless the Union be organized efficiently on republican principles innovations of a much more objectionable form may be obtruded.”

Note that Madison said "innovations" plural, implying not only a limitation on monarchy but upon any "objectionable form" of government.

Surely, then, by virtue -- for example -- of the ejusdem generis rule, the guarantee expands to protect the States, jointly and severally, from any non-Republican form of government, including a Hitler-style Obama police state.

Therefore, what patriotic American would not retain appropriate legal counsel to more fully explore "the authority contained within the confines of" Article IV, Section 4?

As I said to Larouchepac on 4 Jan 2012, I am concerned that the American people are being misled on a bluff; that controlled media and people with something to gain from allowing Americans to think the NDAA and the Patriot Act are law, are just pretending that these ordinary laws have "repealed" or "obliterated" large parts of the constitution. Which is LUNACY.

What are their aims? To get themselves elected public savior? On pretense that the SOLE remedy for this alleged “repeal” and "obliteration" of constitutional rights by the NDAA and the Patriot Act is entirely political
“Vote for me and I will save you!" "Only I can restore the constitution!”
What a baldfaced LIE! These constitutional rights were never "repealed", it is a BLUFF.

Some there may be, who for lack of a sufficiently emotional and dramatic lifestyle, feel neurotically compelled to attempt to re-enact the 1776 war against King George III. Then, let me say this, my friends: Beware of NATO, and "humanitarian bombing" and the perilous fate of Mr. Gaddafi.

This is no longer the Middle Ages. There are new modes of conquest, and a "CIA destabilization", meaning a UN DESTABILIZATION to overthrow your country and mine for world government using vast BlackOps and PsyOps operations, can happen just as well at home to nullify regimes as on "Arab-Spring" foreign soil.)

Mr. Pease said:
"OUR ONLY HOPE was a promised Presidential veto which did not happen. Therefore, what follows are details on how the new law emasculates the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights. ..."
Well, then, Mr. Pease, if we were to ignore the bedrock constitutional law of centuries, if we were to believe YOU... ALL IS LOST.


Lyndon Larouche said:
"Removing him [Obama] from office, by Article 4 of the 25th amendment, or by impeachment, is THE ONLY WAY the provisions of the NDAA can be stopped."
Source: "Obama Outdoes Hitler With NDAA Bill Signing Statement" (LAROUCHEPAC: Obamawatch,Empire, January 2, 2012 8:00AM),

To which I replied:
"Article 4 of the 25th amendment reads in part as follows:

"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President...."

Realistically, [to Mr. Larouche] do you believe Obama's entourage would remove him? Shouldn't you be searching for options that a citizen can invoke, as opposed to LIMITING options to those that are totally out of the hands of the citizens?"

Ron Paul, a man running for President, whom you'd think might be obliged to know how the constitution works, said this of the Patriot Act (@ 1 minute 12-second point):

"But almost every Bill in Congress has a title to it which is exactly opposite of what it does. This is a perfect example, because I think if it had been properly named, it would have been called 'Repeal the 4TH Amendment Act'.... and most likely, they would have had a difficult time passing that piece of legislation."
Source: Rep. Ron Paul, Presidential candidate, White House, C-Span at:

And, again, 49 seconds of exactly the same thing:

UPDATE: Friday, 9 August 2013. The videos that I had linked above went offline at the Ron Paul web site. Meanwhile, I have found another video of the same or a similar event in which Ron Paul makes the same outrageous statements that blatantly falsify the way a constitution operates. UPDATE: 1 September 2013. Today, I found backup snips for the two videos that had been missing above, and I've uploaded them and re-embedded. So, now we have three examples.

In this clip, Ron Paul says:

"But they -- the question is, what if they had taken the Patriot Act and wanted to do this, and they were honest? What if they said, "This -- " and put, entitled the Bill, "Repeal of the 4th Amendment"?

How many people would have voted for it?

You know, they would have had a hard time.

But that is what the Patriot Act DOES. IT REPEALS THE 4TH AMENDMENT. You have essentially, NO PRIVACY LEFT!"

From which basis you get the Ron Paul political campaign:
"Elect ME and I'll put the Constitution BACK".
In other words, Ron Paul, a candidate for POTUS, disinformed the people of DUBUQUE that the Patriot Act is a VALID and EFFECTIVE ordinary LAW which has nonetheless "repealed" a huge chunk of the constitution.

But there is no possibility of unconstitutional VOID laws "removing" parts or all of the constitution in the first place. The legal reality is that anyone elected or appointed under the lawful constitution is a USURPER under a VOID OATH if he or she intends to abuse the powers in violation of the constitution.

That's the key, and no one is doing anything about it.

It is apparently the constitutional job of the American people to know their own constitution, so as not to be taken in by a con like this.

When a political man tells a falsehood about the constitution, an untruth which impedes everything he claims to stand for, I worry.

Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Field, amongst countless non-cited others, have already told us:

"If, then, the courts are to regard the constituti­on, and the constituti­on is superior to any ordinary act of the legislatur­e, the constituti­on, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."
Whereas, people like Mr. Pease, and Mr. Larouche, and Rep. Ron Paul, and countless others each for their own gain or motives, apparently prefer that not only the courts, but the PEOPLE "close their eyes on the constituti­on, and see only the law" by pretending that the constituti­on is NOT obviously "paramount".

What kind of political steam would the "Campaign for Liberty" have without the alleged "repeals" of constitutional amendments by the NDAA and the Patriot Act?

What kind of steam would Ron Paul's campaign have to get himself elected if he were not able to paint himself in opposition to these non-existent "repeals" so as to get elected on a promise to reverse them? A promise to reverse "laws" that are utterly VOID and have NO SUCH "LEGAL" EFFECT, and need to be struck not at the polls, but in the courts, which are the lawful and immemorial guardians of the constitution.

When King James I accused Sir Edward Coke (pronounced "Cook") (1 February 1552 - 3 September 1634), of treason for suggesting that his (James's) sovereign power might be under (below) the law, Chief Justice Coke replied:
"Thus wrote Bracton: the king is under no man but God and the law"
As Lord Denning points out, this saying has "reverberated down the centuries" to make judges the guardians of the constitution, (What Next in the Law, pp. 311-318).

Such people are all illusionists. By repeatedly alleging that these void laws have "repealed" the Second Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or have "obliterated" "huge parts" of the constitution, they encourage national submission to these illegal and VOID acts by pure, repetitive hypnosis.

They recklessly disregard if not passively encourage the grave risk of mass rage, riot and despair that may fling the American people against each other and into irreparable and disproportionate internal conflict, conflict that may, in fact, become the pretext for deployment of these void and illegal police-state powers.

They deprive the American people of awareness that they do have legal recourse available against these illegal acts of fake legislation. And moreover, for the lack of taking immediate, appropriate LEGAL action, this crucial suppression of awareness may result in the direct but illegal imposition of the very police state these leaders claim to oppose.

They place their nation in danger, and mine that is next to it. I do not wish to be attached to a VOID and utterly mind-washed, self-imposed illusion-based hypnotic military police state.

The American people must wake up in time to save themselves before martial law is invoked by the tag-team putsch (a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force) which has taken over your government­.

They must move fast to have these laws which are VOID because UNCONSTITUTIONAL legally declared VOID by a competent court before they put you all into the FEMA CAMPS!

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union




  1. BREAKING NEWS: 12 January 2012

    It seems that some American citizens may have started on the path toward doing the right thing about the NDAA - a court challenge based in constitutional supremacy.

    SPREAD THE NEWS and follow these people closely. They call themselves "Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest" and have correctly said:

    "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and declares our right to due process. No law shall supersede it".

    TWO links follow, the Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest's Facebook page, and their Protest page:

    Kathleen Moore

  2. What you are missing is the gradual erosion of the definition of due process that has occurred in the US courts over the last 30 years. Congress did not have to repeal the Bill of Rights; all it had to do was redefine due process, the way the courts have. So, the courts will call it constitutional. The problem is that due process is not defined in words; it is an inalienable right, in the DNA of every human being - something our politicians have forgotten.

  3. @Boisepatriot - In the tradition of English law that is shared by Canada and the USA, the judges have not usually gone in a straight line. They do backtrack and revise themselves. If the diversion is only 30 years old, then you need good lawyers to put together the history of the constitutional definition or understanding of "due process" and argue for a revision. One cannot go on the assumption that just because the system veers from one side to another over time, there must always be a revolution to correct it. It is probably more "revolutionary" on this earth to stick with your system and make it work. The system is made of people, including the system of any revolution. People go right and people go wrong, including judges. There has to be room to accommodate human veering, so as to allow the chance to balance it.


    "Obama sued over indefinite detention and torture of Americans act" Published: 17 January, 2012, 02:28

    [2] Further details from the Plaintiff, CHRIS HEDGES:

    "Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31." READ MORE HERE:

    [3] DOWNLOAD the TEXT of Hedges' LEGAL COMPLAINT (updated):

    Kathleen Moore
    The Official Legal Challenge
    To North American Union

  5. UPDATE your NDAA news on Facebook: