The District of Columbia circuit court of appeals hands down Campbell v. Clinton: judge Harold H. Greene, rules that members of the 43rd counterfeit CONgress (elected in accordance with the fraudulent 17th amendment) have no standing to file suit against de facto Commander-in-Chief Clinton’s (Esq.) for his usurpation of CONgress’ authority to (declare) make war against the former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia-Montenegro, as they are not likely to be personally harmed.
NOTE: As an attorney (Officer of the Court) Clinton was ineligible to serve in two branches of government at the same time, according to Article I, Section 6 [Clause 2].
[updated 7/22/2023]
One must wonder what judges think of their affirmations (oath’s of office)? I was taught:
EXCERPTED FROM American Juris Prudence 2nd Ed.
LAW OF THE LAND
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of the land, any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement [with it]. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a statute violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This principle is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. …
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177 Cf. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) 11 Sept 2004 — JL
Subsequent Events:
Authority:
“Law of the Jungle”
ccc-2point0.com/preface
References:
Campbell v. Clinton, 52 F.Supp.2d 34 (D.D.C. 1999).
David G. Savage and Michael Ross, “U.S. Judge Refuses to Block Bush From Starting a War Law: He calls a suit by 54 Democrats premature; but he also says only Congress can authorize an attack on Iraq.” Los Angeles Times, 14 December 1990, A22.
Current U.s. National Debt:
