Supreme Court Denies Petition Questioning Constitutional Validity

In November, I reported on the petition filed by William M. Windsor with the Supreme Court. The petition asked the Court to answer the following questions:

  1. Will the Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
  2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
  3. Will the Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

However, the Supreme Court denied his petition. Though Mr. Windsor has attempted to make people believe that the Supreme Court issued a ruling. This is certainly not the first time the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases involving whether or not the federal government is to abide by the document that was written to restrain it, nor is it the first time a branch of the federal government has refused to answer a petition for redress.

In the past the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases brought by Bob Schulz and We The People Foundation, thus upholding the lower court ruling that while you have a Constitutionally protected right to petition the government for a redress of grievance, the government is not obligated to answer.

Mr. Windsor writes, “My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.” Mr. Windsor seems optimistic that this action of the Supreme Court is the act that pushed the US into a “police state” and made “laws meaningless.” Since at least 2001, with passage of the PATRIOT Act which suspended most of the Bill of Rights, the USA has been operating as a police state and the “laws” have been meaningless for years. Additionally, federal judges as well as elected officials at every level of government have “sovereign immunity” which means they can literally steal your possessions without repercussion as long as they’re able to accuse you of a “crime” or convince others that such theft was for the “common good.”

The Supreme Court did not “rule” the Constitution to be void, though the federal government has only followed the document on rare occasions in the previous 150 years. Lysander Spooner was correct when he said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

1 Comment
  1. I think a lot of these courts and judges get so caught up in the political aspect of American government and office politics that they forget that their job is to be outside of mass mobs, fads and waves of racism or hysteria and be the ultimate end-game upholders of liberty and justice. When the courts fail to handle greivances (and broken windows theory dictates that they signal injustice and chaos), that’s when things really fall apart at the seams.

%d bloggers like this: