Hi Everybody!!

Hi Everybody!!
Welcome to my Hometown!!

Thursday, January 24, 2013

YOU TUBERS Peacefully Rising to the Occasion!! (Breaking Earth Events NOT Reported by MediaBots Photo Blog)


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.

Preamble to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution'sfundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States
This article is part of the series:

Original text of the Constitution
Articles of the Constitution
Amendments to the Constitution
Subsequent Amendments
Full text of the Constitution

People of the United States

The phrase "People of the United States" has sometimes been understood to mean "citizens." This approach reasons that, if the political community speaking for itself in the Preamble ("We the People") includes only citizens, by negative implication it specifically excludes non-citizens in some fashion.[46] It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."[47]The phrase has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people,[48](whereas "United Colonies" had identified external monarchical sovereignty) as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect "the people" directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units.[49] The Court has also understood this language to mean that the sovereignty of the government under the U.S. Constitution is superior to that of the States.[50] Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that the Constitution was not the act of sovereign and independent states.[51]

The popular nature of the Constitution

The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social contract, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution. For example, if a law was enacted which violated the Constitution, not just anybody could challenge the statute's constitutionality in court; instead, only an individual who was negatively affected by the unconstitutional statute could bring such a challenge.[52] For example, a person claiming certain benefits that are created by a statute cannot then challenge, on constitutional grounds, the administrative mechanism that awards them.[53] These same principles apply to corporate entities,[54] and can implicate the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies.[55]
In this same vein, courts will not answer hypothetical questions about the constitutionality of a statute.[56] The judiciary does not have the authority to invalidate unconstitutional laws solely because they are unconstitutional, but may declare a law unconstitutional if its operation would injure a person's interests.[57] For example, creditors who lose some measure of what they are owed when a bankrupt’s debts are discharged cannot claim injury, because Congress’ power to enact bankruptcy laws is also in the Constitution and inherent in it is the ability to declare certain debts valueless.[58] Similarly, while a person may not generally challenge as unconstitutional a law that they are not accused of violating,[59] once charged, a person may challenge the law's validity, even if the challenge is unrelated to the circumstances of the crime.[60]

Where the Constitution is legally effective

The Preamble has been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America.[61] For example, in Casement v. Squier,[62] a serviceman in China during World War II was convicted of murder in the United States Court for China. After being sent to prison in the State of Washington, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the local federal court, claiming he had been unconstitutionally put on trial without a jury.[63] The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.[64]
Since the Preamble declares the Constitution to have been created by the "People of the United States", "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union."[65] The following examples help demonstrate the meaning of this distinction:[66]
  • Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890): the Supreme Court held that a certain treaty between the United States and France which was applicable in "the States of the Union" was also applicable in Washington, D.C., even though it is not a state or a part of a state.
  • De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901): the Supreme Court ruled that a customs collector could not, under a statute providing for taxes on imported goods, collect taxes on goods coming from Puerto Rico after it had been ceded to the United States from Spain, reasoning that although it was not a State, it was under the jurisdiction of U.S. sovereignty, and thus the goods were not being imported from a foreign country. However, in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), the Court held that the Congress could constitutionally enact a statute taxing goods sent from Puerto Rico to ports in the United States differently from other commerce, in spite of the constitutional requirement that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,"[67] on the theory that although Puerto Rico could not be treated as a foreign country, it did not count as part of the "United States" and thus was not guaranteed "uniform" tax treatment by that clause of the Constitution. This was not the only constitutional clause held not to apply in Puerto Rico: later, a lower court went on to hold that goods brought from Puerto Rico into New York before the enactment of the tax statute held constitutional in Downes, could retroactively have the taxes applied to them notwithstanding the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws, even if at the time they were brought into the United States no tax could be applied to the goods because Puerto Rico was not a foreign country.[68]
  • Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 U.S. 139 (1913): the Fifth Amendment's requirement that "no person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law" was held, by the Supreme Court, to apply in Puerto Rico, even though it was not a State and thus not "part" of the United States.

To form a more perfect Union

The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[69] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[70] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[71] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm thatstate nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution.


Aspects of national sovereignty

The Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" has been interpreted over the years to make revised claims as to the nature of the governmental entity that the Constitution created (i.e., the federal government). In contemporary international law, the world consists of sovereign states (or "sovereign nations" in modern equivalent). A state is said to be "sovereign," if any of its ruling inhabitants are the supreme authority over it; the concept is distinct from mere land-title or "ownership."[26] While each state was originally recognized as sovereign unto itself, the post-Civil War Supreme Court held that the "United States of America" consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations; the individual states may not conduct foreign relations.[27] Although the Constitution expressly delegates to the federal government only some of the usual powers of sovereign governments (such as the powers to declare war and make treaties), all such powers inherently belong to the federal government as the country's representative in the international community.[28]
Domestically, the federal government's sovereignty means that it may perform acts such as entering into contracts or accepting bonds, which are typical of governmental entities but not expressly provided for in the Constitution or laws.[29] Similarly, the federal government, as an attribute of sovereignty, has the power to enforce those powers that are granted to it (e.g., the power to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads"[30] includes the power to punish those who interfere with the postal system so established).[31] The Court has recognized the federal government's supreme power[32] over those limited matters[33] entrusted to it. Thus, no state may interfere with the federal government's operations as though its sovereignty is superior to the federal government's (discussed more below); for example, states may not interfere with the federal government's near absolute discretion to sell its own real property, even when that real property is located in one or another state.[34] The federal government exercises its supreme power not as a unitary entity, but instead via the three coordinate branches of the government (legislative, executive, and judicial),[35] each of which has its own prescribed powers and limitations under the Constitution.[36] In addition, the doctrine of separation of powersfunctions as a limitation on each branch of the federal government's exercise of sovereign power.[37]
One aspect of the American system of government is that, while the rest of the world now views the United States as one country, domestically American constitutional law recognizes a federation of state governments separate from (and not subdivisions of) the federal government, each of which is sovereign over its own affairs.[38] Sometimes, the Supreme Court has even analogized the States to being foreign countries to each other to explain the American system of State sovereignty.[39] However, each state's sovereignty is limited by the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of both the United States as a nation and each state;[40] in the event of a conflict, a valid federal law controls.[41] As a result, although the federal government is (as discussed above) recognized as sovereign and has supreme power over those matters within its control, the American constitutional system also recognizes the concept of "State sovereignty," where certain matters are susceptible to government regulation, but only at the State and not the federal level.[42] For example, although the federal government prosecutes crimes against the United States (such as treason, or interference with the postal system), the general administration of criminal justice is reserved to the States.[43] Notwithstanding sometimes broad statements by the Supreme Court regarding the "supreme" and "exclusive" powers the State and Federal governments exercise,[44] the Supreme Court and State courts have also recognized that much of their power is held and exercised concurrently


Audio of what the Noise Sounds Like:

Strange Sounds We've Been Hearing - We Heard Again on Private Inauguration Night 20, January 2013



Volcanoes Awaken ~ Chile, New Zealand, Hawaii, Russia, Philippines, Greece, Mexico,Alaska,Ecuador


What the Frack is going on with the continued out of control fracking??

Scott (BUG) is one of our Scientist:

Fracking Nuclear Faults NRC 

No Regulations on this! NONE. 

Tweet Facebook Google + It Plz


citizen report (great music)

TX NatGas 20130123 - one site one location


News we do not get to see: the war overseas:


Battle of Armageddon


Another point of view says the map was just for the Sandy Hook Incident
I am placing a warning on the following vid.  It is information that should be known about how truly evil things are, but the content could upset some people. Skip over this one if you do not want to see this interpretation of the Batman Sandy Hook Map

The Batman Sandy Hook Map Message



U.S. Patent: Lightning/Thunder Gun for Military Use and Weather Modification (Hurricane)


...this is brendasue signing off from Rainbow Creek. See You next Time!

Of course, a Great Discovery Vid Below By Rev Michelle
and discussion vid by Henning


The following discovery has not been reported by the Media Networks. I would think something so large and causing so much DAMAGE to the Untited States would be mentioned on the news



A discussion with Henning's Thoughts (and he is nice in this vid!!)

HAARP - TTA - The Worlds worst enemy.

Published on Jan 22, 2013

Official Website to contact Your Government

We the People: Your Voice in Our Government | The White House

We the People has moved to petitions.whitehouse.gov · Visit the We the Peoplehomepage · Check out open petitions on We the People ...


(yes, I fell asleep at the desk!-Sorry to be late-love to All, b)