JOLLY, DeMOSS, and PARKER ROBERT M. PARKER writing the Opinion
The existence of a property interest is determined not by the Constitution itself, but by reference to “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” Id. at 154 (quoting Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)).
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Property Interest IS defined by the Constitution. Property Interest CANNOT be abrogated or limited "existing rules or understandings". Property Rights are essential and fundamental rights. "existing rules or understandings" is clearly so vague as to entirely eliminate property rights, or property "interests".
WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER ROBERT M. PARKER writing opinion
‘All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.’” On that basis, the court held that “[t]he Rule trumps the statue.
Furthermore, we have recognized that where a conflict exists between a Rule and a statute, the most recent of the two prevails. Jackson v. Stinnett, 102 F.3d 132, 134-36 (5th Cir. 1996).
The Court here clearly makes an implicit amendment or ourright abrogation or repeal of statutes by placing their "rules" above the Law established by our Constitution and our elected representatives. To be effective and have meaning Law must be applied according to a Heirarchy that holds the Constitution as the Supreme Law followed by Statutes created by our representatives. The Courts have NO LAW MAKING AUTHORITY. Therefore; court rules are not law. Our representatives cannot delegate this authority to the Courts as doing so is a fundamental violation of the Constitution.
JOLLY, DeMOSS, and PARKER ROBERT M. PARKER writing the Opinion
The existence of a property interest is determined not by the Constitution itself, but by reference to “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” Id. at 154 (quoting Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)).
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Property Interest IS defined by the Constitution. Property Interest CANNOT be abrogated or limited "existing rules or understandings". Property Rights are essential and fundamental rights. "existing rules or understandings" is clearly so vague as to entirely eliminate property rights, or property "interests".
Article 1, Section 9 & 10. Fifth Amendment protection against taking of property by State without just compensation
Reversed District Court Ruling In favor of State of Texas taking of property from soveriegn person. Placing State Government Above the Rights of the People.
WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER ROBERT M. PARKER writing opinion
All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.’” On that basis, the court held that “[t]he Rule trumps the statue.
Furthermore, we have recognized that where a conflict exists between a Rule and a statute, the most recent of the two prevails. Jackson v. Stinnett, 102 F.3d 132, 134-36 (5th Cir. 1996).
The Court here clearly makes an implicit amendment or ourright abrogation or repeal of statutes by placing their "rules" above the Law established by our Constitution and our elected representatives. To be effective and have meaning Law must be applied according to a Heirarchy that holds the Constitution as the Supreme Law followed by Statutes created by our representatives. The Courts have NO LAW MAKING AUTHORITY. Therefore; court rules are not law. Our representatives cannot delegate this authority to the Courts as doing so is a fundamental violation of the Constitution.
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance theeof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.
Ruling of Federal District Court reversed in favor of police officer who violated the Fourth Amendment protecting the privacy of the people. The protection of soveriegn individuals from unreasonable search and seizure.
T1:
CaseNo: