Requirement for Consent

I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw

1

her, I marveled with great amazement."

2

[ Rev. 17:1-6 , Bible, NKJV]

3

________________________________________________________________________________

4

“ And I saw the beast, the kings [heathen political rulers and the unbelieving democratic majorities who control them] of the earth [controlled by Satan], and their armies, gathered together to make war against

5

6

Him [God] who sat on the horse and against His army.”

7

[ Revelation 19:19 , Bible, NKJV]

8

9 The Bible calls this kind of commerce "fornication" and "adultery" and describes the fornicator called "Babylon the 10 Great Harlot" basically as a democracy instead of a Republic in Revelation chapters 17 to 19. This is consistent with 11 the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act found in 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2), which says that those who conduct "commerce" 12 with the "United States" federal corporation within its legislative jurisdiction thereby surrender their sovereignty. 13 Participation in our corrupted tax system also fits the classification of "commerce" within the meaning of this 14 requirement. See the link below for details: 15 http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_693.html 16

9.7

Comity

17

An important form of official “consent” is called “comity” in the legal field. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “comity” as 18 follows: 19

“comity . Courtesy; complaisance; respect; a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will. Recognition that one sovereignty allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial act of another sovereignty, having due regard to rights of its own citizens. Nowell v. Nowell, Tex.Civ.App., 408 S.W.2d. 550, 553. In general, principle of "comity" is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation, but out of deference and mutual respect. Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc., 117 Ariz. 192, 571 P.2d. 689,

20

21

22

23

24

25

695. See also Full faith and credit clause.” [ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 267]

26

27

Comity is the reason why countries and even sister states of the Union do the following for each other, even though no law 28 requires them to: 29

1. Extradite criminals wanted in another country.

30

2.

Provide military aid.

31

3. Accept immigrants or refugees from other countries.

32

Comity is usually used to describe the actions of states of the Union in relation to the federal government. Below is how 33 the U.S. Supreme Court describes the sovereignty of the states, and the fact that it cannot compel states to do anything in 34 relation to each other: 35

“This court has declined to take jurisdiction of suits between states to compel the performance of obligations which, if the states had been independent nations, could not have been enforced judicially, but only through the political departments of their governments. Thus, in Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, where the state of Kentucky, by her governor [127 U.S. 265, 289] applied to this court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for a writ of mandamus to the governor of Ohio to compel him to surrender a fugitive from justice, this court, while holding that the case was a controversy between two states, decided that it had no authority to grant the

36

37

38

39

40

41

writ.”

42

[State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Company, 127 U.S. 265 (1888)]

43

The U.S. Supreme Court also said that “comity” may not be employed to enlarge the powers of the federal government in 44 relation to the states. 45

Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached- upon branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 118 -137 (1976), for instance, the Court held that Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S., at 842 , n. 12. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944 -959 (1983),

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Requirement for Consent

186 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________