CLAUSE 18 TEST

This matter is brought before the people of the United States and of their respective States, to determine the matter, irrespective of any decision alleged by the supreme Court of the United States, to determine whether or not a law in particular passed by the Congress of the United States and ratified, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by the President of the United States, is constitutional in accordance to the determinations found under the power of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. This action constitutes and is called a Clause 18 Test. This action is equivalent in law and Constitutional Law as being equivalent to a claim, not a complaint, of First Impression.

No Stare Decisis is known to be determined as applicable to this action. This action is not a case before the judiciary of the United States or of any State, and therefore does not require any judicial action by any court thereof. There being no case before any court, the test of res judicata (the case-matter has already been decided) can in no wise be applied to this action in any regard.

Although this Clause 18 Test is without judicial precedent, the legal claim to its merits arose in the beginning as a result of an explanation of contractual obligations that existed and do exist under the Constitution of the United States, provided and provided for by the primary framer of the said Constitution-contract representing the (sovereign) people of the United States for whom such Constitution-contract was first created and written to represent, that Constitution Framer or Founding Father being none other than the "Father of The Constitution," James Madison.

Because, in a certain part of reasoning, James Madison provided the people of the United States that the Constitution held the keys which would legally prevent the Congress of the United States from doing anything not contained within the Constitution itself, we find Clause 18 of Article I, Section 8 as being the pervading and prevailing part thereof that answers to this great Constitutional Framer’s proclamation as to the meaning and applicable interpretation of the Constitution itself, and that the said Clause 18 Test’s reasons for being necessary are further ground, as a separate but not necessarily equal matter, in long established judicial proceedings for determining the truth as it pertains to any matter before the court, to wit, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

The people’s authority and jurisdiction to proceed with this Test so petitioned for in this instant action is plenary. Any finding or action otherwise must defer to this instant action.

FACT:

1. A case is before the people involving the question of law as has been passed by the Congress of the United States. That law as passed by Congress may be found as applicable in any number of cases arising either under civil law, or criminal law, or both.
2. The said Congressional law is referenced in its legal context as being:

   (Insert the law reference and the text of the law being submitted under the

   Clause 18 Test)

3. The said Congressional law as provided for in its legal context has as its practical application the following effect(s):

THE CLAUSE 18 TEST – PREVIEW OF INHERENT POWER

1. In Clause 18 of Section 8, of Article I of the Constitution, it refers there to "foregoing Powers."
2. In Clause 18 of Section 8, of Article I of the Constitution, it refers there to "all other Powers vested by this Constitution."
3. In Clause 18 of Section 8, of Article I of the Constitution, it does not define specifically what those powers are, either the "foregoing Powers" or the "all other Powers vested by this Constitution."
4. As a matter of law or practice of law, there are no texts, tests, or exercises, judicial or otherwise, so far as is known, where any of the aforementioned Powers have been provided any Test under said Clause 18.
5. Based upon just cause found as an inherent right of the people for whom the Constitution was made from the beginning and the denial of such right as a matter of fact, whether such denial came by way of deliberate act or omission or by inadvertence or dereliction of duty, the right of the people to now provide for this Test on their own separate course of action is plenary.
6. The right of the people to act in conjunction with each other directly to affect any matter of law in violation of the Constitution of the United States is inherent (that is, unalienable, indisputable, irrefutable, undeniable, inseparable from the people).
7. Any attempt or act to deny the people this right is a Contempt of Constitution of the United States, a sovereign crime against the people of the United States and of each and every State thereof, to such a degree of offense as the people alone, by all due process, shall determine.

THE CLAUSE 18 TEST

I. The United States Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, establishes that: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (emphasis added)

II. The specific insertion of this Clause 18 in the Constitution raises some very constitutionally critical questions which establishes a Standard or a Test which must be met in order to determine precisely what laws may be passed in accordance to what Clause 18 calls for by constitutional interpretation.

III. The first such questions appear fundamental, but it is necessary as a part of the Clause 18 Test to ask them anyway, which questions are: "What is a power, and what is the true extent to which such power exists?"

ANSWERS POSED IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE QUESTIONS AS "QUESTION(S) AND ANSWERS."

A. Part 1 of Answers, brought forward by question, then answer: "Would it not be moot to grant power to any person or anything, if nothing could be done with it? Answer. It so would. It would be moot (pointless, endlessly argumentative, vain, needless) to grant power to any person or any thing, if nothing could be done with it! (the said power)"

B. Part 2 of Answers.

(a) "The right to pass laws would be inherent to the power so granted or given, therefore under the inherent powers doctrine, being the inseparable, undeniable right associated with any such power to do any particular thing, the right to pass a law in association therewith or in support thereto, would NOT be required or necessary to accompany each such power so expressed, and to be so published, accordingly."

(b) To irrefutably and more clearly determine the full weight of the application of the right of authority as existing inherently where any power has been granted to a government by the people whom the same is to serve (where it is fully expected that such government provide service to such people thereafter based upon such power so granted), three questions are posed, "What IF Clause 18 had never been written and incorporated into any part of the Constitution? What would be the effect upon the government’s power to establish laws as they would inhere necessarily to each of such said powers so granted and required to be dutifully followed? Would those granted powers be considered to be moot, or pointless and worthless, and a complete waste of time, just because no Clause 18 requirement had been provided for? Clearly and without question or doubt the rights by such government to pass laws in relation to such powers so granted would exist ab initio (or from the beginning) and would exist as the right of that government on an inherent (unalienable, inseparable) basis.

C. Part 3 of Answers.

(a) A power commonly recognized by the courts is known as contempt of court. Contempt of court is considered to exist as an inherent power, or that is to say, a power that belongs to the courts by the nature of what it is and what the courts are. An inherent power is inseparable from its principle; it is unalienable and indisputable, and it is not necessary that it be expressly defined in order to exist. Further, with an inherent power there comes equally a right which is inherent, the right to rely upon and utilize the power even though there may be no written law suggesting or allowing for its use.

(b) If it were not so, then all courts would be required to first have laws passed by the legislature in order to recognize their own right to act where contempt of court might be committed as an offense openly in court, and would have no power, or be powerless, to correct the misconduct for which the power existed inherently in the first place.

(c) An inherent power with no inherent right to act thereupon, regardless of the lack of a written provision in law to so act, is no power at all, and any claim to the contrary would be moot.

D. Part 3 of Answers, continued.

(a) "That is to say that even if Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 had never existed, but only the specific enumeration or evident establishment of any powers that might be alluded to, the right to pass laws that would pertain to such powers would be understood, or would be inherent to the very existence of those same powers, and could not be understood any other way but to exist instantly, and inherently or inseparably connected to such powers, without further statement outlining such a right being expressly required."

(b) Thus, since the right to pass laws already existed within the statement of exhibiting of each and every power contained in the Constitution prior to Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, then Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 was established as a Restrictive Power, established to assume and mandate irrevocably as a matter of fundamental and supreme law in restricting the powers, as expressed, as referred to, and the associative laws thereto, both those that existed prior to Clause 18 and those that either existed directly after Clause 18, or those that might come to exist thereafter.

E. Part 4 of Answer. By recognizing that the language at Clause 18 constitutes a Restricting Power, not an additive power as has been commonly believed, Clause 18 establishes that a law or laws may be passed based upon the existence of real powers BEFORE Clause 18 ("foregoing") and AFTER Clause 18 ("vested…by…Constitution {hereafter – understood or implied}), but if not found in the Constitution anywhere, then the right of a law to be passed at all by Congress under the Clause 18 Test, if failing to be recognized under Clause 18, does not exist by any constitutional right.

F. Part 5 of Answer. Thus, the Clause 18 Test becomes imperative to determine any matter brought about pursuant to any and every law passed by Congress, or acted upon by any department or officer thereof, for according to the implied requirements at "Clause 18," no law can exist constitutionally without passing that Test required inherently thereby, not being supported by a power which can be found and defined as belonging to the law alleged as passed itself. If any law fails the Clause 18 Test, then it must be withdrawn as to any matters, civil or criminal, which the law is found involved, else all judgements rendered thereunder would be found void at their issuance, and would demand an absolute reversal of the same, with the government of the United States being liable under the Seventh Amendment for any concrete damages sought as a Federal Encroachment, accordingly.

G. Final Part of Answer. Consequently, NOTHING beyond those laws would be either legal or unlawful . . . and therefore it becomes now known that a Constitutional Test pursuant to Article I, Section 1, Clause 18 must be conducted on the law or laws stated below, passed by the United States Congress, to determine whether or not such law(s) might meet the rigid requirements put forth by such Test in accordance to the designs of the Constitution’s Framers or the Founding Fathers who designed it.

IV. There is a granting to Congress by Clause 18 that it have the right to pass laws in association with the powers given it by the Constitution, but recognizes (restricts, limits, prohibits, denies) that those powers had to have been named or established prior to Clause 18 itself or else be contained in the Constitution, in specific existence and detail, after Clause 18 as Clause 18 expressly requires to be written in the Constitution thereafter, or else provided for by Amendment by and through Article V of the Constitution thereafter, where a clear and evident power has been name or otherwise clearly established as provided for by such Amendment, but if not being found either prior to Clause 18, after Clause 18 within any of the text contained in the further Articles, Sections, and Clauses of the Constitution, or within any of the Amendments to the Constitution, then no law that may have arisen or been created by the government of the United States can be counted as valid, lawful, legal, or otherwise, such law being unconstitutional, and void from its inception.

V. The foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above now by their inherent and constitutional nature demand that a TEST be applied to determine the constitutionality and the constitutional right of application of the law or laws set forth below.

The specific law(s) now subjected to the Clause 18 Test are as follows:

1. "Name of law as cited above now being subjected to the Clause 18 Test.

The closest part of the Constitution within the Constitution that might pertain to the law as above written would be, if any: No place found in the Constitution that would fit the above referenced law. If no place in the Constitution can be found and shown in a motion in liminae by the opposing party, then it must be held that the law fails the Clause 18 Test, is therefore unconstitutional, and all matters that surround such voided law cease to exist forthwith likewise.

The applicability of the power in the Constitution which must be applied, unless another enumerated power within the Constitution can be named in its place, meets with the following failures or flaws as to its applicability to the law(s) as above written:

These are the facts, both historical and otherwise, as surround the power that would pertain to the above written law, if applicable:

Except it can be concretely demonstrated in a court hearing called for determining Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law wherein it is determined to be otherwise, the law fails/passes the Clause 18 Test and therefore must be deemed as being constitutional / unconstitutional.