corruption in government

Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is a contract between the federal and state government and it's people, and the defacto Law of the Land. 

As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is  based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine." 

The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:

Section 256. Generally. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]

A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]

The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]

An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]

The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.

Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification." 

While New Jersey competes with Illinois for the title of most corrupt state in the Union, Illinois' soon to be former Governor, Rod Blagojevich isn't the only state executive trying to keep secrets. New Jersey's own Governor, Jon Corzine, is in the courts as he tries to keep his negotiations with one of the state's most powerful unions a secret.

The negotiations in questions were conducted between the Communications Workers of America Local 1034 and the state.

At the time that these negotiations were conducted, Carla Katz was the president of the union and as such, she was the individual negotiating contracts with the state. Along with other representatives of the state, Governor Corzine was the individual with whom Katz negotiated with for the union.

Conveniently, Katz and Corzine were once intimately involved. That is a fact which makes the lucrative, state contract that the two negotiated for the CWA a bit questionable.

That is also why some would like to know what went on in those negotiations. How and why did the state accept the unions costly demands?

To help answer that question, back in May, Superior Court Judge Paul Innes ordered that the Governor release hundreds of pages of correspondence between him, his aides and Katz during the time frame of the negotiations.

Corzine refuses to do so and Carla Katz joins him in that position..

He claims "executive privilege", believing that certain arrangements must remain secret.

She claims that state arbitration laws demand that the talks remain secret.

Ain't that convenient? Laws that demand the people be kept in the dark about the reasons behind why the government does what it does. Sounds like Lenin's rules of order for the politiburo

Like more than half of the voters polled in New Jersey, I disagree with the Governor's position. I believe that state negotiations for state contracts that spend the tax dollars of state residents should be an open and honest process. We should know what was offered and why. We should know what the union demanded and why. We should not be kept in the dark when it comes to finding out how own money is spent.

Governor Corzine and Carla Katz may want to keep the details of their negotiated deal a secret but that is not how a democratic form of an open and honest government works.

The two of them were not arranging how they were going to finance their next personal vacation to Hawaii. They were negotiating how to spend our tax dollars. That gives us the right to know how that arrangement was meant.

With all the corruption in New Jersey government, you would think that the governor would want to stay above reproach. You would think that he would go out of his way to help regain voters faith in government. Especially since he succeeded a corrupt democrat governor who resigned under a patronage and financial scandal that he tried to overshadow by announcing he was a closeted "gay American" who was cheating on his wife.

As more and more political leaders and government employees are being arrested in New Jersey, we need to know that our incumbent governor can be trusted.

By appealing the courts decision and fighting to keep his "official" talks with Carla Katz a secret, Jon Corzine is only raising suspicion and increasing our already lost faith in government.

Corzine may not know how to be a good Governor but he is not stupid. He realizes all of this, yet he still defies the obvious and clings to the documentation of his secret arrangements with the CWA's former president and his own former girlfriend.

The people and the courts of New Jersey deserve to know what is in those emails between Corizne and Katz. None of us are asking for the disclosure of any pillow talk or personal realizations. We simply want to make sure that the CWA contract deal was made for all the right reason.

Corzine's refusal to clear his name by turning these emails over to the proper authorities simply makes one believe that, like many other indicted and arrested New Jersey politicians, Corzine made a corrupt deal. That is not exactly the best impression that one can bring to the table in their bid for reelection. But until Governor Corzine releases those emails, he will be running for reelection with a smoking gun in his hand. Then again if the appellate courts reject Corzine's appeal, he may not be running for reelection after all. Instead he just might join a long list of fellow former state legislators and a few other governors in federal prison.

UNDER THE "HE SAID IT, NOT ME" CATEGORY
"Give this motherf****r Obama his senator? F**k him. For nothing. 
 F**k him."  
                                                          ~Soon to be former Illinois Governor Rod Blagovejich