OUR FREE FALL INTO TYRANNY

“What have you given us Mr. Franklin, a monarchy or a republic?” Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it!”

December 6, 2013

Until the founders made their declaration of independence and gave us the Constitution, humanity’s condition was that of ruler and subject. That relationship had changed little for 5000 years. And then, for the first time in history, America’s founders championed the idea that ALL of our rights came from our creator, that the citizen is sovereign, and that government is our servant. To keep the relationship that way, they wrote a contract, our Constitution, with language that would not allow our elected and appointed servants to easily change it.

While the rest of the world was enslaved, died, were slaughtered, starved imprisoned, impoverished, gassed or gulaged under Socialism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism, our Constitution protected our rights: besides life (and the freedom to protect same), and liberty, our founders realized our God given rights included the freedom—not the right—to succeed. For the first time in history it was understood and written in our Constitution that these were inalienable rights, and they came not from a ruler or a king, but from our creator! But what if most came to believe there was no creator—no God?Hold that thought a minute.

For the most part our servants—our elected and appointed representatives—obeyed their oath to uphold the mandates of our contract, and we became the country of “American Exceptionalism.” Free from the stranglehold of oppressive government, we became the economic powerhouse of the world and the singular example of what truly free citizens could accomplish. But now that is changing, and changing rapidly. 

Regardless of a growing history of failure, there are always those who embrace all or parts of those isms. And regardless of all those isms’ history of disaster, there are always those that sell class envy and the promise of: if only they could be in charge they would create a utopia for the oppressed—the little guy. But in America, it was particularly difficult: the Constitution and our history of unlimited opportunity for prosperity stood in the way of their dreams. Worse, unlike elsewhere, the founders, in their wisdom created a high bar to change it in Article V of our contract with them.

So, in the face of unlimited freedom, opportunity for prosperity and a constitution that had served us so well, and the abject failure of every ism in history, would be usurpers of power realized they would have to accomplish their goals by subterfuge—by, as the Marxists Antonio Gramsci wrote and taught his acolytes (Saul Alinsky, et al)—“by a long walk through the American culture. (8)  In order of priority, they would have to obtain hegemony over:

1.      education

2.      media

3.      pop culture and more

They have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations!

Those who would seize power realized there would have to be fundamental change in thinking; if not the words themselves, then what people thought the meaning of the constitution was—hence hegemony at every level of education was paramount and first in priority giving us programs such as Common Core. Hegemony over the media and pop culture was considered a must to popularized progressive ideas from education with the uninformed—with our youth. And so it began—the end game being the total elimination of the greatest political document ever.

Just the highlights of the subterfuge—there is much, much more:

1.      The Constitution is a living breathing document that must change with the times. To change and eventually eliminate the constitution, would-be usurpers realized they would have to convince the population that the constitution was a relic of former times: when rich white men ruled over the rest of the population—that the constitution must therefore change with the times. Even though the Federalists Papers are replete with arguments to the contrary, those desiring to implement their ism teach our children otherwise.

2.      The law is what the judges say it is. Early on, usurpers decided to use the courts—particularly, the non-elected Supreme Court—to find this power by making rather than simply interpreting law and offering their advice to our elected representatives as the founders intended. (1)(5) Once made, the courts would invoke Stare Decisis. (3)When they found new meaning in the constitution a precedent was set, and they made it difficult to revisit that decision.

Before going on, ask yourself one question: Why would we the citizen ever allow our servants—and those entrusted to interpret and enforce our contract—our constitution—to also change it? We didn’t and wouldn’t. (1)The hubris of those that say so is difficult to comprehend. (2) But they did because we the people and our elected representatives let them! Remember Franklin’s words:“You have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

3.      Change the meaning of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. (4) With the assumed power to make rather than interpret the law, representatives circumvented the difficult Article V process to change the Constitution. Now, those wanting unlimited power would interpret the General Welfare clause to mean ‘anything goes’ (5) as long as it was perceived for the general welfare. That change alone would allow our elected representatives to appeal to disparate groups of society and buy their votes under the guise of their general welfare.

In 1937, Roosevelt used the supreme court to facilitate his own brand of New Deal socialism.(5) Our representatives swore an oath they would not allow this to happen, but not enough objected. Power not authorized by we the people was usurped and the precedent was set. (2)(5)

We the people and our elected representatives let them do this! Again, Benjamin Franklin's words: “You have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

Free from the restrictions reserved only for the states, they could now use federal tax receipts for programs never envisioned by the founders nor found in the enumerated powers to solidify personal and party power. Power for pork, power to get re-elected at the expense of unknown opposition without this power. And use it they did to the extent we now owe 17 plus trillion dollars that can never be repaid. At some time in the near future, we will suffer great privation to restore this country.

4.      Over time, eliminate Federalism. Enable un-named bureaucrats (not our elected representatives) to make and write laws that subvert our constitutional rights incumbent not just on federal bureaucracies, but on the states, individuals and their property. Again, in Article 1 Section 8 the courts abrogated the constitution’s all-important limits of the enumerated powersas well as powers reserved only to the states. Perhaps James Madison said it best in a letter to James Pendleton in 1792.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." For a history of the original intent see (4) The Federalist Papers are replete with such references.

5.       What came next? Having thus seized this power to make, rather than interpret and advise our constitution’s meaning, the courts were free to interpret the meaning of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper and other parts so carefully reasoned and thought out by the founders as to almost re-write the meaning of our contract to the extent it is almost meaningless. Just think of the recent Robert’s decision on the ACA. Even though a majority of citizens did not want ACA, and no Republican voted for it, Roberts found law for the administration and K street that will no doubt be challenged and debated for years all at the expense of we the people, and all under the guise of helping the oppressed—the little guy.

Again, we the people and our elected representatives let our servants change our contract! But even at this late hour, “You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

6.      Invent a meaning that takes God out of the Constitution and public life. Maybe a clause in the constitution (that does not exist) that says there must be a separation of church and state. Use the courts to re-enforce the notion. From kindergarten through college, use your acolytes in academia to hammer the notion home: no prayer in public places, no Christmas scenes ad nauseum. Use the media and pop culture and political correctness to drive the notion home and make God and religion un-cool.

Far too often, our first term idealistic representative seeking change is bombarded by K street—the not so new 5^th estate of government—and their party’s leadership to support their bill or motion de-jour. If they do, the support for their re-election will magically materialize. If not, the re-election of the new representative will be difficult and probably fail, and business in Washington will continue as usual. Seduced by the power of the federal purse, there is little difference between political parties as there is virtually no restriction on what constitutes “general welfare” beyond the support and power necessary to pass a bill. Both parties want access to that power, and so the practice endures.

A few thoughts: If we are to have the slightest chance for our republic to endure, we must insist that our representatives and appointees adhere to the powers granted to them and nothing more. We must return to the original intent of the founders especially with regard to Article 1 Section 8. Almost everyone understands their must be provisions for the indigent and those in our Republic that cannot care for themselves. Over time, thought, we must phase out government welfare programs keeping only those that we can justify though constitutional processes. We must totally re-think letting faceless bureaucrats make law through the pernicious CFR’s enabling government to promulgate total control dogma such as Agenda 21. Adhering to the original intent of the constitution will greatly reduce the constant pressure from K street to support their program of the hour. Without these measures, business in Washington will continue until our republic collapses under the sheer weight of debt.

Now, for that thought from the beginning: So what might happen if the majority came to believe that there is no God—a thought so assiduously promulgated at all levels of education, pop culture and government? Would it not logically follow that there are no inalienable rights? Would that notion logically suggest that any rights we do have come from government, and therefore may be repealed by government?

The return to the constitution will require education of citizen and representative. No longer can we tolerate representatives whose attitudes and ignorance put the future of the republic in peril. (See (6) for an example) Through our national retreat from god as our creator, and from our collective silence and ignorance of the constitution, we have left the door wide open to usher in the next ism and tyranny! In a little over 220 years, we have almost reverted to the natural state of the previous 5000—the condition of government as master, and we the people as servant. We are in a freefall into tyrannywith judges and legislators leading the way aided by the complicit, the ignorant and the silence of we the people. But right now we still have a choice:“You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

These thoughts are my opinions. I have made them after considerable research and a lifetime of observation and engagement.

Louis Stannard

Just a few references: there are many more.

(1) Federalists 78 McLeans edition

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-federalist/summary-and-analysis/section-xii-judiciary-federalist-no-78-hamilton/section-xii-judiciary-federalist-no-78-hamilton-1

(2) Is the constitution what the judges say it is?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Hughes-Hubris

(3) The argument against precedent

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/glawson/glawson_ccap.pdf

(4) The General Welfare Clause—the original interpretation

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=15844

(5) Roosevelt Supreme Court interprets the General Welfare Clause

http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

(6)The total lack of knowledge and responsibility of our representatives

Pete Stark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&list=PLF676F5F146D446F5

Congressman Lewis on ACA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTN349d-4Y

(7) Precedent law http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Advisory+opinion

(8) Who stole our culture? https://fttf.sharepoint.com/Pages/whostoleourculture.aspx

How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?

For Love of God and Country


How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?


Limit Federal spending through nullification and state escrow accounts

Diane Rufino
August 24, 2013

The government has no legitimate powers that were not initially granted to it under the Constitution. There is no provision anywhere, nor is there any implied right under the Declaration of Independence or any other social compact theory, which permits the government to assume any more powers than originally granted to it. There is, of course, only one way to legitimately alter the Constitution and hence alter the function and scope of government, and that is through Article V's amendment process. But only the states can approve those amendments.

As we all know, the only amendments which fundamentally altered the federal government were the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

The US Constitution is a "compact" (a social compact) among the states. It was an agreement among the states, fortified by their ratification, on how they would be managed and served by a common government. The Constitution created a Union of states ("united" States) and NOT the "United States." The Civil War would change that.

In the Constitution, the States delegated certain powers to the federal government, reserving all others to itself. And even with respect to those enumerated powers, there was clarification and limitation (as discussed in the state ratifying conventions, as well as in the very words, phrasing, and limiting clauses in the documents. For example, the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which was meant to breathe life into the powers vested in the government under the Constitution, mean just that... "NECESSARY." As it turns out, the Supreme Court would quickly re-define "necessary" to mean "convenient"). With respect to the taxing power, the states clearly and freely delegated to the government the power to tax and spend. However, the intent was that Congress can only tax and spend with regard to the seventeen specifically enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Additionally, the "General Welfare" clause was not meant as a separate grant of power as it is assumed today. Yet, we've seen how the government, through independent-minded justices on the Supreme Court, has used all these "limiting clauses" (including the Commerce Clause and now the taxing power) to grow government and to provide justification for every type of policy, program, or legislation that it wanted to enact. Never mind that the Federalist Papers were absolutely clear on the limited nature of the federal government. And all along, the States have refused to stand up, question, challenge, or nullify improper federal spending or improper federal regulation.

At this point, with respect to the taxing power alone, the federal government has plenary power to tax and spend. It has the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which the Supreme Court interpreted in 1819 to be a blank check to the government to do pretty much anything it finds "convenient" to further its power or enable its powers to tax and spend. The healthcare decision enlarged the government's taxing power further, allowing government to tell Americans what it must purchase and punishing them (by taxing them) for not conducting themselves as the government demands. And so the result now is a government that taxes and spends for pretty much anything it wants. Most of the spending is for unconstitutional purposes which means that taxing for such spending is also unconstitutional.

Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

Congress has been taking money from the citizens of states, and then offering that money back to states on the condition that legislators follow the will of Congress. Using these federal grants accompanied by mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than truly independent republican governments.

A radical social agenda and an erosion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While substantial efforts have been made to combat the social engineering and to protect peoples' rights, we have missed one of the most important principles of the American founding.

Can we trust government to reverse course? Could we trust it to police itself and divest those improper spending powers to state local governments where they can be used to responsibly and directly to benefit their own people? The answer is no.

And that is why it must fall to the States to address the federal budget and use Nullification to enforce those changes.
The Solution


The solution I propose is called the "State Escrow Account" remedy. And yes, it's based on the doctrine of Nullification.

Again, the government can only tax and spend for constitutional objects. It would seem to me that a lot of its spending is on unconstitutional objects, such as state grants (using money to do what it can't do constitutionally, under the law of contracts) and education grants (such as Common Core; education is not a government matter; it's a state function). If the federal government has so much money that it can spend on unconstitutional objects/projects, then clearly it is taxing the people TOO MUCH. If the states had ambition under the 10th Amendment and wanted to stand up for the People's rights to keep their income, they should band together and challenge every bit of government spending. They should seek to have the federal government collect only revenue that goes to constitutional functions and NONE to bribe the states. That extra money should go to the states. This way the states can legislate more responsibly to their own people and not according to government mandates and a one-size-fits-all strategy. I would also set up State Escrow Accounts. For example, all taxpayers who live in North Carolina would send their federal income tax forms to a state treasury office. The funds would go into a state Escrow Account. That office would review the federal budget and decide what percentage of spending goes to constitutional matters and what percentage goes to unconstitutional ones. The NC Treasury Department would send funds on to the US Treasury Department MINUS the percentage that represents unconstitutional federal spending. Those extra funds in the state escrow account would either stay there to fund our own education, highways, etc or would be refunded back to the taxpayer. In this way, the proper power structure would be restored (government is greatest where it is closest to the people), the States would be a lot stronger (as intended), they would be more responsive to the people, we would be free from the "one-size-fits-all" model that is ruining this country, many of the onerous regulations that are killing businesses and the free market would be repealed, the economy would grow and businesses would flourish, money would be put back into the pockets where it is spent the wisest - with the people who actually earn it, and America's proclaimed notion of Liberty would be secure. States would be a lot more responsive to its people and they would be in a better position to protect their inalienable rights, as well as all the other rights associated with a free and sovereign people, if they were free from the financial bondage to the federal government. Individuals would be able to exercise their inalienable rights - to Life, Liberty, and Property - more freely, if they were free from legalized plunder and their financial bondage to the federal government.

Who Has the Right to Determine the Extent of Government?

The Declaration of Independence answered that question clearly, concisely, and before a "candid world."

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
The Declaration proclaims that America stands for the notion that the rights and liberties of the Individual, under Natural Law and Nature's God, are paramount to any self-serving designs of government. And should that day come when the government assumes a position that threatens the liberty of the People, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish that government.

The Constitution embodies the principles articulated in the Declaration. It created a limited government, one organized around the interests of the States and the People and provided for their full participation. Through the Preamble of the Constitution itself and then the preamble to the Bill of Rights, we see the intent for limited nature of government in our lives. The Preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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." You can't ask for a stronger expression of intent than that.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Again, there can be no confusion about the intent of the States to limit the powers of the federal government and to prevent it from trying to pervert itself.

In other words, our Founding Fathers built a government whose purpose was not to control the people, but one that the people controlled. The government's purpose was not to take or usurp the people's sovereignty, but to provide only those things that the people could not provide for themselves, such as a standing army to protect them, uniform currency and commerce, a uniform immigration and naturalization policy, and relations with foreign nations. They stipulated that the people's sovereign rights had to remain with the people. The Founding Fathers made sure to grant to the People the ultimate authority over how they intended to be governed. It is the People who have power over their government. Unfortunately, collusion among decision-makers in Washington DC, as well as the three branches of government, to support party ideology over the preservation of individual liberty, has served to by-pass constitutional checks and balances and has acted to render the voice of the People as moot. Not only has government legislated in a way that frustrates their liberty interests but it has also made sure it controls the means to brainwash them and to keep them from educating themselves in the manner that would best preserve that liberty.

The People, therefore, have the right to determine the extent of their government. If the government refuses to abide by the limits of the Constitution and continues to loot the American people to pay for objects and projects that are unconstitutional, then the proper recourse is with the People (to alter their government) or with the States (where much of the peoples' powers are deposited). If the People can't "alter their government" through the only avenue open to them, which is the ballot box, then the States must interpose and Nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government, including unconstitutional elements of the budget and unconstitutional exercises of the purse strings.

Remember the oath of office for all branches of the federal government and for all representatives and officials in state government calls for support and allegiance to the US Constitution... NOT the federal government. The Constitution is the PEOPLE's document. It protects them from the reaches of government. So in effect, ALL government representatives and officials are OBLIGATED to respect We the PEOPLE... and our right to be left alone by government.

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 abuses of the rights of the American colonists by King George and the British Parliament. It states: "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Today, we should be shouting: "A government whose character is marked by the actions of a tyrant is UNFIT to rule a free people."


http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-08-24-268500.112112-How-about-applying-nullification-to-the-entire-federal-budget.html

How about applying nullification to the entire federal budget?

For Love of God and Country Limit Federal spending through nullification and state escrow accounts

Diane Rufino

August 24, 2013

The government has no legitimate powers that were not initially granted to it under the Constitution. There is no provision anywhere, nor is there any implied right under the Declaration of Independence or any other social compact theory, which permits the government to assume any more powers than originally granted to it. There is, of course, only one way to legitimately alter the Constitution and hence alter the function and scope of government, and that is through Article V's amendment process. But only the states can approve those amendments.

As we all know, the only amendments which fundamentally altered the federal government were the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

The US Constitution is a "compact" (a social compact) among the states. It was an agreement among the states, fortified by their ratification, on how they would be managed and served by a common government. The Constitution created a Union of states ("united" States) and NOT the "United States." The Civil War would change that.

In the Constitution, the States delegated certain powers to the federal government, reserving all others to itself. And even with respect to those enumerated powers, there was clarification and limitation (as discussed in the state ratifying conventions, as well as in the very words, phrasing, and limiting clauses in the documents. For example, the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which was meant to breathe life into the powers vested in the government under the Constitution, mean just that... "NECESSARY." As it turns out, the Supreme Court would quickly re-define "necessary" to mean "convenient"). With respect to the taxing power, the states clearly and freely delegated to the government the power to tax and spend. However, the intent was that Congress can only tax and spend with regard to the seventeen specifically enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Additionally, the "General Welfare" clause was not meant as a separate grant of power as it is assumed today. Yet, we've seen how the government, through independent-minded justices on the Supreme Court, has used all these "limiting clauses" (including the Commerce Clause and now the taxing power) to grow government and to provide justification for every type of policy, program, or legislation that it wanted to enact. Never-mind that the Federalist Papers were absolutely clear on the limited nature of the federal government. And all along, the States have refused to stand up, question, challenge, or nullify improper federal spending or improper federal regulation.

At this point, with respect to the taxing power alone, the federal government has plenary power to tax and spend. It has the "Necessary and Proper" clause, which the Supreme Court interpreted in 1819 to be a blank check to the government to do pretty much anything it finds "convenient" to further its power or enable its powers to tax and spend. The healthcare decision enlarged the government's taxing power further, allowing government to tell Americans what it must purchase and punishing them (by taxing them) for not conducting themselves as the government demands. And so the result now is a government that taxes and spends for pretty much anything it wants. Most of the spending is for unconstitutional purposes which means that taxing for such spending is also unconstitutional.

Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty

Congress has been taking money from the citizens of states, and then offering that money back to states on the condition that legislators follow the will of Congress. Using these federal grants accompanied by mandates (which are rarely fully funded), Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than truly independent republican governments.

A radical social agenda and an erosion of the rights of the people accompany all of this. While substantial efforts have been made to combat the social engineering and to protect peoples' rights, we have missed one of the most important principles of the American founding.

Can we trust government to reverse course? Could we trust it to police itself and divest those improper spending powers to state local governments where they can be used to responsibly and directly to benefit their own people? The answer is no.

And that is why it must fall to the States to address the federal budget and use Nullification to enforce those changes.

The Solution

The solution I propose is called the "State Escrow Account" remedy. And yes, it's based on the doctrine of Nullification.

Again, the government can only tax and spend for constitutional objects. It would seem to me that a lot of its spending is on unconstitutional objects, such as state grants (using money to do what it can't do constitutionally, under the law of contracts) and education grants (such as Common Core; education is not a government matter; it's a state function). If the federal government has so much money that it can spend on unconstitutional objects/projects, then clearly it is taxing the people TOO MUCH. If the states had ambition under the 10th Amendment and wanted to stand up for the People's rights to keep their income, they should band together and challenge every bit of government spending. They should seek to have the federal government collect only revenue that goes to constitutional functions and NONE to bribe the states. That extra money should go to the states. This way the states can legislate more responsibly to their own people and not according to government mandates and a one-size-fits-all strategy. I would also set up State Escrow Accounts. For example, all taxpayers who live in North Carolina would send their federal income tax forms to a state treasury office. The funds would go into a state Escrow Account. That office would review the federal budget and decide what percentage of spending goes to constitutional matters and what percentage goes to unconstitutional ones. The NC Treasury Department would send funds on to the US Treasury Department MINUS the percentage that represents unconstitutional federal spending. Those extra funds in the state escrow account would either stay there to fund our own education, highways, etc or would be refunded back to the taxpayer. In this way, the proper power structure would be restored (government is greatest where it is closest to the people), the States would be a lot stronger (as intended), they would be more responsive to the people, we would be free from the "one-size-fits-all" model that is ruining this country, many of the onerous regulations that are killing businesses and the free market would be repealed, the economy would grow and businesses would flourish, money would be put back into the pockets where it is spent the wisest - with the people who actually earn it, and America's proclaimed notion of Liberty would be secure. States would be a lot more responsive to its people and they would be in a better position to protect their inalienable rights, as well as all the other rights associated with a free and sovereign people, if they were free from the financial bondage to the federal government. Individuals would be able to exercise their inalienable rights - to Life, Liberty, and Property - more freely, if they were free from legalized plunder and their financial bondage to the federal government.

Who Has the Right to Determine the Extent of Government?

The Declaration of Independence answered that question clearly, concisely, and before a "candid world."

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The Declaration proclaims that America stands for the notion that the rights and liberties of the Individual, under Natural Law and Nature's God, are paramount to any self-serving designs of government. And should that day come when the government assumes a position that threatens the liberty of the People, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish that government.

The Constitution embodies the principles articulated in the Declaration. It created a limited government, one organized around the interests of the States and the People and provided for their full participation. Through the Preamble of the Constitution itself and then the preamble to the Bill of Rights, we see the intent for limited nature of government in our lives. The Preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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." You can't ask for a stronger expression of intent than that.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Again, there can be no confusion about the intent of the States to limit the powers of the federal government and to prevent it from trying to pervert itself.

In other words, our Founding Fathers built a government whose purpose was not to control the people, but one that the people controlled. The government's purpose was not to take or usurp the people's sovereignty, but to provide only those things that the people could not provide for themselves, such as a standing army to protect them, uniform currency and commerce, a uniform immigration and naturalization policy, and relations with foreign nations. They stipulated that the people's sovereign rights had to remain with the people. The Founding Fathers made sure to grant to the People the ultimate authority over how they intended to be governed. It is the People who have power over their government. Unfortunately, collusion among decision-makers in Washington DC, as well as the three branches of government, to support party ideology over the preservation of individual liberty, has served to by-pass constitutional checks and balances and has acted to render the voice of the People as moot. Not only has government legislated in a way that frustrates their liberty interests but it has also made sure it controls the means to brainwash them and to keep them from educating themselves in the manner that would best preserve that liberty.

The People, therefore, have the right to determine the extent of their government. If the government refuses to abide by the limits of the Constitution and continues to loot the American people to pay for objects and projects that are unconstitutional, then the proper recourse is with the People (to alter their government) or with the States (where much of the peoples' powers are deposited). If the People can't "alter their government" through the only avenue open to them, which is the ballot box, then the States must interpose and Nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government, including unconstitutional elements of the budget and unconstitutional exercises of the purse strings.

Remember the oath of office for all branches of the federal government and for all representatives and officials in state government calls for support and allegiance to the US Constitution... NOT the federal government. The Constitution is the PEOPLE's document. It protects them from the reaches of government. So in effect, ALL government representatives and officials are OBLIGATED to respect We the PEOPLE... and our right to be left alone by government.

The Declaration of Independence lists 27 abuses of the rights of the American colonists by King George and the British Parliament. It states: "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Today, we should be shouting: "A government whose character is marked by the actions of a tyrant is UNFIT to rule a free people."

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-08-24-268500.112112-How-about-applying-nullification-to-the-entire-federal-budget.html

Independence Celebration Picnic July 6!

CCTA invites  you to an old fashinoned neighborhood celebration of our American Independence...

INDEPENDENCE CELEBRATION PICNIC

Saturday, July 6, 2013--4:00 pm Until ?

HIGHLAND PARK CHRISTIAN CHURCH

905 Carolina Avenue, Trent Woods, NC

(take Trent Road to Highland Avenue, go 1 block and turn left on Park)

MENU

Hot Dogs and Hamburgers, with all the Trimmings!

Potato Salad, Macaroni Salad, Cole Slaw and Baked Beans

Assorted yummy sweets

CHILDERN'S GAMES WITH PRIZES

BB Gun Turkey Shoot, Watermelon Eating Contest and Egg Race

ADDITIONAL CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES

MUSIC

Tom's Tunes with Darlin' and Guest Singers

OTHER FUN STUFF

Senator Norman Sanderson and Representative Michael Speciale

and their families will be our guests.

Rep. Speciale will read the Declaration of Independence

PLEASE NOTE:

Tickets will be sold for meals and games with prizes.  All prices will be family friendly.

CALL FOR MORE INFO:  252-649-0525

Separation Of Church And State: Then And Now

The term “separation of church and state” is being thrown around more every day, but it seems that its origin and meaning still escapes many Americans, even those who should know better. Even among Christian conservatives, there are now some who constantly check themselves at the door of separation of church and state before making private or public decisions or statements, readily accepting the popular understanding of the phrase.

The problematic reality of the situation is that they are being misled by those whose intentions are dishonest and far from the promotion of free speech and religion. Most political conversations now initiated, concerning the separation of church and state, claim that the separation they speak of is based upon the U.S. Constitution. In reality, this phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution; neither is their argument. The anti-freedom argument of separation of church and state contends that no reference, audible or visible, to any biblical or Christian tenet should be allowed in any federal or state facility (or in any decision made therein.)


Their unfounded claim is made in citation to the First Amendment to the Constitution, effective December 15, 1791. Amendment I states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Obviously, the exact phrase that is so popular among this crowd is not present in this amendment. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” actually originated from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802. This religious group, like many today, had learned just enough about the governmental terminology that had been established concerning the church and the state to entertain the possibility that the government meant to turn completely away from the interests and influences of Christianity and Bible teaching. That was their fear. The purpose of Jefferson’s letter was to remove their fears and to assure them that this “wall” was being erected to protect their religious freedom, in that it was meant to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business. The respect or display of Judeo-Christian faith is not the sort of “establishment” being addressed in the First Amendment. This faith had already been established long before the writing of the Constitution.

It’s easier to put the true intent of the nation’s founders into perspective when we consider their plight in the earlier American colonies and, for some of them and many of their ancestors, in the mother country of England. There, under the British monarchy, the Church of England and the government were one in the same. Both entities infiltrated the other, causing citizens’ lives, well-being, and freedoms to suffer. This “establishment” of a state religion is what the founders wished to avoid in the independent separation of their young nation of the United States from British control. Their intention was never to remove the free expression or practice of religion from public or private American life. Quite the contrary was true.

In fact, 52 of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established colonial orthodox churches. As the very first Supreme Court justice, John Jay, in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797, said that “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” In 1798, John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Based upon historical record, these views were also shared by others, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Dr. Benjamin Rush. Although the nation was not officially founded to be a Christian nation, in that it was not penned into founding documents that “the United States of America is to be solely representative and influenced by Christianity,” by the very nature of the Founders’ faith and actions, it should be clearly understood that America was, from the beginning, a Christian nation. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times and clearly states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” By any contextual interpretation, it can only be concluded that the “Creator” being spoken of in this document is the God of the Holy Bible.

Other evidence of the country’s traditional Christian heritage can be clearly observed in the nation’s Capital and in other public institutions elsewhere. The words “In God We Trust” are emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court building, built in the 1930’s, contains a carved monument above its East entrance featuring Moses holding stone tablets representing the Ten Commandments. God is mentioned, including Bible verses, in the stone architecture of various Federal buildings and monuments in Washington, D.C. The liberty bell also contains an engraved Bible verse. In every presidential swearing-in ceremony, prayers have been offered, and every U.S. president has uttered the words “So help me God” as they were sworn in on the Bible. Every president who has given an inaugural address has invoked the name of God in their speech. Other courtroom oaths have also always invoked God, and chaplains have always been included on the public payroll. God is mentioned in the original Constitution of all 50 states. Including official festivities under every administration at the White House, our nation has also always celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior’s birth.

CONTINUED:  http://www.westernjournalism.com/separation-of-church-and-state-then-and-now/

Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit “Treason to the Constitution,” and are Null and Void.

Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit "Treason to the Constitution," and are Null and Void.

In June, 2012, roughly two years after the initial filings, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) passed down rulings on the multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare, and on Arizona’s SB-1070. Was the Constitution upheld or further eviscerated? Political pundits on both sides of the issues spun the rulings to fit either their joy or outrage depending on their political persuasion, but what really happened?

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." -Confucius (551 BCE - 479 BCE)

Regardless of which side of the issues you reside, you were betrayed. The federal district courts that the complaints were filed in had zero constitutional authority to hear the cases. The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, had zero constitutional authority to hear “on appeal” the lawsuits against Arizona’s SB-1070 and Obamacare.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states:“…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The process matters and the ends do not justify the means, especially when the “means” involve shredding the Constitution, and the “ends” involve destroying the sovereignty of the States, and eviscerating the Bill of Rights. An authority usurped is a tyrannical act, and this unjust power was not derived from the “consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson’s advice   “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a general and supreme one alone.

We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then, with the editor of our book, in his address to the public, I will say, “that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his arm…That pen should go on, lay bare these wounds of our Constitution, expose the decisions seriatim, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to these bold speculators on its patience.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820  

Thomas Jefferson further advised: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion with education.”
James Madison, author of the Constitution, is attributed with the following from March 3, 1817:“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

In a June 12, 1823 letter to Judge William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson writes:“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.“  — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Taking Jefferson’s advice, give due diligence to the following questions:
1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] “on appeal?”3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?5. If the Supreme Court granted this authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?  

An honest review of the process will expose that the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, was usurped and ignored at every step of the way. Until the above questions are answered, an honest discussion of the merits of the cases and the rulings handed down, is not possible. Until due diligence is given the above questions, making any decisions regarding what We the People’s next course of action should be is premature and irresponsible.  

What does the Supreme Law of the Land say about how these cases should be handled?

The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states:“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” [Emphasis added]

In 1821, in "Cohens v. Virginia," Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall stated the following:  

• “The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."
• "…It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."
• “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its authors [Madison and Hamilton] performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.”
• “These essays having been published while the Constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”   

–U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall

1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?ANSWER: Plaintiffs cited 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 in their complaints to establish jurisdiction and venue before inferior federal district courts. These statutes are themselves “repugnant” to the Constitution, and should have been rejected. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court was granted the power to authorize the subjugation of cases “in which a State shall be Party” to inferior courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty, as clearly defined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1, to be the “first” to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party.”.

Over the years, both Congress and the Supreme Court have overstepped their authority on this issue, each relying on the other to validate the practice, yet nothing in the Constitution authorizes either to do so. Laws not written in pursuance of the Constitution are not law at all, and no court has authority to rely on unconstitutional laws to take jurisdiction that is not theirs to exercise. Additionally, no ruling passed down by a court that has no constitutional authority is valid. 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 must be amended to conform to the mandates of the Constitution. View proposal here.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78:“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is executed, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:  

• “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
• Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” [emphasis added]  

2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] "on appeal?"

ANSWER: They didn’t. The Constitution grants no such appellate authority to any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts should have taken these cases away from "inferior tribunals" under his authority over the lesser courts, and in pursuance of his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. He was advised of this constitutional crisis, and chose to ignore it, as were the litigants in the Arizona and Virginia cases. (Read: Open letters to Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts at RejoinorDie.com)

3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?
ANSWER: Congress, in direct contradiction to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, granted authority to the federal appellate courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases “on appeal” within the federal judiciary in which States are Party. No such constitutional crisis would ever arise if Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1 was upheld.

4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?ANSWER: No. The Constitution only authorizes Congress to make exceptions and to establish regulations [laws] in respect to cases that do not involve sovereign States [foreign or domestic]. The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, part 2 clearly states that the “appellate” jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is granted in relation to “all the other cases before mentioned.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “original jurisdiction” as follows: “Original Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in the first instance. Jurisdiction to take cognizance of a course at its inception, tries it, and passes judgment upon the law and facts. Distinguished from appellate jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.)

5. If the Supreme Court authorized inferior federal courts to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party,” does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court that power?

ANSWER: No. The Supreme Court of the United States is granted [shall have] “original jurisdiction” over cases in which one of the parties represents a sovereign (foreign or domestic), and is granted “appellate jurisdiction” over “all the other cases.”
The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not hear on appeal “all the other cases” for which it was granted “appellate jurisdiction.” The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority to neglect or subjugate cases to inferior courts it is required to hear ‘in the first instance.”

The states, acting alone or in tandem, have no discretion under the Constitution to engage in a federal lawsuit on behalf of a sovereign state in an inferior federal court. To do so violates the Constitution and undermines the sovereign relationship of all other states that exists between them and the federal government within our constitutional republic.

6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?

ANSWER: The Framers of the Constitution [the sovereign states] established, and the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged, that when a conflict between the sovereign States and the federal government arises, and said conflict is to be resolved within a federal court, that it must be adjudicated “in the first instance” before the U.S. Supreme Court, and no other. The Constitution makes no differentiation regarding whether or not the State is a plaintiff or a defendant. The cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 fall in that category.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 81:

“In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”

George Washington warned us, and advised us in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:

“If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction.“

“If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where

the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance."  

“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.”

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

“If the solicitude of the Convention respecting our peace with foreign powers induced a provision that the Supreme Court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them, yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases if no further restriction on the powers of Congress had been intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as Congress might make, is no restriction unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.”

“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.”

“When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Mr. Bernard Reese, a Trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society, in an August 10, 2010 article titled, “Court had no authority in Arizona case; Supreme Court does,” published in the Rockford Register Star states:


“The United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 specifically provides that: “In all cases …. in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

“Thus, U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case. This means that neither Judge Susan Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, has any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue...” (Emphasis added)

-Bernard Reese, of the law firm Reese & Reese,

Trustee, Supreme Court Historical Society

In early August, 2010, taking the advice of Jefferson to “inform their discretion through education,” letters were delivered to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. These letters have since become known as ‘scarlet letters.’

Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, in a December 12, 2010 Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, stated the following items should be taken into consideration when deciding cases in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the court: 1- the text of the legislation, 2- the history, 3- the traditions, 4- the precedents, 5- the values, and 6- the consequences of the decision.


An application of Justice Breyer’s philosophy on maintaining “public confidence” in the court suggests the following analysis:


• TEXT – Compare 28 USC 1251 to Article III, Section 2, and the bills to the Constitution.


• HISTORY – Founding documents & Federalist Papers 62, 78, and 81


• TRADITIONS – “original jurisdiction” in Blackstone’s Commentaries, and in Black’s Law Dictionary.


• PRECEDENT – “Marbury v. Madison"   • VALUES – does this statute uphold intent of the Framers?


• CONSEQUENCES – shredding of State’s Rights, risks the loss of confidence in the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution.


Was “public confidence” in the Supreme Court advanced or diminished by these rulings? Nothing about the Supreme Court’s handling of these cases instills confidence they are upholding the Constitution. Without getting into the merits of the case, if the Constitution was usurped at every step of the way, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice does nothing to secure the integrity of the process, how can public confidence in the high court be anything but diminished?


“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.”

- Henry David Thoreau

A wise man told me "If you don’t know where you’re headed, any road will get you there." Are we heading in the direction of restoring and upholding the Constitution, or are we being ruled by the whims of men?

Did we “bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution” as Jefferson advised? The parties that filed these lawsuits and the parties that responded made “strategic decisions” to ignore the “Supreme Law of the Land” and relied instead on unconstitutional statutes and case law to justify their actions. The federal district courts which took “original jurisdiction” had no such constitutional authority as the statutes they relied upon to establish “jurisdiction and venue” were themselves unconstitutional.

The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, relied on precedent and unconstitutional statutes to establish their appellate authority to review the cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution has never been amended to authorize the subjugation of cases to “inferior tribunals” [federal district courts] in which the sovereign states “are Party,” nor has it been amended to grant the appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the authority to hear cases “on appeal” in which a state is Party. James Madison talked about usurped powers.

This is not “just government,” and We the People have not consented to it. There are many remedies available to right these wrongs. The sovereign states have a duty to “interpose, nullify, and reject” these rulings, and We the People have a duty to replace every usurper in public office: federal, state, and local.   In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, a state’s right and duty is explained with the following:
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.” -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress

In the Report on the Virginia Resolutions, James Madison author of the Constitution states:
“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”  -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress
  Face it folks, the system has been perverted to undermine, ignore, and destroy our constitutional republic. Our ignorance of the mandates in the Constitution have made us vulnerable to opportunists who prey upon the public resolve for their own political or financial gain with reckless disregard for the Constitution they swore an oath to defend against all enemies. When we cheer on such usurpations because the rulings are favorable to our positions, we become enablers to the destruction of our constitutional republic.


Samuel Adams, often referred to as the ‘Father of the American Revolution,” advised us,
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."


Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 aren’t the core problem. The rulings for and against them aren’t the core solution. Tens of millions of dollars were coerced out of grassroots pockets to fight against Obamacare, and nothing changed. The federal government’s refusal to uphold its constitutional duty to “protect us against invasion” (see Article IV, Section 4), and the states’ refusal to demand their grievances be heard in a court that has constitutional authority (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2) further empowers the federal government and further eviscerates state sovereignty. Without the states upholding their constitutional duties, We the People don’t have a chance of preserving our God-given Rights against a rogue federal government.
Jeff Lewis National Director
, FIRE Coalition National Director
, Patriot Coalition Project Director
, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER Email
: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com Phone
: 252-876-9489 Twitter
: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog