No, James Madison did not Reject Nullification

Tenth Amendment Center, January 4, 2014

For some reason, some conservative commentators keep propagating the historical lie that James Madison “rejected nullification.” James Madison did no such thing.

Even while opposing a bastardized proposal for nullification created out of thin air in South Carolina, he still supported nullification as a “natural right.”

SOUTH CAROLINA

In Madison’s “notes on nullification” during the later days of his life, he explicitly rejected a very specific doctrine of nullification proposed by South Carolina. But during the same time period, he referred to “nullification…as a natural right”

Madison’s arguments against this doctrine are hard to dispute. Here’s what he wrote:

This brings us to the expedient lately advanced, which claims for a single state a right to appeal against an exercise of power by the government of the United States decided by the state to be unconstitutional, to the parties to the constitutional compact; the decision of the state to have the effect of nullifying the act of the government of the United States, unless the decision of the state be reversed by three-fourths of the parties.

The distinguished names and high authorities which appear to have asserted and given a practical scope to this doctrine, entitle it to a respect which it might be difficult otherwise to feel for it.

If the doctrine were to be understood as requiring the three-fourths of the states to sustain, instead of that proportion to reverse the decision of the appealing state, the decision to be without effect during the appeal, it would be sufficient to remark, that this extra-constitutional course might well give way to that marked out by the Constitution, which authorizes two-thirds of the states to institute and three-fourths to effectuate an amendment of the Constitution,  establishing a permanent rule of the highest authority, in place of an irregular precedent of construction only.

But it is understood that the nullifying doctrine imports that the decision of the state is to be presumed valid, and that it overrules the law of the United States, unless overruled by three-fourths of the states.

See that?  READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!

December 15--Bill of Rights Day, 222 Years

Celebrate it by learning to enforce the whole constitution.  Advice from James Madison.

The Tenth Amendment Center, December 15, 2013

222 years ago today, the Bill of Rights was given "life."  But it has no meaning if we just talk about it one day each year.   For us at the TAC, Bill of Rights Day is every day.  And our goal is to educate people on how to enforce the entire Constitution.

Today, we encourage you to read, learn and share - James Madison's wisdom:

A good place to start in determining how to enforce the Constitution is with the guy who’s commonly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.”  While there’s some debate that James Wilson was actually far more fitting of that title, Madison was obviously quite influential.

The essential question: When the federal government violates the constitution, what do you do about it?

Here’s what Madison had to say in Federalist #46. The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

CONTINUE READING:  http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/15/james-madison-on-how-to-enforce-the-constitution/

The NDAA: A Tale of Two Cities

By Jeff Lewis, National Director, Patriot Coalition (Oct. 15, 2013)

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” - Charles Dickens.

Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) founder Michael Boldin apparently sees League City, Texas and Oxford, Massachusetts, both of which passed anti-NDAA resolutions, through two different lenses.

In a March 28, 2013 TAC article titled, “Resolution to Nullify NDAA Indefinite Detention Passes in League City, Texas,” Boldin is quoted as saying,

“This is a big step forward. Since this country was founded on the principle that “we the people” are supposed to be in charge, it makes sense that the most effective activism would start out on a local level. I congratulate all those who worked hard to get this resolution passed in League City.”

TAC’s League City article also states,

“The key clause of the resolution is the one calling for full noncompliance 

with the federal government:

“Instruct all our public agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel”

I've not been able to find any TAC article celebrating adoption of their “noncompliance” resolutions as being merely “opinion,” yet, when Boldin writes about the recently adopted Albany, New York and Oxford, Massachusetts resolutions, he spends a considerable amount of time marginalizing both the resolutions and the proponents of it, citing “home rule” as a reason the Albany and Oxford resolutions are just “opinion.”

After declaring earlier this year that PANDA’s Dan Johnson was his “enemy” for not supporting the Michigan Warm Fuzzy Act (HB-4138) promoted by Boldin, it would seem that TAC feels threatened by anyone who isn't drinking his “nullification through non-compliance” koolaid.

Boldin’s thinly-veiled criticism of the Oxford, Massachusetts resolution is in actuality an attempt to marginalize and discredit People Against the NDAA (PANDA) and its youthful founder, Dan Johnson. His tone and rhetoric are condescending propaganda at best, and demonstrate his ignorance of, and disregard of the Constitution.

The oath of office required by the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 includes supporting the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land,” as it was ordained by the people to be, in Article VI, Clause 2.

Boldin’s hypothesis erroneously posits that only after a “law” is adopted are oath takers required to uphold the Constitution, and that “ignorance of the law” is an excuse to not protect the rights and liberties of the people, stating:

“Certainly, a constitutionalist would hope that peace officers, under their Oath to the Constitution, would agree with such a view in principle. But, unfortunately, claiming that a non-binding resolution expressing a Council opinion would have the effect of legally causing all who take an Oath to “know this is unConstitutional” is a stretch, at best. In order to change the policy and actions of the Albany Police department, specific legal mechanisms (or a lot of one-on-one education of peace officers) will be required.”

That is absurd at best.

While it is hardly conceivable that Boldin isn't aware of the source of the Restoring Constitutional Governance (RCG) resolution and model legislation, he erroneously states the Oxford RCG Resolution was “drafted by PANDA.”

While PANDA has certainly been, and continues to be a prime partner and well-informed advocate for our Restoring Constitutional Governance (RCG) legislation and local resolutions, the RCG was drafted as a part of The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER project after hundreds of hours of research by me, Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry, a constitutional attorney, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law grad who specialized in the application of military law on civilian populations.

TAC’s “noncompliance” model simply tells state and local actors to “not do” something the law in question doesn't require them to do, that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the feds can’t do, and can’t make the states help them do. Also, there is nothing to “nullify” since the 2012 NDAA, Section 1021 was nullified from inception as it was not written “in Pursuance thereof” to the U.S. Constitution, as per Article VI, Clause 2.

It is worth noting that League City, Texas, falls under the “home rule” classification as well, so are we to presume that the League City noncompliance resolution’s “Instruct all our public agencies…” clause is merely a “request” based on the “opinion” of the council?


What the Tenth Amendment Center has promoted and celebrated in California and other states this past year is little more than smoke and mirrors borrowed from the worthless Virginia bill. It solicits legislators to ignore their duties of “allegiance and protection,” and encourages them to violate their Oath to support the Constitution by advising them to “stand down” instead of “stand up” and “interpose” themselves between the people and rogue federal agents violating their rights.

The “feel good” legislation adopted by California, Alaska, and Virginia is worthless. It gives legislators a pass for not protecting the rights of the people, and gives the people a false sense of security that the state, in passing this legislation, has restored or preserved their God-given, inalienable Rights. I’d hardly call any of them victories.

The Warm Fuzzy Act, aka “Liberty Preservation Act” borders on of “treason to the Constitution” according to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who, in 1821 said,

“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."

-SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264 (1821)

If I heard it once, I heard it a dozen times from state legislators across the country, “We just need something we can pass.”

What they are really saying is: The natives are restless, and we need “feel-good legislation” that doesn't really do anything to solve the problem, but that will get them off our backs. 

What PANDA reported in their recent press release is accurate. 

“The tide is now turning against the NDAA’s detention provisions. Oxford’s Resolution states: “

…it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful for any person to: 

a. arrest or capture any person in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, within the United States, with the intent of “detention under the law of war,” or 

b. actually subject a person in Oxford, to “disposition under the law of war,” or 

c. subject any person to targeted killing in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, 

within the United States;…”

As Boldin stated in the article above, “we the people” are supposed to be in charge…” In Oxford, Massachusetts, the people ARE in charge, and the people have unequivocally resolved that what the feds are doing is unconstitutional. 

The Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution of Oxford, Massachusetts removes “plausible deniability” that public officials don’t know better, and most likely, the traditional “immunity” that public servants enjoy in the performance of their duties will not shield them from a jury’s scrutiny should the feds attempt, and the locals assist or refuse to interpose as their oath requires. 

You don’t need a local “law” when you have the “supreme Law of the Land” on your side. We will never restore constitutional governance by enabling and rewarding public servants who refuse to actively defend our God-given inalienable Rights. 

We the People need to do as the Founders advised during their “age of wisdom,” and grow out of what Dickens referred to as the “age of foolishness.” 

How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “nullify,” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? ZERO. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, penned by Madison as adopted by the Virginia Assembly? ZERO. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, penned by Jefferson as adopted by the Kentucky Legislature? ZERO. The Kentucky legislature “rejected” the language which most nullifiers deploy as “the rightful remedy.” You will only find it in the draft. (Notice the link to the actual language at the top in small print as “this version,” which at first glance appears to be the version on the page they call “The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”) This is also the version TAC erroneously promotes “were adopted by the Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798…” 

Honest mistake? Perhaps, but if your objective is to market a concept the Constitution doesn't support, and the duties of “allegiance and protection” don’t permit, but you’re looking for validating a position that’s an easy sell, the draft version sounds great. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” or any variation of it in his Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions? ONCE, and it was past tense (nullified), denoting not an action to be taken, but rather, the “status” of the Sedition Act.

How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “interpose” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? FIFTEEN. 

How many times will you find the word “interpose” or any variation of it in Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions? TEN. 

The Framers, including James Madison, understood that a law not written “in Pursuance” of the Constitution was no law at all. They understood there was nothing to “nullify.” They also understood their duty was to stand between rogue federal agents and the people. 

The duty is to “interpose.” Under the oath, and duty of “allegiance and protection,” actively defending the rights of the people is neither optional nor a form of nullification. 

In “Correcting a Common Tenth Amendment Center Misunderstanding of ‘Nullification,” Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry addressed the concept of “allegiance and protection,” stating in part, the following: 

“Never heard of Allegiance and Protection? It is noted at least three times by the Apostle Paul, three times in the Declaration of Independence and it is the "allegiance" you refer to when you say " I pledge allegiance to the flag . . ." and has been recognized by the Supreme Court in many cases.” (Read full citations here.) 

James Madison, in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, recognized the states’ right and duty to stand between rogue federal actions and the people by including this: 

“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.”

The duty of a state to “interpose” on behalf of its citizens existed long before the Constitution. By adopting the Constitution, the states did not surrender or negate their duty to “protect” the folks within their respective jurisdictions; they added another layer of protection.


The Virginia, California, and Alaska “nullification” legislation is “non-compliance” legislation at best. What does that accomplish?

Imagine this. You’re in an alley, about to be mugged and kidnapped. A policeman happens to pass by, but instead of stopping (interposing) the mugger, the policeman doesn't help the mugger rob you. He just stands by and watches.

Don’t get excited or upset. Everything’s going to be just fine. The policeman won’t help the mugger tie you up, and he won’t let them use his police car to escape in, and won’t allow the mugger/kidnapper to hold you hostage indefinitely at the local police station. Feel better?

That’s what the NDAA “nullification” bills such as Tenth Amendment Center’s “Liberty Preservation Act” do. This is what they convinced Virginia, California, and Alaska to pass.

The 2012 NDAA violates over 14 provisions of the Constitution, including over half of the Bill of Rights. If that doesn't fit Madison’s definition of “a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers,” I don’t know what does. If that doesn't require what Madison recognized as requiring the states, “who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,” I shudder to think what would.

The battle against the ‘intolerable acts’ the 2012 NDAA authorizes should end the way Charles Dickens ended “A Tale of Two Cities,”

‘It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done;

it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.’

Warm-fuzzy do-nothing legislation is not the “rightful remedy.” In fact, it is a recipe for disaster.

Both directly and indirectly, we've attempted to do as Jefferson advised, to “inform their discretion.” We are not their enemy, and neither is PANDA, but truth delayed is truth denied.

James Madison, in Federalist 40, said the following:

“If, according to the noble precept, it be lawful to accept good advice even from an enemy, shall we set the ignoble example of refusing such advice even when it is offered by our friends?

The prudent inquiry, in all cases, ought surely to be, not so much from whom the advice comes, as whether the advice be good.”

If Boldin and TAC won’t take our advice, or Madison’s, perhaps they will take their own.
Their motto is: “The Constitution. Every Issue, Every time. No Exceptions, No Excuses.”

We couldn't agree more.

Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Tale-of-Two-Cities.pdf

Get the RCG Act for your state at: http://theintolerableacts.org 

Contact: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com

Politics, Constitutional Decline and Government Overreach

By Roger Pilon

This article appeared in the Fall 2013 Issue of the Jewish Policy Center’s inFocus Quarterly.

“What’s the Constitution among friends?” asked Ohio’s John F. Follett in the House in 1884. Still in the offing, constitutional decline was only stirring. In fact, three years later, 100 years after the Constitution was written, President Grover Cleveland would veto a bill appropriating the paltry sum of $10,000 for seeds for Texas farmers suffering from a drought. “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution,” his veto message said.

Cleveland was simply echoing a long settled understanding that ours is a Constitution that authorizes only limited government. Not that calls for more government had not been heard from the start. In 1791, for example, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton unveiled his Report on Manufactures—an early industrial policy scheme. Congress promptly shelved it. And in 1794, the Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, finding before him a bill for the relief of French refugees fleeing to Baltimore and Philadelphia from an insurrection in San Domingo, rose on the floor of the House to declare, unremarkably, that he could not “undertake to lay his finger on that article of the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending on objects of benevolence the money of their constituents.”

“How did a nation conceived in and dedicated to individual liberty take on the trappings of the collective mind such that so much of life today is lived through the state?”

How quaint. Is there anything today that is not fit for government’s attention? Large sodas and restaurant menus have lately garnered notice. Retirement, health care, day care, wages, rents, prices, charity, even public radio and television—all that and so much more is the regular business of modern American government because, as President Obama has so often put it, “We’re all in this together.” Indeed, “we sometimes forget,” he told Ohio State graduates last spring, “the larger bonds we share, as one American family.” The family vacation of old springs to mind: Do we go to the mountains or the beach? If we’re all in this together, we can’t go our separate ways.

So how did a nation conceived in and dedicated to individual liberty take on the trappings of the collective mind such that so much of life today is lived through the state, as in the Obama campaign’s much parodied “Life of Julia” cartoon? How did we go from limited government to Leviathan, from the dominance of the private to that of the public sphere? Elements of both have been with us from the beginning, of course, but the presumption at the outset and long thereafter was for private, not public, initiative. That’s no longer true. Got a problem? Washington has a solution. Politics today is ubiquitous.

READ MORE:  http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/politics-constitutional-decline-government-overreach?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=9021b700b7-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-9021b700b7-141723190&mc_cid=9021b700b7&mc_eid=2653a08a51

James Madison, Advice An IMPORTANT LESSON from the Father of the Constitution

The Recipe

Guess what?  Madison never - ever - suggested that the path forward in response to massive constitutional violations should be to "vote the bums out."

If your goal is the Constitution, it’s high-time that you start following James Madison’s advice on how to get there.

There is absolutely nothing from the Founding Fathers – and I mean nothing – in which they said your number one course of action in response to massive, repeated constitutional violations should be to “vote the bums out.”

They never said that.  Nowhere.  Ever.

For some reason, though, opponents of endless federal power seem to pull the “vote the bums out” card first.  And a vast majority of them seem to have just that one card – and no others.

Wherever I speak around the country, “vote the bums out” is the first thing people tell me needs to be done to fix problems created by the federal government.  People everywhere back this up with their money.   The 2012 elections saw around $6 Billion dollars spent.

Six Billion dollars.  Anyone who complains about how Congress spends money should be appalled at this utter waste of resources.

When Congress spends hundreds of dollars on a toilet seat, at least they get something to sit on.

When you spend your hard-earned money on federal candidates that are going to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, you get nothing.  Zilch.

“Government today is bigger and more unconstitutional than it was before the last election.”

If you could travel through time, you could make that statement in any of the last 100 years and you’d almost never be wrong.

“Voting the bums out” has proven to be a complete and utter failure as a strategy.

CONTINUED: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/23/the-recipe/#.Ue_gUmR4YT

The Right to Bear Arms--Quotes from our Founding Fathers

Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves.
Rick Hopkins, Chairman

"A free people ought to be armed."  - George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."  - George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  - Benjamin Franklin

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."  - Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."  - Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."  - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."  - Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."  - Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."  - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." 
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."  - George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."  - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."  - Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."  - Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."  - James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."  - James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."  - James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."  - James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."  - William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."  - Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."  - Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."  - Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."  - St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."  - Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."  - Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."  - Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."  - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."  - Alexander Hamilton

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