Obama’s Racial Segregation Initiative, “My Brother’s Keeper”

The Independent Sentinel, February 13, 2014, By Sara Noble

Due to inclement weather, Mr. Obama canceled a speech Thursday to explain his new initiative called “My Brother’s Keeper.” The program is intended to persuade private companies to set up mentorships for young black men, help to improve the educational experience of young black men, and to enhance hiring opportunities for black youth.

This is affirmative action program, despite the fact that such programs were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Finally, the initiative will interfere in school disciplinary policies to ensure fewer black youths are disciplined.

President Obama referenced it in his January State of the Union speech. He is attempting to garner commitments from “foundations, businesses and community groups to help young minority men improve their employment opportunities and intervene before some of them get sucked into the criminal justice system.”

According to The Washington Post, an administration official said the “My Brother’s Keeper” effort will consist of two main parts.

CONTINUED. 

For the Sake of the 10th Amendment, and the American Republic

The DC Clothesline, January 12, 2014 by Norton Nowlin

When will the 50 sovereign American States begin to collectively assert their authority under the 10th Amendment to curtail the unlawful power claimed by the federal government to legislate extra-constitutional regulatory laws to control the lives of the American people? The 10th Amendment simply declares the following vital entitlement of the States or the People:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1941, was direly flippant enough to declare the 10th Amendment a truism, which means trite but true, in that laws legislated by Congress which are predicated upon powers not granted to the federal government “might” be allowed. This, to me, is like declaring the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion a truism, and saying that a law “might” be passed by Congress, and signed by the Executive branch, which would directly infringe upon the Peoples’ freedom of religion. The 10th Amendment is still a part of the Bill of Rights, is it not?

READ IT HERE!  

Rule of Thumb: How Foreign Governments and Congress Have Scrapped the 10th Amendment

November 15, 2013

We live in a nation that is run by federal bureaucrats. There is almost nothing we can do to stop them from interfering in our lives, other than through the courts. It is extremely expensive to do this.

Let me give you a recent example. The United States Supreme Court is hearing a case in which, if upheld by the Court, the Congress of the United States will be authorized to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution, as long as the legislation is an extension of the treaty power.

If the court upholds the case, Congress will be able to override limitations of the federal government that have been imposed by the 10th amendment. This is a 10th amendment case. Wikipedia describes it. The case is almost beyond belief. It has to do with a burned thumb. The case is Bond v. U.S..

The husband of Carol A. Bond of Lansdale, Pennsylvania impregnated Myrlinda Haynes. Mrs. Bond told Haynes, “I am going to make your life a living hell.” Federal postal inspectors videotaped Mrs. Bond stealing mail and putting poison in the muffler of Haynes’s car.Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Her appeal argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals found Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim.

Can you imagine this? Here is a woman who is about to be put into prison for violating a treaty, which the U.S. government says overrides the 10th amendment, yet she had no legal standing in the case. This is Alice through the looking glass.

READ MORE:  http://www.garynorth.com/public/11775.cfm

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

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

Supreme Court Upholds Property Development Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court handed property owners across the United States a big win, ruling Florida environmental officials violated a landowner’s constitutional rights by demanding money or a conservation easement in return for permission to develop alleged wetlands on his property.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled governments have to show their demands for money or conservation easements to offset permits for land development are in direct relation to the perceived damages that development might bring.

20-Year Legal Battle
The case centered on Florida landowner Coy Koontz Sr. and his family, and it wound through courts for nearly 20 years. The Koontz family owned a 15-acre parcel of land outside Orlando. They wanted to develop three acres of it, and even agreed to donate the rest for conservation. But St. Johns River Water Management District officials wanted more.

District officials told the Koontz family they had to either develop less of their land while giving a greater portion of it to government officials in the form of a conservation easement, or pay as much as $150,000 to improve government-owned property several miles away from the Koontz’s property.

CONTINUED:  http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/08/05/supreme-court-upholds-property-development-rights

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PORTION OF DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, THROWS OUT PROP 8 APPEAL

THE BLAZE
June 26, 2013 10:09 am

This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned for updates.


The Supreme Court has struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning (read the ruling here) and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here).

The portion of the DOMA law that has been ruled against is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Gay couples, under federal law, will now be considered “married.” And in California, same-sex marriages will be able to potentially resume. The rulings do not impact gay marriage rights in the 38 states where it is currently not legal on the books.

The DOMA vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for himself and the liberals on the court. He wrote that DOMA is a violation of “basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.” On a more intriguing note, the argument that DOMA infringed on states rights to define marriage was also noted.

Read the DOMA ruling, below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-contentious-part-of-doma/

How liberalism became our state religion

By Benjamin Wiker

March 25, 2013

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against gay marriage we might stand back from the whole judicial fracas and ask ourselves a larger and hopefully more startling question: “What is the government doing deciding what marriage is?” 

This is really two questions in one. First, how did it come to be that we, as a culture, are in a position where something seemingly so natural, something that existed long before any governments were around, is now up for debate? Second, why is it that we would look to a branch of the government to settle that debate?  The answer to the first question is rather complex. For centuries (not just decades) liberalism has been picking away at the Christian foundations of Western culture. Liberalism is, in essence, a secular and secularizing movement; it is historically defined by its opposition to Christianity. Wherever secular liberalism spreads, Christianity recedes. Look at Europe.

Christianity defined marriage by what we might call radical monogamy: a life-long, entirely exclusive union of one man and one woman. No sex before marriage. No concubines. No polygamy. No divorce (except for infidelity). No homosexuality. No fiddling with little boys.

The pagan Roman culture into which Christianity was born smiled on sex wherever, whenever, and with whomever it occurred. Marriage was an important social institution in Rome, but it was not defined by radical monogamy. Concubines? No problem. Sex with your male and female slaves? No big deal. Divorce? Happens all the time. Got a favorite boy? Don’t we all. Like pornography? We’ll paint the walls of your villa next week.   Homosexuality was as widespread in Rome as it was in Greece, and, yes, in Rome there was gay marriage. Right at the top of society. The emperor Nero married one Pythagoras, and we have reports of other such unions.

That was the marital, sexual status quo of the society into which Christianity was born. As Rome fell, and Christianity rose, the Christian understanding of sexuality and marriage transformed the Roman Empire—proto-Europe, we might call it. With that transformation the radical monogamy of Christianity became the social, moral, legal standard, so normal that it was regarded as natural.

It is only because Christianity won out over pagan Rome that we are having arguments about marriage today. If Christians had been summarily extinguished by imperial Rome, radical monogamy would have disappeared with it, along with opposition to homosexuality.  

CONTINUED:  http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/25/god-gay-marriage-and-the-imperial-court/

March for Marriage—March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC!

March for Marriage—March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC

Website:  http://www.marriagemarch.org/about/

Why the March for Marriage?

On March 26th the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Perry case, which will determine if Proposition 8 – the citizens initiative approved by the people of California in 2008 to protect marriage – is constitutional or not. More importantly, the question of same-sex “marriage” and the right of Americans to protect marriage will be decided. We believe it is imperative that political leaders, the media, and the culture see that we care about protecting marriage enough to stand up and march for it.

Who is the March for Marriage?

The March is being organized by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) alongside a broad coalition of pro-family organizations, state partners, African-American, Latino, Catholic and Protestant leaders. Please check the Sponsors page for an up-to-date list of co-sponsoring organizations and the Speakers page  for a list of confirmed speakers.

Rally Location and March Route

Schedule of Events for March 26, 2013

• 08:30 AM: Gather at National Mall location between 10th Street and 12th Street NW and between Madison Drive NW and Jefferson Drive SW [BOX]

• 09:30 AM: March to the Supreme Court [ARROWS] and then return to the National Mall location [BOX]

• 11:00 AM: Rally begins at National Mall location (live music, speakers and more)

• 01:00 PM: March for Marriage concludes

Please note that this schedule is subject to change.

Morning Bell: Make Your Voice Heard for Marriage

March 18, 2013

Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. All Americans, especially conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. This is why 41 states and the federal government affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But these laws are on the line. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in cases that challenge the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8. The Court should uphold these laws and respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy.

Next Tuesday, March 26, as the Supreme Court hears these cases, thousands will come to our nation’s capital to March for Marriage.

Watch a special invitation from Heritage President-elect Jim DeMint:

Make your voice heard in support of marriage between a man and a woman—and urge the Court to respect your constitutional authority. We don’t need an activist Court creating a Roe v. Wade on marriage.


Last Thursday, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Senator DeMint highlighted the importance of marriage for America and limited government, and stressed the unity of social and fiscal conservatism:

We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity, and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.


In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.

We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.

Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand. They’re natural allies.   Perhaps you heard the news on Friday that Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) announced he now supports redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. You can read the Heritage response here. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) responded by reiterating support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As we’ve explained, marriage matters for America and conservatism. Meanwhile, a broad and diverse array of scholars has filed more than 50 amicus briefs defending marriage at the Supreme Court.

And as Bill Beach and I show, we can craft policy that benefits all Americans without redefining marriage at all. Sometimes it’s as simple as repealing a bad tax.

We are only now beginning to have a national conversation about marriage. The people of France are already having this debate in their country. The Supreme Court cases provide a unique window of opportunity to explain what marriage is and why it matters. And all Americans need to be equipped for this conversation.

Working with the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council, Heritage has produced a short pamphlet making the case for marriage in everyday language. It helps you articulate what your heart knows. And it walks you through the most frequently asked questions—the things you’re likely to hear from neighbors and friends. You can read and download the pamphlet online.

To better understand what is at stake, check out these resources. Last week Heritage published a new Backgrounder: “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” With my co-authors Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis, we’ve filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on the consequences of redefining marriage. We’ve also just published a book making the case for marriage: What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

Americans and their elected officials have constitutional authority to make marriage policy. When Americans hear the case for marriage as the union of a man and a woman and its importance to children and limited government, by and large they support it and stand for this timeless institution. All Americans, especially conservatives, should make the case for marriage. And the Supreme Court should respect our constitutional authority to do so.


MORE:  http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/15/morning-bell-why-we-dont-need-universal-preschool/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=

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