The John Locke Foundation Cordially invites you to A Citizens' Constitutional Workshop in Morehead City, NC

with our special guests Dr. Troy Kickler and Dr. Michael Sanera

• Dr. Kickler is Founding Director of the NC History Project and Adjunct Professor of U.S. History at NCSU
• Dr. Sanera is Director of Research and Local Government Studies and Adjunct Professor in Political Science, NCSU

March 17 (Saturday), 2012, 9:00 am – 3:00 pm

Citizens' Constitutional Workshop

Workshop #2:  "What would the Federalists and Anti-federalists say about the current political and economic crises?" 

 

The workshop will be held  at Joslyn Hall, Carteret Community College, 3505 Arendell St., Morehead City, NC 28557. The price is $5.00 and does not include lunch. 

 

Register here:  http://www.johnlocke.org/events/event.html?id=966

 

Join us for this exciting workshop on the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutons.

What would the Federalists and Anti-federalists say about the current political and economic crises? In a continuing effort to understand how the Founding Era relates to our current constitutional crisis, we offer this new workshop that focuses on what is arguably the most important debate of the Founding Era. The Federalist supported and Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution written in Philadelphia in 1787. Their arguments about the fundamental principles of our constitutional government still speak to us 224 years later.

Understanding this debate among some of our most famous founders enables us to clarify our present predicament. Even though they engaged in a vigorous and sometimes bitter debate over the meaning of the Constitution, both sides would be horrified with how the Constitution has been twisted and distorted by the progressive ideology, liberal court justices and presidents and congressmen all too willing to expand government to assure their immediate re-election.

A more fundamental understanding of this Founding Era debate will help us restore the Constitution to its proper place as the bedrock of our Republic.


Register here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/event.html?id=966
 

CCTA ACTION ALERT! RE: National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA_

CCTA is urging everyone to contact the NC Speaker of the House Thom Tillis and House Majority Leader, Paul 'Skip' Stam and urge them to take up this resolution during the upcoming "short session!"  Read below, and if you agree here is the contact information!

Contact Info:
Speaker Tillis:  919-733-3451 and email Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net
House Majority Leader, Paul 'Skip' Stam:  919-733-2962 and email Paul.Stam@ncleg.net.
Rep.  Glen Bradley [NC-49] 919-733-5860 and email Glen.Bradley@ncleg.net or ncsenate@glenbradley.net.  Website:  http://glenbradley2012.com/
Look up your represntative here:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House

Beaufort Observer: Rep. Glen Bradley to introduce resolution in N. C. Legislature against "Indefinite Detention"

by Jeff Lewis, National Director Patriot Coalition and FIRE


North Carolina Rep. Glen Bradley, (R-49), a founding member of Oath Keepers confirmed today his intention to introduce a resolution in the General Assembly to address the unconstitutional provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which authorizes the "indefinite detention" of U.S. Citizens, "indefinitely expands" the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, " and essentially designates America as part of the "battlefield," thus placing the United States under the "law of war." President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law on Dec. 31, 2011.

In his signing statement , President Obama stated, "…I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." The President did not say that he "could not" detain U.S. citizens "indefinitely," he said he would not. The "requirement" for military to detain in H.R. 1540's conference report, Section 1022 is not a "prohibition" against it.

In his signing statement, President Obama, expressing his dissatisfaction with several sections of the bill stated, "…should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding. " If the President thought parts were unconstitutional, why did he sign it?"

MORE:
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2012-02-03-258489.112112-Rep-Glen-Bradley-to-introduce-resolution-in-N-C-Legislature-against-Indefinite-Detention.html

Natural Law and Natural Born Facts

Patriotic Americans deeply concerned about the condition of our beleaguered Constitution and Republic have been challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the highest office in our land ever since he tossed his hat in the ring in 2008.

A variety of definitions for the Natural Born Citizen constitutional requirement have been batted around by numerous people with varied agendas, leaving the debate largely stuck right where it started in 2008. What does the term really mean?

Every Supreme Court Justice knows what the term means, which is why the Supreme Court prefers to never hear the case. The term Natural Born Citizen refers to a citizen by Natural Law (aka the Laws of Nature), the natural offspring of a Father who was at the time of the child’s birth, a legal Citizen of the United States. The nation of the Father is thereby the nation of the child, via Natural Law.

They would have to remove Barack Obama from office in handcuffs, and few other co-conspirators along with him. Obama supporters would not take kindly to such a move against America’s first multi-racial resident of the people’s White House.

The term is not based upon English Common Law or 14th Amendment cases often wrongly referred to as “precedent.” The term is based in Natural Law recorded by Vattel in his treaties called The Law of Nations, a book about the Laws of Nature, Americas founding principles.

Most of the “birthers” cherry-picked one sentence out of Vattel’s entire book and hang their hat on that one sentence – claiming wrongly as a result, that Natural Born Citizens “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Note how they posted the entire paragraph, but highlight only the one line.

Why did they cherry-pick this one sentence? Vattel’s book The Law of Nations is a vital read for every patriotic American seeking to fully understand this term and the true foundation for all things American, Natural Law. Read it cover to cover, without cherry-picking…only then will you understand Natural Born Citizen.

Why didn’t the “birthers” cherry-pick this sentence from the same paragraph in Vattel’s book on Natural Law and Natural Born?

-”As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

- or this sentence –“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

- or this one –“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Why did “birthers” single in on one sentence and completely ignore the rest of the paragraph, in fact, the balance of the entire book? Is it possible that they just didn’t do their homework? Or is it more likely that they chose that sentence because it suits their agenda, rather than the obvious truth? You decide!

What hidden agenda?

READ MORE:http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A323877&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

LOU CALLING: A Letter to Governor Perdue, Representatives Sanderson, Preston & Wainwright

Governor Perdue, Representatives Sanderson, Preston & Wainwright:
Can you explain to me why we, as a free Nation, need to put this unbridled authority in the hands of the government? We expect you to follow the actions of Rep. Daniel Gordon of the State of Rhode Island and uphold your oath of office for the citizens of North Carolina. The issue of NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) is a bill drafted by tyrants and has no place in America.


Louis & Margaret Call

Single state defies Obama detention plan--New law is 'repugnant to sensibilities' of founding principles

When Congress adopted and Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, alarms were raised over the possibility that it would allow the indefinite and rights-free detention of those who are called “belligerents,” even if they are American citizens.


While the argument over those provisions rages, one state lawmaker in Rhode Island has jumped into action to protect the danger he sees for residents of his state, proposing a resolution to exempt his constituents from sections of the federal law.

Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. today told WND he has drafted a resolution, which is being circulated among the lawmakers even now, to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”

“Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act, signed into law on New Years Eve of 2011, provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and right to trial,” he explained.

“Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeas corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone that has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country,” he said.

The opinions on the legislation signed by Obama vary. Commentator Chuck Baldwin, who himself has been the target of smears by the Department of Homeland Security-related apparatus, explained the law, “for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places U.S. citizens under military rule.”

CONTINUE READING:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/single-state-defies-obama-detention-plan/

Military Detention for Americans--No Lawyer, No Jury

Even if Obama vetoes this monstrosity, Congress has the votes to override it. Then the courts will become our last line of defense. This video is a must. After you watch it, consider how long your boss would hold your job open for you. How long will your customers wait to replace you?...


http://teapartyeconomist.com/2011/12/06/military-detention-for-americans-no-lawyer-no-jury/

Not Natural Born -- TRUTH MATTERS

Obama admits he is not a citizen - READ BEFORE THIS IS PULLED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

Open Border Extremists in the DOJ? - Hannity - FOXNews.com

Open Border Extremists in the DOJ? - Hannity - FOXNews.com

States Fighting Back Against Obamacare: Virginia

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/07/states-fighting-back-against-obamacare-virginia/

Join Patriots 28560 as we caravan to Newport for the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America!

PATRIOTS 28560
Celebrate Independence Day with a Rolling Rally!

Join Patriots 28560 as we caravan to Newport for the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America!

When: Saturday, July 3

Time: Gather from 11:00 - 11:15 a.m.

Where: Westbook Shopping Center (near CVS Pharmacy), Havelock, NC

Depart: 11:15 a.m.

Destination: Newport Flea Mall to join the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America celebration

Celebration Events: Reading of The Declaration of Independence, Special Speakers, Sign-Up for 912 March on DC, and join like-minded Patriots as we celebrate the birth of our Nation.

For more information visit Patriots28560.blogspot.com, email Patriots28560@gmail.com or call 252.259.0763.

HOW A ROLLING RALLY WORKS

Our caravan of vehicles from Havelock will roll into Newport together. Don't forget your signs. And you can also purchase window paint (or borrow ours!) and make sure your Independence Day celebration messages are visible as we travel from Havelock to Newport.

IMPACT

Our goal is to have each car display a small (or large, especially if you have a truck) American flag as well as signs and window paint identifying us as Patriots headed to an Independence Day celebration.

YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US

You do not have to be affiliated with any group or organization to join the celebration or to join Patriots 28560. Everyone is welcome, regardless of your zip code, area code or membership in other Patriots groups.


Located in Eastern North Carolina, Patriots 28560 is a group of non-partisan, concerned citizens who have joined together to resist excessive government spending and taxation. We are affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots as well as the 912 Project. We believe in Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Market Principles.

http://patriots28560.blogspot.com/

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (� of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

An idea whose time has come;

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

Have each person contact a minimum of Twenty people on their Address list, in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Goodbye to One Man, One Vote

Goodbye to One Man, One Vote

THIS IS UN BELIEVABLE!  HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?

The End Game Is Near

AMERICAN SPECTATOR:  The End Game Is Near, By Brandon Crocker

The American Left has long derided what it considers the romanticized myths regarding the virtue and wisdom of the group of dead, white males most responsible for the founding of the American Republic. It does not celebrate America as a land founded on the ideals (imperfectly as they may have often been realized) of individual liberty, equality under the law, and opportunity, but rather as a land founded on slavery, economic inequality, and exploitation. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the American Left also disdains the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution, even battered and weakened as it has been by precedents set by various liberal, activist Supreme Courts, still guards the liberty of Americans against the authoritarianism required to impose a fully socialist, or other collectivist, regime. It now appears we are headed towards the ultimate battle in the American Left's war on individual liberty.


The catalyst is the newly enacted "health care reform" law that was opposed by an outright majority of Americans (but endorsed by Fidel Castro who congratulated President Obama and the Democrats in Congress for finally imposing on Americans a system akin to what Cubans have had for decades). The focal point will be the "individual mandate" which requires all Americans to buy health insurance. The broader issue, however, is whether the Constitution in any way limits the power that the federal government can wield over individuals. The Left says "no."

According to the American Left (which now effectively controls the Democratic Party), the commerce clause in the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, in reality allows the federal government to regulate in any way it sees fit any activity that remotely could affect economic activity -- in other words, just about anything, including, but not limited to, an individual's decision to buy, or not to buy, health insurance. I can think of a lot of activities that have more impact on the economy than does my decision on what kind of health insurance, if any, to purchase. For instance, how about my decision on whether or not to have children, and how many, or when I choose to retire? Are these decisions also subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause? One would think that if the authors of the Constitution really meant to say that the federal government has the power to regulate any activity (or even non-activity) it wants, they would have said so, instead of just saying that it has the right to regulate commerce across state lines. But left-wing law professors, journalists, and Democratic Party officials, assure us this is the case. And according to the national Democratic leadership, most everyone who thinks otherwise are ignorant, knuckle-dragging, racist, survivalist, whack-jobs.

Actually amending the Constitution takes significant national consensus. That's a problem when you want to leverage one election victory based on platitudes and "hope" into "bringing fundamental change to America" (to use President Obama's words). It is so much easier to try to get enough Supreme Court Justices appointed who share the view that the Constitution is more of a loose guideline than a legal document, and who are willing to gut the Constitution of all meaning in order to accommodate liberal policy objectives.

To the American Left, the idea that the Constitution exists to limit the power of the federal government is some moldy, if quaint, notion, with no place in the "modern" world. As E.J. Dionne recently wp-dyn/content/ article/2010/ 03/24/AR20100324 02429.html"> wrote in the Washington Post, court challenges to the individual mandate or federal meddling in matters reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment reveal "how far into the past" some people "want to push the nation." Indeed, he even claims "it would take a rashly activist court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional" because of "a more than seven-decade- long understanding of the Constitution' s interstate commerce clause that has allowed the federal government to regulate a modern, national economy." According to Mr. Dionne, the irrelevancy of the Constitution, at least in circumscribing the powers of the federal government to impose liberal social policies, is settled law.

Unfortunately, E.J. Dionne's view of this matter is not that of some fringe commentator, using Orwellian double-speak to label the potential faithful reading of the Constitution as the work of "a rashly activist court." This view currently holds sway in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. It is undoubtedly held by at least three, probably four, and possibly five Supreme Court Justices.

Fortunately, the argument that seven decades of precedent have made it settled law that the federal government has near unlimited power allotted to it under the commerce clause is hogwash. Never before has the federal government claimed the right to force individuals to purchase a certain service or product due merely to the fact that they are alive. And other attempts to justify an expanded federal role in state and individual affairs with tortured interpretations of the commerce clause have, in fact, been shot down over the past couple of decades by the Supreme Court.

The justification most often cited by the Left for the need to uphold the individual mandate is not a legal one but a practical one. It is needed, supposedly, to solve the "free rider" problem. Since treatment is required by law, people can impose costs on the rest of us by not buying insurance and having us foot the bill when they need medical attention. Like much of the rhetoric coming from the current administration on health care, this argument is amazingly bold in its dishonestly. The people for whom it is true that taxpayers (or more often, hospitals) get stuck paying the bill are the indigent (paradoxically, the people that President Obama insists are dying because they don't have insurance and aren't getting treatment). For the rest of us, if we don't have insurance, or if our insurance does not cover some treatment, or if we carry high deductibles (another choice outlawed by the Democrats' new health care regime) we, as solvent individuals, pay the bill. We don't get a "free ride."

The case of the individual mandate potentially carries the legal precedent that the Left has long sought. If the Obama administration and its Leftist allies can win this case when it comes before the Supreme Court, which it ultimately will, they will have the legal ammunition to uphold any federal infringement on individual liberty in the name of regulating a "modern, national economy." The rights of the individual will no longer be protected by the Constitution, but merely allowed by the federal government, subject to revision by whatever faction holds a political majority over one or two elections.

This is not just the outcome that the American Left wants; it is the outcome the American Left needs if it is to "bring fundamental change to America." Most members of the current Democratic majority in both houses of Congress have already shown that they do not care about public opinion when it comes to redefining the relationship between citizens and the federal government. To preserve America as the land of the free, we need the Supreme Court to uphold its solemn duty.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/12/the-end-game-is-near

Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama

Don't miss this video!  He has summarized what is and has happened in this country under the Obama administration, and why we are fighting to stop it. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4

CCTA APRIL EVENTS -- CANDIDATE FORUM & TEA PARTY

CCTA IS PROUD TO HOST THE PRIMARY CANDIDATE’S FORUM

SATURDAY, APRIL 10TH, 2010, ORRINGER AUDITORIUM

CRAVEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, NB CAMPUS, 800 COLLEGE COURT, NEW BERN, NC

~ LEARN WHO IS THE BEST, AND ELIMINATE THE REST ~

Confirmed to date:  US SENATE: Candidate Susan Harris will participate along with Representatives for Candidate Brad Jones and Sen. Richard Burr

US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1:  Candidate John Carter will participate along with a representative for Congressman G.K. Butterfield

US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 3: Representative for Walter B. Jones

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1: Candidates Thomas Mark and Ray Griffin

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 2: Candidates John P. Wetherington, Jr., Jeff Taylor & Jeff French

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 3: Commissioner Renee Sisk & Candidate Scott Dacey

COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE: Representative for Candidate Leto Copeley

AGENDA

4:00 - 5:00 pm ~ MEET THE CANDIDATES ONE-ON-ONE
5:00 - 7:00 pm ~ FORUM

BE INFORMED, TAKE A STAND, VOTE AND BE COUNTED!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCTA INVITES YOU TO JOIN US FOR OUR 2nd ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY

Thursday, April 15th, 2010 in Downtown New Bern

Those who would like to march with us, we will be gathering at the parking area across from the Craven County Courthouse from 4:45pm – 5:15pm. From there we will march at 5:15pm to Union Point Park.

Rally at the Union Point Park Pavilion
Downtown New Bern, NC, 5:00pm –7:00pm.

Vocalist: Jennifer Alcock

Invocation & Remarks: Rev. Walter Leake, Pastor, Praise Assembly Worship Ctr., New Bern

Featured Speaker: Lt. General Harold Blot, USMC (Ret.) -- We will also have Rick Henderson, John Locke Foundation & a speaker from Americans for Prosperity

Music, speakers and lots of noise! Bring friends and family, your sign and a lawn chair if you like. Celebrate our Freedom of Speech and let our Elected Officials know that ‘We the People’ are

“SILENT NO MORE”

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.cctaxpayers.com/

The Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association is a grassroots, non-partisan organization which advocates minimum government and maximum freedom. We are dedicated to the preservation of Free Enterprise which, by its nature, requires citizens to reap the benefits of their own labor. Excessive taxing and spending are unconstitutional, immoral, and in complete contradiction of success through the free market system and liberty.

'Representing' al-Qaeda

'Representing' al-Qaeda

by Andrew C. McCarthy

National Review Online, March 29, 2010

Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?

Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."

Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...

For The Public Good?

In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.

The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.

And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...

Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."
http://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY


________________________________________



I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,

one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."



SUMMARY

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

________________________________________

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

COMMENTS

Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

________________________________________

* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

________________________________________

MORE LAWNOTES

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

The Income Tax, The Patriot Act, Obamacare

The Income Tax, The Patriot Act, Obamacare By Chuck Baldwin
3/26/10

Dates That Destroyed America

Passage of the so-called "health care reform" bill in the House of Representatives this past Sunday, March 21 (I won't even address the inferred unconstitutionality of Congress doing business on the Lord's Day. See Article. I. Section. 7. Paragraph. 2.) drove yet another stake into the heart of America. For all intents and purposes, it is the health of the United States that is in dire need of healing. In fact, the US has been on extended life-support for decades. With its condition being rendered critical, and absent major surgery, its days are numbered. The passage of this bill only serves to further weaken an already frail Constitution. In fact, this one may prove to be the fatal blow. Lady Liberty may never recover.

The decision by Congress to socialize medicine in the US ranks among the most draconian, most egregious, most horrific actions ever taken by the central government in Washington, D.C. This bill rocks the principles of liberty and constitutional government to the core. It changes fundamental foundations; it repudiates historical principle. Oh! The same flag may fly on our flagpoles, the same monuments may grace our landscape, and the same National Anthem may be sung during our public ceremonies, but it is not the same America. The Congress of the United States has now officially turned America into a socialist state.

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the health care bill into law, and as such, this date -- along with March 21 -- joins a list of dates that have each inflicted unconstitutional, socialistic, and sometimes even tyrannical action against the States United and have, therefore, contributed to the destruction of a free America.

April 9, 1865
This is the date when General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Regardless of where one comes down on the subject of the Civil War, one fact is undeniable: Abraham Lincoln forever destroyed the Jeffersonian model of federalism in America. Ever since, virtually every battle that free men have fought for the principles of limited government, State sovereignty, etc., have all stemmed directly from Lincoln's usurpation of power, which resulted in the subjugation and forced union of what used to be "Free and Independent States" (the Declaration of Independence). In fact, the philosophical battles being waged today regarding the recent health care debacle (and every other encroachment upon liberty and State power by the central government) have their roots in Lincoln's tyranny.

July 9, 1868
This is the date when the 14th Amendment was ratified. This amendment codified into law what Lincoln had forced at bayonet point. Until then, people were only deemed citizens of their respective states. The Constitution nowhere referred to people as "US citizens." It only recognized "the Citizens of each State." Notice also that citizenship was only recognized among the "several States," not among people living in non-State territories. Until the 14th Amendment, people were "Citizens of each State." (Article. IV. Section. 2. Paragraph. 1.) The 14th Amendment created a whole new class of persons: "citizens of the United States." This false notion of "one nation" overturned the Jeffersonian principle that our nation was a confederated republic, a voluntary union of states.

February 3, 1913
This is the date when the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the direct income tax and IRS were instituted. This was a flagrant repudiation of freedom principles! What began as a temporary measure to support the War of Northern Aggression became a permanent income revenue stream for an unconstitutional -- and ever-growing -- central government.

April 8, 1913
This is the date when the 17th Amendment was ratified. This amendment overturned the power of the State legislatures to elect their own senators and replaced it with a direct, popular vote. This was another serious blow against State sovereignty. The framers of the Constitution desired that the influence and power in Washington, D.C., be kept as close to the people and states as possible. For example, the number of representatives in the House of Representatives was to be decided by a limited number of voters. In the original Constitution, the ratio of "people of the several States" deciding their House member could not exceed "one for every thirty thousand." (Article. I. Section. 2. Paragraph. 3.) And when it came to the US Senate, the framers also recognized the authority of each State legislature to select its own senators, thereby keeping power and influence from aggregating in Washington, D.C. The 17th Amendment seriously damaged the influence and power of the states by forcing them to elect their US senators by popular vote. The bigger the State, the less influence the State legislature has in determining its US senator. Senators who answered to State legislators, each answering to a limited number of voters, are much more accountable to the "citizens of the several States" than those who are elected by a large number (many times numbering into the millions) of people. For all intents and purposes (at least in the larger states), US Senators are more like "mini-Presidents" than they are representatives of sovereign states.

December 23, 1913
This is the date when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. This Act placed oversight of America's financial matters into the hands of a cabal of private international bankers, who have completely destroyed the constitutional principles of sound money and (for the most part) free enterprise. No longer would the marketplace (private consumption, thrift, growth, etc.) be the determinant of the US economy (which is what freedom is all about), but now a private, unaccountable international banking cartel would have total power and authority to micromanage (for their own private, parochial purposes) America's financial sector. Virtually every recession, depression, and downturn (including the one we are now experiencing) has been the direct result of the Fed's manipulation (again, for its own purposes and with Washington's cooperation) of the market.

June 26, 1945
This is the date when the United Nations Charter was signed and America joined the push for global government. Ever since, US forces have spilled untold amounts of blood and sacrificed thousands of lives promoting the UN's agenda. Since the end of World War II, in virtually every war in which US military forces have been engaged, it has been at the behest of the UN. And it is also no accident that America has not fought a constitutionally declared war since we entered the UN -- and neither have we won one. Furthermore, it is America's involvement in the United Nations that has spearheaded this draconian push for a New World Order that George H. W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite, et al., have talked so much about. The United Nations is an evil institution that has completely co-opted our US State Department and much of our Defense Department. It is an anti-American institution that works aggressively and constantly against the interests and principles of the United States. But it is an institution that is ensconced in the American political infrastructure. Like a cancer, the UN eats away at our liberties and values, and both major political parties in Washington, D.C., are culpable in allowing it to exert so much influence upon our country.

June 25, 1962, and June 17, 1963
These are the dates when the US Supreme Court removed prayer (�62) and Bible reading (�63) from public schools. At this point, these two Supreme Court decisions were the most serious affront to the First Amendment in US history. Think of it: from before a union of states was established in 1787, children had been free to pray and read the Scriptures in school. We're talking about a period of more than 300 years! Of course, the various State legislatures -- and myriad city and county governmental meetings -- still open their sessions in prayer, as do the US House and Senate, and even the US Supreme Court. But this same liberty is denied the children of America. There is no question that America has not recovered from these two horrific Supreme Court decisions. In effect, the federal government has expelled God not only from our public schools, but also from our public life! And America has not been the same since.

October 22, 1968
This is the date when President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before this Act, the 2nd Amendment was alive and well in the United States. The Gun Control Act of 1968 turned a right into a privilege and forever forced the American people to bow to the altar of government when seeking to arm themselves. Interestingly enough, this Gun Control Act mirrored Nazi Germany's Gun Control Act of 1938. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is almost a verbatim copy of Hitler's Gun Control Act of 1938.Our Founding Fathers could never have imagined that governments within the "several States" would ever be allowed to deny the people's right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it was the attempted confiscation of the firearms stored at Concord, Massachusetts, that triggered the War of Independence in 1775. That the people of Massachusetts would be denied their right to keep and bear arms, as they are today, could not have been foreseen -- and would never have been tolerated -- by America's founders.Yet, most of the hundreds of draconian gun control laws that have been inflicted upon the American people have all come about as a result of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

January 22, 1973
This is the date when the US Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand. These two decisions expunged the Jeffersonian principle that all men are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life (Declaration). Since then, more than 50 million unborn babies have been legally murdered in their mothers' wombs. Abortion is, without a doubt, America's national holocaust. It has opened the door to a host of Big Government programs and policies that have resulted in the wanton destruction of human life both in the United States and overseas. It has created an entire industry whose express purpose for existing is the destruction of human life. It has desensitized the conscience and soul of America. Furthermore, it has forced men of decency and good will to finance -- with their tax dollars -- the unconscionable act of killing unborn children.And once again, another Jeffersonian principle was eviscerated. He said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." The Roe and Doe decisions violate this principle in the most egregious manner possible.

October 26, 2001
This is the date when President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, and the federal government's war against individual liberty began in earnest. Most of the unconstitutional eavesdropping, snooping, wiretapping, phone call intercepting, email reading, prying, financial records tracking, travel watching, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, by federal police agencies began with the implementation of the Patriot Act. The Department of Homeland Security and the "war on terrorism," which have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people worldwide, and the usurpation of federal power at home, have all come about as an outgrowth of the Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act has forever shifted the focus of American law and jurisprudence against constitutional government and individual liberty, toward a police-state mentality. The Patriot Act is even turning our local and State law enforcement agencies into military-style "Jackboots," where police officers see themselves not necessarily as guardians of the citizenry, but, as often as not, as adversaries, where citizens are deemed to be the "enemy."

October 17, 2006, and October 9, 2009
These are the dates when President G.W. Bush signed and re-signed the Military Commissions Act. This Act is the outgrowth of the Patriot Act but has, in effect, terminated the fundamental protections of individual liberty, which are found in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act eviscerated the 4th and 5th Amendments, and do serious injury to several others. The Military Commissions Act also expunges the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus.

March 21 and 23, 2010
These are the dates when Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the so-called "health care reform" bill that we spoke about at the beginning of this column. While Social Security and various Welfare programs have toyed with socialism in the United States, this bill is the largest and most expansive endorsement of socialism in American history. This bill socializes some 18% of the US economy by socializing the health care industry in America. The fallout and ramifications of this bill are going to be horrific. When future historians review the demise of our once-great republic, they will observe that the above dates, including March 21 and March 23, 2010, were the dates that destroyed America. The American people have been far too tolerant for far too long.People concerned about the future of freedom and prosperity in America should line up quickly and demand that their respective State legislatures and governors resist this new health care bill, even to the point of refusing to implement it in their states. More than 30 states are threatening to take the health care bill to court. But states must do more than that. They must follow the lead of the State of Virginia and pass legislation refusing to comply with it. Yes, I'm saying it: it is time for another State rebellion! If states do not stand up and draw their lines in the sand now, it will be forever too late.

© 2010 Chuck Baldwin
Also by Chuck Baldwin:John McCain's Attack on Liberty 03/17/10Hooray for Starbucks! 03/03/10Is America Becoming a Police State? 02/27/10It Is A Madhouse Out There 01/14/10Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson Were Anti-Slavery 01/11/10View all 17 articles by Chuck Baldwin

Reprinted from: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=717