A Once Free Nation

February 25, 2014 by Bob Livingston

  

A once free nation’s descent into tyranny occurs one of two ways: either through sudden violent revolution or gradually over decades in fits and starts. America’s has occurred gradually.

Government conquers its citizens with gradualism because few understand it. Gradualism is imperceptible force.

America has evolved into a lawless state. There has been a breakdown of law and order, but only a few can see it. There are many layers of deception and those few who have become alerted see and understand at different levels.

The first trigger of alert is when a few people come to understand that government is organized crime and that government is in all-out war with its own citizens. The central purpose of Personal Liberty Digest™ is to raise the awareness of the people.

The U.S. Congress has, gradually, ceded its authority to the President and to the alphabet soup agencies of government that it created or allowed the President to create. Now the President rewrites laws on a whim, or chooses to not enforce them on a whim. This is the stuff of third-world banana republics. The imperial presidency feared by the Founding Fathers is in full operation. Yet the feckless Congress hardly whimpers about it and the people do little more than shrug their collective shoulders.

MUCH MORE!  http://personalliberty.com/2014/02/25/a-once-free-nation/

Not Just The IRS! OSHA, BATF & Other Heads Of The Beast Together Attack Grassroots Political Activists

Political Outcast, by Bob Allen, February 7, 2014

"I will not retreat, I will not surrender, I will not be intimidated, and I will not ask for permission to exercise my Constitutional rights."  —Catherine Engelbrecht, testifying before a Congressional Committee to the horrific abuse she has endured at the hands of the IRS, and several other Federal bureaucracies, since becoming involved in civic matters.

WAKE UP, AMERICA! The government has become a weapon in the hand of evil people—there is no other term that adequately describes those who initiated harassment of this woman and her family.

Video and more!  

OBAMA´S VIOLATIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND ELECTION FRAUD

December 25, 2013 by Frank de Varona

Barack Obama is a rogue president who has used tyrannical executive orders and government regulations to bypass Congress. He has no respect of our Constitution. In 2001 Obama said that “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties full of constrains imposed upon us by our Founding Fathers.” Obama hates those “constraints” since he wants to govern in a dictatorial manner.

Obama has made our Constitution and Congress irrelevant. Obama announced his “We Can´t Wait” campaign in 2011 by stating the following: “We can´t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won´t act, I will.” Obama has virtually declared himself a dictator by announcing that he intends to govern by executive fiat. He has destroyed the Constitution separation and balance of powers  provisions by naming 45 radical White House czars with enormous powers, who are not subject to congressional oversight or approval of the Senate.

READ IT ALL, it is long but worth it!

The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part C—Founders & John Locke

The Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to revolt against tyranny. This is obvious despite widespread current attempts by progressives to suggest armed revolt and the 2^ndAmendment would be opposed by the Founders today. But how logical would be the notion that Americans could own guns, but not use them to defend themselves?

Or that Americans could arm to defend their lives and liberties, but only against invaders—not against tyrants? Of course, such a position is transparent nonsense. In fact, the AmericanRevolution itself is the most eloquent testimony illustrating the right to bear arms against government subjugation imaginable.

Consider the definition of Tyranny in Locke’s Second Treatise on Government:

BOOK II, CHAPTER 18: Of Tyranny

§  199. As usurpation is theexercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

The Founders certainly brooked no defense of tyranny. Obviously, they were brave enough to stand up to England and principled enough to create a democratic constitutional republic where there had been a kingdom. But have we in America lost our ability to oppose demagogues, bullies and tyrants?

CONTINUED:  The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part C—Founders & John Locke

Articles: America's Tyranny Threshold

As he finishes up his Martha's Vineyard vacation, Barack Obama would be well-served to recall the fiery words of Jonathan Mayhew, who is famous for his sermons "espousing American rights -- the cause of liberty, and the right and duty to resist tyranny."

Mayhew, born at Martha's Vineyard on October 8, 1720, was "bitterly opposed to the Stamp Act and urged colonial liberties."  Though he did not live to see the American Revolution (he died on July 9, 1766), his "sermons and writing were a powerful influence in the development of the movement for liberty and independence."

And they need to be revisited as the Obama presidency continues its legacy of lawlessness.

First published in Boston in 1750, "A Discourse concerning the unlimited submission and non-resistance to the high powers" was a sermon delivered on the 100^th anniversary of the execution of Charles I.  It was so powerful that it was published in London in 1752 and again in 1767.  In fact, this sermon was the "first volley of the American Revolution, setting forth the intellectual and scriptural justification for rebellion against the Crown."

The following words from the Discourse fly off the page in light of the continuing unconstitutional acts of President Obama.

CONTINUED:  Articles: America's Tyranny Threshold

The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part C—Founders & John Locke

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?--Patrick Henry

The Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to revolt against tyranny. This is obvious despite widespread current attempts by progressives to suggest armed revolt and the 2^ndAmendment would be opposed by the Founders today. But how logical would be the notion that Americans could own guns, but not use them to defend themselves?

Or that Americans could arm to defend their lives and liberties, but only against invaders—not against tyrants? Of course, such a position is transparent nonsense. In fact, the American Revolution itself is the most eloquent testimony illustrating the right to bear arms against government subjugation imaginable.

Consider the definition of Tyranny in Locke’s Second Treatise on Government:

BOOK II, CHAPTER 18: Of Tyranny

§  199. As usurpation is theexercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

The Founders certainly brooked no defense of tyranny. Obviously, they were brave enough to stand up to England and principled enough to create a democratic constitutional republic where there had been a kingdom. But have we in America lost our ability to oppose demagogues, bullies and tyrants?

CONTINIUED:  The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part C—Founders & John Locke

The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part B—Colonial Pulpits

The Limits of Tyranny are Measured by the Endurance of the Oppressed--Frederick Douglass

Does it seem plausible that the true spark of the American Revolution was the religion of peace—Christianity? In fact, how could it be any other way in a country expressly founded to establish Christian religious liberty?

Colonial America was one of the most intensely evangelized and churched societies in history. For example, according to Harry Stout in The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England, the typical colonists probably listened to 7,000 hours of sermons in their lifetime. For many colonists, their instruction in religion, science, history, politics and most other subjects were delivered only by the pulpit. And the first wave of American ministers were Harvard trained.

Early American society was so influenced by the Bible, church, and preaching that it took on many of these traits by exposure and lack of other influences. Many colonists lived isolated existences, and counted only a few books, the Bible being chief in most homes. And weekly church meetings would have filled the role of religious instruction, social gathering and information exchange with neighbors. As the States grew and began to struggle for an independent voice from mother England, especially after mad King George pressed America for increasing funds, pulpits began to ring with protests, as detailed in James P. Byrd’s Sacred Scripture, Sacred War: The Bible and the American Revolution. Historian Gordon S. Wood wrote,

It was the clergy who made the Revolution meaningful for most common people,” because “for every gentleman who read a scholarly pamphlet and delved into Whig and ancient history for an explanation of events, there were dozens of ordinary people who read the Bible and looked to their ministers for an interpretation of what the Revolution meant.

In a land dominated by Christianity, it is inevitable that the plans to resist tyranny, fight for liberty and form a new nation were at first advanced in the form of sermons across the colonies.

I. Understanding the Colonial American Mindset

The colonies were an offshoot of a British society remarkable for its piety and seriousness of Christian focus. The colonies, being built upon a Christian mission, were even more devout. And because they were an outpost, without much infrastructure, the church dominated society. Stout writes,

In Revolutionary New England, ministers continued to monopolize publiccommunications, and the terms they most often employed to justify resistance and to instill hope emanated from the Scriptures and from New England’s enduring identity as an embattled people of the Word who were commissioned to uphold a sacred and exclusive covenant between themselves and God. The idea of a national covenant supplied the “liberties” New Englanders would die protecting, as well as the “conditions” that promised deliverance and victory over all enemies. It also provided the innermost impulsion toward radical thought and violent resistance to British “tyranny” in New England.

CONTINUED:  The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part B—Colonial Pulpits

Living Under Tyranny and the Solidification of the Obama Dictatorship

The Obama dictatorship is virtually complete. Since he began the occupation of what was once our White House, the dictator-in-chief has been busy writing one Executive Order after another designed to replace US law…with ObamaLaw.  

Under normal and saner times, these EOs would mean little-to-nothing because the checks and balances of co-equal branches of government would render them null and void if they flew in the face of Constitutional law. But, today, insanity is reigning supreme.  Note: For those of you raised in the government public school systems over the last three decades, the US Congress (which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate) and SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States of America) are co-equal (under the US Constitution) with and to the Executive branch and each of the three branches of the US federal government legally carries 1/3 each of the power to run said government.

However, co-equal branches of the US government—like the Bill of Rights for US citizens—are no longer applicable in the USA. They have been replaced by dictatorial rule of and from the US White House; specifically under the now almost complete tyrannical control of Barack Hussein Obama. Why? Because Congress refuses to act and/or follow through on stopping Obama and his demolition-of-America team from destroying the US Constitution, individual rights and SCOTUS is now openly ruling in both bizarre and unconstitutional ways. This abrogation of duty has resulted in the submission of the Legislative and Judicial branches of government to the Executive branch. Question: Are members of Congress and SCOTUS (minus their female members) now required to bow down and pray five times a day in the direction of Washington D.C. to Obama? Does Obama provide the prayer mats?

What has occurred that has allowed this to happen is nothing less than treason and the “aiding and abetting of the enemies of the United States of America.”

CONTINUED:  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56895?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=88478aeb89-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-88478aeb89-291132961

American Thinker: Obama's Tyranny: Petty or Something More Sinister?

March 25, 2013

Last week, headlines informed us that, because of the Sequester, the FAA will be reducing the number of Air Traffic Controllers and closing 149 control towers completely. Earlier, the Department of Homeland Security released hundreds of illegal aliens awaiting deportation because they could not afford to hold them because of cuts mandated by the Sequester, they said.

Head Start is to face cuts due to Sequestration. Native American children are being sacrificed to Sequestration according to Slate Magazine. The Marine Corps faces massive reductions in manpower reports the Wall Street Journal. The U.S.S. Harry Truman and its escorts are sitting idle in Norfolk, VA because of the Sequester when they should be on their way to the other side of the world.

The TSA is threatening cuts that will push airport security lines out onto the street, while the government had been threatening to cut meat inspections until Congress pushed back. In other words the Administration is holding a gun to the head of almost every single American in its quest to inflict the maximum pain possible on each of us to achieve its political objectives.

When has this occurred in our country's history? When has a president orchestrated such a symphony of hardship for party politics? When has a president gone to such lengths for such a small amount of money?


The Sequester represents $85 Billion out of a budget of $3.5 Trillion, or just a 2.42% reduction in federal spending. On year on year basis, spending is still increasing by over 2% over last year. The math used by the Administration to generate this pain is simply crazy.

But this is the same Administration that decided at the outset to assault conventional energy in order to raise prices so that green energy could compete. I was in some of the meetings where the Green Lobby advocated this, and was stunned at their audacity. So now gasoline is at all time high levels; natural gas is being stymied; coal is in the Most Wanted list and nuclear has been sidelined.

We have a Department of Homeland Security that has become one of the largest bureaucracies in the history of our government in the space of 11 years. There is very little accountability and DHS has extraordinary powers to infringe the constitutional rights of our citizenry. Drones, computer monitoring, and wiretaps are all allowed under the Obama Administration's overwhelming control of the mechanisms of state. Just the other day, DHS announced plans to scan even more private e mail traffic.

There is a simple word for all of this; tyranny.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/obamas_tyranny_petty_or_something_more_sinister.html#.UVApLYcEPBc.facebook#ixzz2OYmnUeBU

TYRANNY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER

January 17, 2013 By Michael Connelly Bear Essentials Contributor

What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama’s signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought.

Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that the with a few strokes of his pin Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it.

Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use:

“1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”

What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates or fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm.

“2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”

This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says:

“16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

One of the few amendments successfully placed in Obamacare by conservatives does appear to prohibit doctors from asking such questions. Yet, with these two Executive actions, Obama is illegally amending an act of Congress and setting up a procedure for him to force doctors to gain information from patients about gun ownership, and to get our medical history.
tion 3 of Obama’s order states:

“3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”

Once again, what does this mean? What information does the Federal government want from the states? Copies of state personal and business income tax returns or court records of divorce and child custody cases are possibilities that come to mind as well as our voter registrations showing our party affiliations. How does any of this figure into our right to purchase a firearm?

One of the most dangerous and troubling sections of the Obama order in Section 4 that states:

“4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This section directs Eric Holder, the architect of Operation Fast and Furious that illegally transferred several thousand semi automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. border patrol agents, to now add people indiscriminately to the list of Americans ineligible to purchase firearms. Who might be added to the list?

Well, let’s look at the record of the Obama administration. Shortly after being appointed as the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent a list of potential domestic terrorists to law enforcement agencies around the country. The list included individuals who were pro-life, who supported the Second Amendment, who had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, and most disturbing, all members of the military returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The list has recently been supplemented to include individuals who hoard more than a week’s supply of food and water, and those who support individual liberties and oppose big government. I belong on most of these lists and I suspect that Eric Holder will be adding all of us to the list of dangerous people not qualified to own guns. In other words, you will no longer have to be a convicted felon or mentally ill to make the list; you will qualify simply by being an American patriot.

This is not a conspiracy theory, at the United States Justice Foundation we are seeing increasing evidence that military veterans are being specifically targeted by the Obama administration when it comes to prohibitions against purchasing firearms. Any veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in danger of being banned from owning a firearm. Even those veterans suffering from mild depression are being added. None of these conditions constitute a mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

However, in Obamaland veterans who took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, are definitely considered a threat to the new Fuehrer and must not be allowed to own firearms.

If we skip to Section 6 of the order we get a good idea of Obama’s real intentions when it comes to gun control. That sections states:

“6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”


CONTINUE READING:  http://bwcentral.org/2013/01/tyranny-by-executive-order/

NULLIFY NOW !!

by Diane Rufino, July 13, 2012


There is a growing movement in my state of North Carolina, as well as other states, to Nullify the federal healthcare bill. The Supreme Court's disingenuous decision to uphold the Individual Mandate as a valid exercise of the Congress' taxing power has evidenced an unwillingness on any branch of the federal government to honor the sovereignty of the individual. The decision clearly puts our country on the dark path to government tyranny.

But there is no need to label me a fanatic or a right-wing alarmist. I only write about what I observe and what I know to be true. And I've been observing that Americans and state representatives all over the country are taking notice of the powerful State sovereignty doctrine known as Nullification. Although this doctrine is based on our founding principles, the term itself was not articulated until 1799 when Thomas Jefferson wrote a series of resolutions to address the unconstitutionality of the Alien & Sedition Act. Those resolutions, known as the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, state as follows:

"If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal compact (ie, the US Constitution), an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction, contended by the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien and Sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the Constitution....."

Jefferson believed it was up to the States, the parties who drafted and ratified the Constitution and thus created the federal government to stand up to the government when it exceeds constitutional bounds. The states, he wrote, have the unquestionable right to judge whether the government has usurped power from the states or the people (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). He called Nullification the "Rightful Remedy" to keep the federal government constrained by the limited delegations of power granted by the states.

I know this a concept which is foreign to progressives and something that liberal universities prefer to keep hidden in historical record or teach as an outdated, racist doctrine, but the fact is that it is as vital and relevant as any of the other principles of government on which our system is based. It is an important check and balance and it is inherent in the system of Dual Sovereignty. The guarantees of the Declaration of Independence can only be protected if the government operates according to the Constitution's limitations.

Perhaps the reason this concept has been receiving so much attention is because it was articulated by our most revered Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson, the author of our charter of freedom and James Madison, the father of our Constitution (see the Virginia Resolves of 1798 and The Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800). It is an American remedy. Perhaps the reason it is criticized is because it's not found in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" playbook or in the Communist Manifesto. It doesn't further the concentration of government. Furthermore, Jefferson and Madison opposed slavery so it was not, as liberals allege, a racist doctrine.

And so, nullification groups have popped up all over the country. The topic is spreading like wildfire. Nullification groups are even organizing in North Carolina, a state which has spent years sucking up to the federal government. At the meeting the other night, one person asked whether certain provisions of the NC state constitution might present a legal barrier to members introducing nullification bills. Another asked whether it was a dangerous remedy and likely to escalate to secession. I'd like to spend the rest of this article addressing these concerns.

The provisions in the North Carolina state constitution that the gentleman was referring to are Article I, Section 4 ("Secession Prohibited") and Article I, Section 5 ("Allegiance to the United States). I don't believe either provision presents a barrier to Nullification.

Article I, Section 5 states: "Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force." This provision merely restates the theme of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, Section 2). State laws must not challenge the federal government in those areas it is expressly permitted by the Constitution to regulate.

Our federal system of government and the Tenth Amendment tell us that there is a purposeful tension between two sovereigns. With respect to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, which are "few and defined" (James Madison, in Federalist No. 45), the government is sovereign and the states must yield their power. But as to all other powers and responsibilities, these are reserved to the states and thus they are sovereign. The federal government, therefore, must yield to the states. The tension has always been palpable and almost always, the federal courts have taken the federal government's side. But just because the trend seems to show that the federal government is taking power it was not originally granted, or delegated, by the states, it does not mean that Article I, Section 5 of the NC constitution is a carte blanche allegiance provision. It is to be observed responsibly, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the original intent of the US Constitution. States are entitled to err on the side of their sovereignty. After all, they contemplated, drafted, debated, and eventually ratified the Constitution with specific designs for the Union. The federal government was THEIR creation.

Dr. Frankenstein and Igor created the monster; the monster didn't create them. The individual nations of the world joined created NATO and not the reverse.

Article I, Section 4 states: "This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State." This section is extremely offensive and is an insult to every North Carolinian who died in the Civil War believing in the sovereign right of self-determination and trying to preserve the notion that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence - "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."


Article I, Section 4 conflicts directly with the Declaration of Independence, as well as contradicts the very legal basis that underlies our government - the Compact Theory of the Union.

The Compact Theory was discussed even before the states ratified the Constitution. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote separately to propose that the Constitution be based on this principle. Under the Compact Theory of Federalism, the United States is made up of a voluntary union of States that agreed to a set of conditions on how they will be organized and governed. The Union was created by compact - or agreement (contract). They agreed to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states did not and could not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights. Under this theory, states can determine if the federal government has violated its agreements because they are the rightful parties who understand the terms and intent of the compact. The federal government was a CREATION of the compact and NOT a party to it. The compact theory states that our federal government was formed through an agreement by all of the states.

The Compact Theory is subject to the law of compact (or contract). And as with all contracts and agreements, the federal compact is limited by its language and by the intent when it was entered into. It is only legally enforceable under such conditions. In other words, the government is only legal for the specific purpose it was ratified for and under the precise terms (except for amendments properly adopted through the Article V amendment process).

Most states subscribe to this theory as the principle that underlies their bonds to the Union. Look at the articles of secession submitted by the southern states. For example, South Carolina explained:

"Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.” (the Supreme Court is not a neutral arbiter)

Also, just ask the state of Montana. In 2008, while it was waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand down its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (second amendment case), the Montana State Legislature passed a resolution – H.J. 26 – asserting its state sovereignty and announcing that if the Supreme Court failed uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to have and bear arms, then the state of Montana would consider it a fatal breach of the Compact and therefore it would nullify and void its bonds with fellow states. In other words, it threatened secession if the Supreme Court took away gun rights.

[Heller was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. A group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The government claimed the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard, and is not an individual right. The federal district court in DC sided with the government and upheld the federal ban on private gun ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed. With four liberals on the Court who believed that the second amendment was only a collective right and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice who sits on the fence, the right to have and bear arms was precariously close to being destroyed, and the state of Montana was not willing to take it lightly].

In short, Article I, Section 4 condemns the state of North Carolina to be a federal cling-on rather than a sovereign state, comprised of sovereign individuals. We are not wards of the state, eternally and perpetually bound to their schemes and design of governance. The provision declares in the loudest of terms that the issue of state sovereignty was settled at Appomattox in 1865. I would be surprised to find many North Carolinians who believe that in their hearts. They are proud and patriotic.

There should be no concern that either provision of the North Carolina state constitution would bar any state representative from rightfully interposing the state between the helpless citizens and a power-hungry federal government.

The second question asked was whether nullification is risky and likely to escalate to secession. Ideally, the purpose of nullification is to address usurpations of power so that secession could be avoided. Of course, that requires that the federal government respect the state's right to invoke nullification and enforce their nullification bills.

In 1796, in response to the Quasi War with France, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts to quash any false, misleading, scandalous, hateful, contemptuous, or defamatory communication concerning the government, the President (John Adams), or Congress (or individual members thereof). Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment's rights of free speech and press. The question became: What can be done to protect the people from an act of government that exceeds constitutional authority? (What can be done if the government violates the very Constitution which defines it?) Jefferson said there were three viable options: Judicial review, Nullification, and Secession. He didn't trust the courts to interpret the Constitution faithfully and thought secession was too extreme. He concluded that the "rightful remedy" was nullification. If successful, there would be no need for the extreme measure of secession.

John Calhoun, the famous Senator from South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, viewed nullification in the same way. Calhoun was a strong supporter of the doctrine and helped his state put forth an ordinance to nullify the federal tariffs ("Tariffs of Abomination"). The full title read: “An Ordinance to Nullify Certain Acts of Congress of the United States Purporting to be Laws Laying Duties and Imposts on the Importation of Foreign Commodities.” Although President Andrew Jackson believed South Carolina was heading towards secession, Calhoun assured that South Carolina was committed to the Union and did not want to secede. It just wanted the government to stop using its power to inflict such economic harm on the South.

In 1831, a year before the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun wrote: "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail."

He continued:

"So numerous and diversified are the interests of our country, that they could not be fairly represented in a single government.. A plan was adopted best suited to our situation and perfectly novel in its character. The powers of government were divided, not, as heretofore, in reference to classes, but geographically. One General Government was formed for the whole, to which were delegated all the powers supposed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all the States, leaving others subject to the separate control of the States, being, from their local and peculiar character, such that they could not be subject to the will of a majority of the whole Union, without the certain hazard of injustice and oppression.

It was thus that the interests of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the whole, while the peculiar and local interests were left under the control of the States separately, to whose custody only they could be safely confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitutional compact, to which all the States are parties, constitutes the peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly and emphatically American, without example or parallel.

To realize its perfection, we must view the General Government and those of the States as a whole, each in its proper sphere independent; each perfectly adapted to its respective objects; the States acting separately, representing and protecting the local and peculiar interests; and acting jointly through one General Government, with the weight respectively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and protecting the interest of the whole; and thus perfecting, by an admirable but simple arrangement, the great principle of representation and responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each to move in its prescribed orbit, is the great and difficult problem, on the solution of which the duration of our Constitution, of our Union, and, in all probability, our liberty depends. How is this to be effected?

The question is new, when applied to our peculiar political organization, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are represented by distinct but connected governments; but it is, in reality, an old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in any government; whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of the ages have devised but one mode by which such political organization can be preserved,--the mode adopted in England, and by all governments, ancient and modern, blessed with constitutions deserving to be called free,--to give to each co-estate the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of the others, in order to protect against encroachments the interests it particularly represents; a principle which all of our constitutions recognize in the distribution of power among their respective departments, as essential to maintain the independence of each; but which, to all who will duly reflect on the subject, must appear far more essential, for the same object, in that great and fundamental distribution of powers between the General and State Governments.


So essential is the principle, that, to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to consolidate, in the one left in the exclusive possession of the right, all powers of government; for it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the right to take what powers in pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the distribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The reason is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown.

The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, 'to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.' This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may, -- State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, -- I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.

With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make 'its discretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;' and that, 'in all cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.' Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced."

He concluded by addressing the secession question:

"If the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative would be submission and oppression on one side, or resistance by force on the other. That our system should afford, in such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alternatives, by which the Government may be brought to a pause, and thereby an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through an appeal to the States themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom: an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength; not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety. Its general recognition would of itself, in a great measure, if not altogether, supersede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the Government that moderation and justice so essential to harmony and peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours; and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers (a point all-important), and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution or overthrow, but in reformation. It is, in fact, properly understood, a substitute, -- where the alternative would be force, -- tending to prevent, and, if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which all systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe."

We see, then, that nullification is not intended as a threat of possible secession. It is a peaceful plea to the federal government to faithfully honor the Constitution. So, if the government grows hostile to any state that uses nullification to declare an act of the government unconstitutional and that hostility leads to secession, then the fault of secession lies not with the state but with the government. The power to restore the design of the federal compact lies with the government. The power to prevent secession lies in the conduct of Washington DC.

No one wants the Union to dissolve. No one wants a state to be so frustrated and so apathetic and so rebellious with the federal government that its only effective solution is to dissolve its bonds with fellow states so that it is relieved of allegiance to an oppressive or controlling federal government. But if Americans are devoted to keeping the American ideal alive - that government serves the people and not the other way around - than secession must always be recognized as not only a fundamental sovereign right but also a viable option. It was certainly the option our founding patriots took when they adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence. That document, most clearly and straightforwardly, was a secessionist document. It announced "to a candid world" that the colonies endured a history of repeated injuries and usurpations at the hands of King George and were therefore dissolving their bonds with Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connections between them and the State of Great Britain, are and ought to be totally dissolved.."

Lincoln got it wrong. He engaged the South in a costly war to save the Union because he believed it was meant to be a perpetual Union. America was never promised to be a perpetual Union. It was promised to be the land of perpetual freedom. If the independent sovereign colonies had the right to be free and to dissolve their political bonds with a tyrannical government in 1776, why do they have any less of a right under the same circumstances?

Some have laughed at this sentiment. Many believe that the government would never allow any state to withdraw from the Union. Some look at the legal issues and wonder how a state can legally secede if no federal court will recognize the right of secession. [The only Supreme Court decision which addressed secession was Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), which was written by Justice Salmon Chase. Chase was appointed by Abraham Lincoln as a cabinet member and was a leading Union figure during the war against the South and so it was no surprise his decision was a regurgitation of Lincoln's premise for war. He wrote: "The act which consummated Texas' admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States."]

Since the government enacted martial law in the South (thus treating the southern states as a conquered land) put strict conditions on the Confederate states for "re-admission to the Union," it is clear the government didn't even believe its own story.

The authority for secession comes from man's humanity and vests in every sovereign. The right of a people to abolish their government is a fundamental right, just as the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are. As Jefferson said: "God who gave us life gave us liberty." Liberty is indivisible from life itself. This right of a people to abolish government is grounded in the inherent right of self-protection (individuals can protect their lives and property). When people are organized into communities and reside in a particular state, that state itself possesses the sovereign powers that the people themselves would have had if they had not delegated it for collective and mutual benefit. States do not need permission from the federal government to dissolve the political bonds binding them to the Union. They need no permission from fellow states (although they might wish some support). They certainly don't need permission from any of the federal courts.

The Declaration of Independence reads: "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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


The US Constitution begins with the words "We the People." This is immensely significant because it evidences the understanding that the power of the government derives from the people. The power derives from the people because in this country we acknowledge that individuals are the true sovereigns. This concept mirrors the themes highlighted in Jefferson's Declaration. The Declaration is the WHY and the Constitution is the HOW.


This emphasis on "We the People" is quite different from what we've seen in history in other countries. Governments have been fashioned by Kings, established by tyrants, or forced on a conquering population. The rights of the people were always an after-though - a second thought. The interests of the King or the tyrant or the conqueror always came first. Governments were always top down until the US Constitution was written. In the United States, we have a bottom-up structure. Power bubbles up from the people. It transfers to a government which in turn serves them. It was not supposed to serve itself. The Constitution is a document that protects the individual from the conduct of government. It is a document used to enforce law on government - not on people. It is designed to limit government and not to limit citizens.


Our Founding Fathers came up with a special, unique formula, which it memorialized in the Constitution (and in the Federalist Papers) - that "limited government" equals "maximum individual liberty."


Governments established for the benefit of the individual are created by compact - an inherent agreement by the people to obey laws in return for the protection of their rights and the service of their liberty interests. After all, what is an individual's liberty interest in life and property worth if he can't leave his home in order to work and travel because he must protect his family and property from evil-intentioned individuals? Many governments are evidenced by a constitution, although it isn't necessary. Written instruments are preferred because they set out in particular detail the relationship between the People and government. Governments are supposed to be limited. While some laws are necessary to promote and even enlarge individual liberty, too many laws burden liberty and oppress people. The balance shifts. Instead of protecting and serving the People, it becomes their master. And then that is when we get to the point where the People review the situation and decide whether it is appropriate to form a different compact, or as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated: "to institute a 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."


It only makes sense that a nation founded on the sovereignty of the individual would allow individuals to abolish their government.


I certainly don't advocate secession. We lost almost 620,000 young men when the South seceded from the Union and Lincoln fought to deny them that opportunity. But as I wrote earlier, it has to be an option as a matter of last resort otherwise we slide down the path to tyranny without a way to salvage the liberty that our revolutionary patriots fought for and which our Founders secured for us.


It is said that nations typically follow a predictable path of progression: From bondage to spiritual faith; then from spiritual faith to great courage; then from courage to liberty; then from liberty to abundance; then from abundance to complacency; then from complacency to apathy; then from apathy to dependence; and finally, from dependence back into bondage. We are at the "dependency" stage. We think the federal government - all branches - are the answer. We see it every time we hear people make such outrageous claims as "home ownership" is a right and "healthcare is a right" and "entitlements are a right." Every time a people believes that government should give them something and therefore relieve them of the "opportunity" to provide such things for themselves, then they, in effect, hand those 'opportunities' back to the government. Each "opportunity" is indeed an exercise of Liberty. It is an opportunity to use the inherent rights and abilities granted to us by our Creator to achieve. We are squandering our opportunities by trusting government to take care of us.


We assume that the government - all branches - are the interpreters and final arbiters of what the Constitution means, what the government's powers are, what government should do, and what laws the people MUST obey. (A perfect example is the desire of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to have a second amendment case reach the Supreme Court again after another liberal justice has been appointed to the Supreme Court so they can "get it right this time." District of Columbia v. Heller was a narrow 5-4 decision. These liberal justices believe strongly in government gun control - despite the overwhelming authority to the contrary - and Ginsberg has already gone public urging another case to come before the high court "after Obama wins a second term.")


If our early patriots understood the inherent violation of liberty rights in a relatively small tax on tea, is it no wonder that today's patriots are urging the revival of nullification over the blatant violation of liberty rights in the coercive federal healthcare bill? If our early patriots rebelled over the fact that they forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others (the English), it is no wonder today's patriots are in an uproar over the fact that a certain segment of our population is being forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others?


It is no wonder that critical mass has been reached and nullification is being talked about as the only option remaining to get government back in line. Hope for other options ended with the Supreme Court's decision of the healthcare bill. There would be no commonsense voice from the Supreme Court. There will be no repeal of the bill in this session or even the next. If Obama is re-elected, the republic is effectively dead. Nullification is the only answer. It provides the path from dependency back to liberty. It puts power back in the hands of the state and to the people. It is the rightful remedy for a people who rightfully deserve to enjoy freedom without oppressive and coercive policies of government.


Thomas Jefferson lives again in the hearts and minds of those who desperately want to save the republic. And it's great to have him back.

"My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty. Land where my fathers died; land of the pilgrims' pride. From every mountainside, let freedom ring."

References:

Diane Rufino, "Nullification: A Concept Whose Time Has Come" August 2011. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/

Diane Rufino, "Secession: Does a State Have the Right to Secede From the Union?" August 2011. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Referenced at: http://constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 579 (2008).

John C. Calhoun, “Fort Hill Address: On the Relations of the States and the Federal Government,” in the book: Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, ed. Ross M. Lenace (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992). Referenced at The Online Library of Liberty.: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=683&chapter=107120&layout=html&Itemid=27