Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

 @Roberto Benitez  @KansasBright  I am not a conservative. I am a Constitutionist: US Constitution and all the states constitutions. I do my best to NOT "interpret" the US Constitution but to take its words as the meaning of them are easily found (language does change over time). I also read news events and discussions of the time to gain a better understanding of their (framers) meaning when they say or write something. The way it was taken to mean by the people of the nation.

 

(PS; Could that be the reason why Mr. (intentional) Obama is using DHS to build a quasi-private executive branch para-military force?)

I believe based on my years of study that he is, and that it is treason. Though that is NOT the ony time Obama has committed treason against the USA - that discussion is for another time)

 

Sect 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts AND PROVIDE FOR THER COMMON DEFENCE and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

TO RAISE and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

Notice that the word "RAISE" is used in reference to military (army) which implies that there is NO standing army (military). I believe you ignored that word which does distort the meaning.

 

Then there is this: 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;...'

 

Please notice that the Militia is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and  REPEL INVASIONS"  here in the USA - not a "standing army".

 

Followed by: 'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;'

 

What makes you think that the miltia cannot be naval in each state that could have a need for it? What makes you think that private citizens did not fire cannons from their boats in our past as part of the militia? What makes you think that we will not have a militia today that will defend our shores from planes? Remember that ALL weapons of war that might be used to invade the USA is supposed to be made available to, and training with, the militia of the several states and that congress is charged with arming them, training them is left to the states.

 

The Air Force was a branch of the Army, the Army Air Corp. The Air Corps became the branch for Army aviation in 1926. Then in 1935, General Headquarters (GHQ) Air Force was created for operational aviation units. The Army Air Forces (AAF) came into being on June 20, 1941.

 

It is now recognized by us as a separate military entity that had beginnings as a branch of the army.

 

I must say I am enjoying your thoughtful and well researched replies and challenges. Thank you. I believe the worst thing anyone can do anymore is not verify a statement represented as fact. Mistakes can be made by anyone.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @MarkAreReynolds The US Constitution (nor the Bill Rights) are "gone" or need to be re established.  They need to be enforced - and supported and defended, an entirely different matter. Or, if a US President (legally not through election fraud or any other non lawful manner); Preserved, Protected and Defended.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @Roberto Benitez

 

Thank you for your earlier comment. And yes, it was a lot to go through.

 

First, take snopes with a grain of salt; sometimes it is correct, sometimes it is not.

 

The US Constitution forbids a standing military because it can be easily taken over (the "just following orders" syndrome) and used against the very people and country it is supposed to support and defend (US Constituton).

 

Remember, many laws, bills, treaties, agencies, bureaucracies are unlawful. Just because it /they was/were created by someone does NOT make it/them lawful. It/they must be IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution to be lawful here in the USA.

 

The US Constitution said that the Militia is what protects this nation, not a government controlled military that is not lawfully supposed to be funded beyond two years - unless we are engaged in a congress declared war.

 

Plus the Miltia Act separates the militia into three classes. The three classes  H.R. 11654 provides for are the:

organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,

the unorganized militia and

the regular army.

 

It further states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 (now every able-bodied person). All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. It cannot lawfully be repealed, unless in some way to make the rights of the people (miitia) stronger.

 

Charles Hughes, American Bar Association (ABA) speech (Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840):

"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.

This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose."

 

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee, 1st Senator

 

Justice Story: 'The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

 

The Purpose of the Militia Clause: "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598, 1999

 

Thomas Cooley the most renowned American legal authority of his age pointed out that "if the right to arms were limited to militia-related arms possession, then the guarantee would be meaningless. The very government that it was meant to check-and that could control the definition of the militia - would be in a position to define its boundaries and negate any checks upon itself, defeating the Framers' intent... The militia... consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But... if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.

The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

 

 

 

 

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @Begneli  @KansasBright Basically the people in the three branches of the federal government are put into position to carry out the constitutionally assigned duties of each branch. Look at them as high-priced, arrogant temp workers.

The US Constitution and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are supreme. That means that the US Constitution assigned duties of the federal government are supreme WHEN they are carrying out the CONSTITUTIONALLY ASSIGNED DUTIES (duties dealing with foreign nations, and seeing that the states trade fairly with each other). Any other duties they "created" or "took" for themselves are usurpation - not lawful and must NOT be followed. That is for ANY of the three branches of the federal government

The states are each a constitutional republic carrying out the duties of the state and with each other inside the nation.  They swore to support and defend the US Constitution.

Neither the feds or the states can lawfully go against the US Constitution or Americans natural rights that are protected by it. Again that is usurpation, or if done with any type of force or  violence, an attack on the American people, the USA, by domestic enemies.

The three branches of our government, ALL the military, ALL law enforcement, ALL the heads of the States, ALL federal employees are lawfully REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge. Presidents are held to higher standards. swearing to "Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution".

It (Oath) binds the contract we make with those we put into office. It is a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO TAKE AND KEEP the oath to meet the requirements of the position they are occupying.

Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Fed 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law

5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed in the United States Government to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S.: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

Rost v. Municipal Court of Southern Judicial District of San Mateo (1960): "The Legislature, either by amending or otherwise, may not nullify a constitutional provision"

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189: "Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank: "Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another’s ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct.”

It is well established law that Fraud vitiates (makes void) any contract that arises from it.

Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: "An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government."

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

 

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

 

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to GUARD the Constitution AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.

 

Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the JUDGES TO DO THEIR DUTY AS FAITHUL GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE LEGISLATIVE INVASIONS OF IT HAD BEEN INSTIGATED BY THE MAJOR VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY.

 

But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws.

 

See why I feel that way?

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

 

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.

 

If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH; AND THAT WHERE THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE, DECLARED IN ITS STATUTES, STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO THAT OF THE PEOPLE, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE JUDGES OUGHT TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LATTER RATHER THAN THE FORMER. THEY OUGHT TO REGULATE THEIR DECISIONS BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, RATHER THAN BY THOSE WHICH ARE NOT FUNDAMENTAL.

{Definition of fundamental law: Basic principle on which a body of knowledge or national constitution is built. Also called organic law.  a law or laws, as a constitution, regarded as basic and, often, irrevocable by ordinary judicial or legislative action...)

 

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference. <-- I see this as an explanation of where this comes from, though I could be wrong.}

 

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

See how two people can read one item and draw different conclusions? That is NOT the conclusion I have come to after reading it. To me it says that jdges must follow the US Constitution whe making their decisions. Here are the reasons why:

 

'According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that (US Constitution) of this State... the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.

 

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.

 

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

 

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

How many here are aware of those who are fighting and letting be known criminal actions by those in our government and its agencies? Support them!

 

Here is one:

DHS whistleblower Censored from 60 Minutes. (Spread this around all, maybe we can keep her alive.)

From Oathkeepers who was asked to protect her and spread the word.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/05/03/dhs-whistleblower-censored-from-60-minutes/

 

whistleblower speaks out on how DHS declared her a “Domestic Terrorist” then dispatched a Blackhawk Helicopter SWAT raid on her home because — She was doing her job protecting the border… you just need to see this and spread it to the four corners of the earth WATCH HERE:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=feHbP4k_tdk

 

Please VIRALIZE this video

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @West Texan  @RightDetour You are incorrect. The federal government is NOT the supreme law fo the land. The Constitution of the United States and all laws, bills, treaties, amendments are the supreme law of this land. The federal government is ONLY supreme when carrying out its constitutionally assigned duties and when its (*congress) bills, laws etc are IN PURSUANCE THEROF THE US CONSTITUTION.

 

ONLY congress can make legislation which is why ALL executive orders are NOT lawful. It is why the judicial branch cannot make law, only enforce constitutional laws, make sure that all laws/bills/etc are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution. The judicial branch was NEVER given the power to "interpret" the US Constitution - it usurped that power for itself.

 

Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Constitution of the United States of America and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does not declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

 

In PURSUANCE thereof, not in VIOLATION thereof.

 

Thomas Jefferson plainly points to the constitutional source of all federal power. He wrote, “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 colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

 

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33: “If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

 

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.” If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or the people, must overrule them”.

 

Since the Bill of Rights are *unalienable, there is NO branch within the federal or the state governments that can alter or demolish them.

*Unalienable rights - "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, NO HUMAN LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO ABRIDGE OR DESTROY THEM, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (commits a crime - though once the sentence is carried out the person's natural rights are restored.)

 

*Inalienable rights: "a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred".

 

The Bill of Rights put further limts on the federal government as is made clear in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

 

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @SaraServalis  I agree. But what are you using as a basis for the treason charge? If you are not sure what exactly qualifies as treason may I recommend Vieira's book "Dare Call It Treason"? You can read part of it here for free:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/03/31/dare-call-it-treason-by-dr-edwin-vieira-jr/

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @ObliterateTyranny  The part that is important for you to remember is that the progressives brought the German style of education and started implementing it here in "our" public schools. They made it sound good to the people who then sent their children to be taught that the fed gov is "THE" government and that states and the people are subjects.

 

They have been in "charge" of WHAT our children learn for generations now, and most have a really messed up and incorrect way of what our government is, what it can do, etc.

Teaching them, plus the  (illegal - now legal) immigrants what our government is, what their natural rights are (considering they were not even given the right to life) is a HUGE step.

 

Those in our military today, and those that are LEO's have barely a concept of what is lawful or not under our government.

 

What would help is if everyone who has a family member of friend in either would educate them. Then they could not be used against us as they always are when governments become tyrants. Though admittedly Obama increased mercenary military that costs us (We the People) more per person then a standard standing (unlawful) military. He created his own private military through the DHS and TSA (Bush 1 started it), and have militirized the LEO's and also put their own people within them.

 

This was NOT done yesterday - though it has been accelerated, it has been done over decades. WE do not have decades to stop this.

 

Thsoe of us who have even a basic concept of the US Constitution, the military and LEO place within it need to work hard to teach those who are easily conscripted into "just following orders" or "just doing their job".

 

One way to do that is to start arrests and prosecution of those who have gone against the law while being in a position of "trust" - and it has been difficult to do so. But if we can get one arrested and on the way to prosecution it will accelerate with more falling as people who were afraid to speak up and act start requiring it. At this time they are seeing that those in places of pubic trust and "power' seem to get away with anything, even treason and murder, so feel helpless.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @RonTravis He is also a traitor and indicted as a war cirminal.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @RalphShark Don't forget this either:

 

18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @ThomRaasio First, we have the right to do two things: defend our legitimate government - including arresting and prosecuting all of those who have been traitors to each state and those within the fed gov that have been/are traitors to the USA (and change it constitutional ways as needed). Or  change our type of government (Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama escalated) as the - supposedly - people decide.

 

Number two is the reason I believe that Obama has been doing what he can to get immigrants from tyrant governments here in the USA, think "amnesty". 

 

They have little or no concept of individual liberty or that a document drawn up by the people (US Constitution) can be/IS the government with people elected and assigned to carry out the duties IT assigns. Not do they understand that there can be more then one type of government at the same time; referred to by many as duality - the states, the people, the fed gov. Nor do they understand that the fed gov can be assigned specific duties of which most is to deal with FOREIGN nations, while the states and the people deal with MOST internal government issues. Plus putting them on welfare IMMEDIATELY makes them "grateful" to him.

 

Not that it is lawful, but it is dangerous to us because with foreigners support he can chgne our government. That is why Bush 1 had opened up and encouraged more immigration from tyrant countries as opposed to those who would come from countries with more of a concept of individual rights, constitutional republic governing. Yes, people came from all types before, but those who would find it easier to assimilate our type of governing was encouraged before. Now those who will take a generation or so to understand it are not only being encouraged, but money is being spent to "ship" them here. They understand corruptness and being controlled - accept it easier if their life is "better then it was before". Immediately placing them on welfare makes it seem that way. "Seem that way" because that will not last because the idea is to get them here and destroy our type of government. Then the "true" NWO type of dictatorship will come into being.

 

Remember that the UN's Agenda 21 has "depopulation" high on its list of things to implement here in the USA. When governments depopulate its citizens it is never a "pretty sight". Go see for yourself in "Innocents Betrayed" if it is still up on you  tube.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @AnnetteAkerman  @Roberto Benitez  Plus:  There is the election Fraud (though both the Republican and Democratic parties are guilty of this - dump them). Quoting Fox news (surprised? I was also):

 

"Officials found guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/#

 

A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.

The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.

“I think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,” Levco told Fox News.

...Even a former Democratic Governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged."

 

Plus this:

The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include language stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form?

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @GrumpyOldGoat  @BillRoe  Exactly. But that can only happen as long as we let it - as we have found out. Now it is time to stop these usurpations. Time to arrest and prosecute traitors within the federal gov and within the state governments, within the military, within the law enforcement - both federal and state.

 

Bush, Clinton, and Obama were INDICTED for war crimes - push for prosecution for those crimes.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @GrumpyOldGoat  @KansasBright  Exactly. Where do you get a conflict?

 

Supremacy clause applies to the all that is (constitutionally) assigned duties to the federal government in anything it does as long as what it does IS THE specifically the assigned duties by the US Constitution to that branch, plus is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution.

 

There is no conflict in what I said.

 

The federal government has constitutionally specifically assigned duties that are broken up between three distinct branches. Neither can lawfully use the powers assigned to another branch nor give those powers to another branch or to a different group (bureaucracy) though it/they can hire assistants to assist representatives to do their duties. (This means that the bureaucracies and what they have been doing are also not lawful)

 

What you are describing: the "war on drugs".has nothing lawful or constitutional about it. It is words being used to keep a standing military just like the "war on terrorism" (a tactic).

 

Why are they not lawful? Because they are/were not a constitutionally assigned power to any of the three branches of the federal government, nor are/were they (and others) IN PURSUANCE THEREOF the Constitution of the united States.

 

There is no conflict. Just usurpations.

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

 @GrumpyOldGoat Actually you are incorrect. The "Supremacy Clause" is always valid.

 

The problem that most are not aware of is that EVERYTHING that is assigned to the federal government jurisdiction has to be IN PURSUANCE OF THE US CONSTITUTION to be supreme, or directly fgrom the US Constitution itself.

 

So if "when the US Constitution says: Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 

That does not mean that congress can give away the powers directly assigned to it, nor does it mean that the executive  or judicial branch can create legislation.

 

So all executive orders are not lawful - now or in the past.

 

US Constitution: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 

That does not mean that the executive branch or the judicial branch or those bureaucracies created can do the House of Representatives constitutionally assigned duties. Nor can those bureaucracies lawfully do the constitutionaly assigned duties of the executive branch or judicial branch.

 

The three branches of the American government according to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independance are: "We the People", the States, and the federal government - in that order.

 

Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes - delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

 

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." Madison, Federalist 39

 

Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, brought the term “nullification” into political thought and action. In the Resolutions he says “that a federal “law” that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is “void and of no effect.”

 

“But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner. On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” James Madison

 

Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, defines 'de facto': "In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate."

 

Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, defines 'usurper': "One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country."

 

“Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.” James Madison

 

Not a framer, jsut the words of a TRAITOR - 1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said: “Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil….individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.”

 

“Politicians brought the Nazis to power and started the war. They are the ones who brought about these disgusting crimes.”  Karl Doenitz, German admiral and would-be fuehrer after Hitler

 

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

That letter shows that Holder does not understand the laws under which he is REQUIRED to work.

The major one that he needs to understand or be removed from the position he is occupying is:

 

The Constitution of the United States of America and all laws, bills, treaties, etc that are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF are the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI does not declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

 

Not only did he break the lawfully required oath of all people whom hold the position he is occupying are to take and to KEEP, but he has been working against the USA. He has committed treason under our laws, plus committed:

 

18 USC § 2382 - Misprision of treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

 

Because he was aware that Obama (in a letter to Boehner, and many other times such as in front of a senate hearing on video - all senators present are also guilty of 18 USC § 2382, as is Boehner ) said that he was a representative of the UN and got his "authority" from the UN.

Dempesey and Panetta both said that the UN has authority over the USA and over the US Military - treason.

Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey have all said that they gave authority over the USA to the UN - treason.

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Holder, etc all are trying to let the UN make laws that US citizens would have to follow, plus let the UN tax US citizens - all TREASON.

 

Yet no one does a thing about it that has any type of law degree, legal standing (LEO, Military, etc. Not Ron paul when he was in office, nor Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, anyone in Oathkeepers, here at the tenthamendment center,  Heads of the states, constitutional sheriffs, other judges - no one.

 

Guess it is fine to commit treason here in the USA.

 

Then there is this: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Panetta, Dempsey - if I remember the list correctly,  and MANY others were INDICTED for war crimes. Yet no one will prosecute them.

 

18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

Want to know why we have a problem here in the USA? Because those with legal standing will not prosecute unless it is a unlawful "law" and a citizen. Those in office get by with not even a slap on the hand. This country that is founded on laws will not use them. I started working on a law degree so I can at least try. Hopefully there will be enough time.

 

Oath of Office – if necessary and proper the Militia’s can come together to enforce Title 18 US code section 2381 - Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2381

 

 

 

1 year, 5 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

Reply

I think what TaskForce16 is referring to is that in each states constitution is that they will support and defend the US Constitution. Admittedly I have not read all US state constitutions at this time, but I am almost halfway through. Surprisingly enough, a lot of those state constitutions put restrictions on those in the 3 state branches that are also not being followed. Surprise there, right? JK. Example: NY's Constituton: [Preamble] We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION. [Rights, privileges and franchise secured; power of legislature to dispense with primary elections in certain cases] Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers... Freedom of speech and press; criminal prosecutions for libel] §8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions] §12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.) ARTICLE XII (9), Defense [Defense; militia] Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia. This one rates a sad laugh. Why? Because the people are the militia. Notice the word "obligation". [Oath of office; no other test for public office] Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.) For a good read - and occasionally a sad laugh, read the oath each state requires. Example - Preamble and California's Oath of Office: California State Constitution Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 1: All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Art 1 Dec Of Rights, Sec 26: The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. Art 20 Misc Subjects, Sec 3: Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: ________________________________________________________________ (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means." And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. Funny, right?

1 year, 6 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th

Reply

@Ripcity

The federal courts were not given the power to "interpret" the US Constitution, that is a power they usurped for themselves. They were given the power to make sure that EVERY law, bill, amendment, etc was made in "pursuance thereof" the US Constitution.  Go read the US Constitution for yourself. It is no more valid then Obama giving himself murder in the first degree (assassination) powers. He usurped powers that is NOT legal in the USA. Never has been, never will be. Not even now  - it is JUST murder, and all those who are involved, and who did not work to have this stopped and them arrested are accomplices to Murder 1 under our laws.

 

Make sure you read the part that says, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Notice who adopted the US Constitution.

 

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

In the New York Ratifying Convention, Melancton Smith stated: “The state constitutions should be the guardians of our domestic rights and interests, and should be both the support and the check of the federal government.”

 

Gilbert Livingston would add: “[I] conceive the state governments are necessary as the barrier between the people’s liberties and any invasion which may be attempted on them by the general government.”

 

In Federalist Essay 26 Alexander Hamilton stated: “[T]he State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government…will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only be the voice, but if necessary, the arm of their discontent.”

 

In Federalist 45, the powers assigned to the individual states were summarized by James Madison: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

 

As sovereign entities with their own executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; states are free to govern without federal influence within the confines of their own state constitutions. In addition to the domestic powers outlined by Madison, states assumed the responsibility to actively limit central government’s natural desire to grow beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

 

In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton spoke of the state’s duty to provide a check on the power of a growing central government: “…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

 

If the State legislatures were to be the “arm” of the people from federal encroachments, then it follows that the States must have the independent power or authority to perform that function and it would appear to me that no precise description of the method is required.

 

Jefferson and Madison, drafted resolutions outlining the proper course states should take when the central government assumes powers outside the powers specifically granted by the Constitution.

Jefferson wrote: “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

1 year, 8 months ago on An important introduction to Nullification. http:/...

Reply

 @TaskForce16  @Austin Holthaus  True, except that concealed carry can be regulated, but OPEN carry cannot.

 

The Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654: It further states: "The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of ANY type, and as MANY as they can afford to buy." (my caps)

 

State v. Chandler and State v. Reid: Concealed weapons bans are constitutional as a manner of time, place, and manner restriction since, while arms bearing is an individual right...

 

State v. Buzzard: ... the government might not impose regulations that interfered with the ability to resist tyranny, which a ban on concealed carry did not.

 

Adams: "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe”

 

Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed … "

 

... The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies... and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’ Story

 

Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

 

Nunn vs. State: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. .. any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.

 

T. Cooley: "The right is general. It may be supposed... that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia... consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision... that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose... there is an individual right, meant to buttress the militia, but not limited to its enrolled members – since the government may define who is in the militia, and thus the right would have no value against abusive government if so limited... that a legislature can outlaw weapons that have no militia/military function. It can proscribe brass knuckles and billy clubs... outlawing machine guns, assault rifles...  would involve infringement of the right's very core because the people are the militia.A government could likely restrict concealed carry because concealment has no particular link to political resistance, but it could not restrict open carry or use. One of the traditional purposes of the militia is law enforcement -"to execute the Laws of the Union."

Aymette v. State: That individual’s have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of: "to keep in awe those who are in power.”

 

Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”.

1 year, 9 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th

Reply

The Constitution of the United States of America is NOT the problem.

People, literally the corruption, power hungry, rotten side of the "human condition" is the problem.

But Constitutional remedies were made for that.

Just like today there are remedies for the treasonous actions of Obama, Holder, and the rest of that adminstration.

For the treasonous activities for anyone who is supporting, assisting and implementing UN's Agenda 21 which is the takeover of our country through unconstitutional means (TREASON).

For the senate that ignored Obama's, Panetta's, and Dempsey's treasonous actions - which was treason also - on video in the senate chambers. 

For Boehner who receiving Obama's treasonous letter also committed treason against the USA and his Oath by not doing anything about it.

For those who are so ignorant not to realize that not taking or keeping the legally binding REQUIRED oath that they all are required to take means two things: That they no longer meet the REQUIREMENTS of the position or office they are now occupying. That they have committed a criminal offense for which they can be prosecuted.

 

Supporting the UN and "giving" authority to the UN over the USA. Giving authority over the US Military to the UN, a foreign entity. Some say those are not treasonous actions becasue we have treaties with the UN. They are incorrect.

 

Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” 

 

All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

 

So if Georgetown University’s Louis Michael Seidman wants a country without the US Constitution there are plenty for him to choose from. But he is NOT going to take our legitimate government away with his miss statements, misrepresentations of the way this "constitutionally trained" person wants to present it. Very like Obama and his (UN) constitutional teachings. They both need to rethink where they got their education as it is sadly lacking and incorrect.

 

1 year, 9 months ago on Happy New Year! Are you with us for a big push th...

Reply

First, the US Constitution is the supreme law of this land, NOT the federal government. Every law, bill, amendment (I'd say executive order but NONE of them are legal) must be in pursuance of it or they are 'null and void' and it does not matter what time period they were created in. Plus the federal laws ONLY 'trump' state laws where they 'overlap' so that there would be no conflict. The US Constitution plainly lays out the federal governments domain. The powers taken since then are not legal so their is no conflict - state laws trump federal laws except where the US Constitution says they do not.

 

The three branches of our government,, heads of states, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge. They all take a legally binding Oath to support and defend the US Constitution, except for the president. The president's required Oath is *deliberately different.

 

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

 

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

 

The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

 

They are bound by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

 

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

 

Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act”.

 

Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”.

 

Require, Requirement, Required: "To claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation."

 

The Framers specifically placed the presidential Oath of Office between preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department, and the succeeding clauses specifying the President's executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he can execute it.

 

*There is more then one clause that requires an oath, but the presidential is the only clause that actually specifies the language of the oath for that specific position. Article VI's Oaths requires the persons specified therein to "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution", while the Presidential Oath requires substantially more than an oath of allegiance and fidelity. The President is required to swear (or affirm) that he "will to the best of his Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The phrasing ties the Presidential duty directly to the "preservation, protection and defense" of the Constitution, plus the location and phrasing of the Oath creates limits on how the President's "executive power" is to be exercised. The relationship shared between the Oath of Office and Article II's Clause (requiring the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed") with the duty to faithfully execute the Constitution as supreme law; plus the "preserve, protect and defend" language of the Oath of Office places a specific duty on all Presidents to fight for the US Constitution's survival.

 

None of the three branches may legally do anything that is not authorized by the Constitution. Those in the federal government; Senators, Congress, federal judges, President, and the other officials are there to carry out the duties assigned each branch by the Constitution. 

 

When they go beyond those assigned duties, “We the People” are to take action. In Federalist 33, Alexander Hamilton clearly shows this when he says:

 

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed [the Constitution], and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”

 

Executive Order 10450 (I know I said all executive orders are illegal - making a point with this one) was issued as a guideline for determining what actions constituted a criminal violation of the Oath of Office by federal officials with the order affirming the law of 5 U.S.C. 7311 that it’s a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 1918 for a member of the government, including members of Congress, to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.”

 

Executive Order 10450 states: “Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in…the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States… it is hereby ordered as follows: … (4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

 

I bet anyone on this site can name numerous unconstitutional "means" that goes back to soon after the start of our Constitutional Republic (it is the nature of man). But for brevities sake, I am going to use a few major 'newer ones' not necesarily in order.

 

UN's Agenda 21 is a big one; Bush - Obama all supporting and carrying out someone OTHER then the people who they are to represent dictates with NDAA, Patriot Act, warrant less searches/spying/tracking/etc, assassination, torture, undeclared wars, giving authority over the USA to the UN - also TREASON, giving authority over the US Military to the UN - if not treason it should be, but it IS illegal.

 

Going beyond this to "All states are guaranteed a republican form of government".

 

1 year, 10 months ago on Interposition Now!

Reply

"... most of the 657,000 people who’ve signed these petitions have not considered the ramifications. It would likely lead to armed conflict."

 

What makes you think that we don't already believe that the federal government is going to create an armed conflict here in the USA as a big part of it's (United Nations)  'depopulation" program? What makes you think that nullification of those things these corrupt treasonous individuals within the three branches of our government want into place will not cause "armed conflict"?

 

They have been preparing for years. Ask soldiers about the questionaires with questions like: "Would you fire on an American citizen if ordered to do so?" in them.

 

Think about  what the hurricane in New Orleans area showed us: they (hopefully these who did this were the mercnary's hired instea of OUR US Soldiers - but many have spoken up and said it was them, and it was wrong!) confiscated guns, food, water, and murdered people. What have you been hearing about hurrican Sandy? What has been going on with assisting the people there? Some are locked in FEMA camps without heat, hot water, and only outhouses. No one can go in to visit or assist, not sure if they can leave, but didn't two say they cannot leave? That they stopped the people they were assisting from contacting outside the FEMA camps. This isn't raising red flags?

 

I am all for nullification, have filled out and sent those forms to those "representatives" within my state with not one word sent back and no action taken that I can find. Truthfully, I don't think we need to seceed from the USA. This government is NOT following our legitimate government anyway. We need to seceed from this adminstration - make them Null and Void. They have not kept the Oath as they are REQUIRED by the Supreme Law of this land, making them no longer meet the REQUIREMENTS of the position they occupy, but they have committed treason in the Contitutional meaning by assisting the UN takeover of the USA. They have used Election Fraud to get into positiion - very like Germany.

 

So use both, but personally, let's just replace every position within this administration immediately who has not kept their legally binding Oath with those who will keep it. Plus give the replacements a temporary place to serve from while we fumigate the white house and DC.  We can vote and hand count those votes.

 

This is up to us. Remember, the people made the states. The states created the US Constitution which is the blueprint and limits placed upon those who serve within the federal government.

 

I recommend Ron Paul as temporary president, wtih Judge Andrew Napolitano as temp VP, throw in Jesse Ventura, Gary Johnson, Rand Paul, etc in various other positions while we get a new non machine vote ready for the people in each state. These votes will be hand counted HERE in the USA with US witnesses and  under multiple videos at each and EVERY count. This is OUR country, and our choice of government.

 

If the progressives were not forcing a change of governmetn upon us, then why the corporate news who is dictated to to misinform the mases? Why the hidden things going on within the federal government? Why is Agenda 21 hidden and put into place here in the USA? Why was this true propesed change not done openly?

 

Is it because even the New Black Panthers, the gangs, the miltary, the LEO's would not abide by it because it would destroy their lives also? is it because mainstream masses most certainly would not abide by it. That the only people who might are those who immigrated here relatively recently from tyrant ran countries and that would ONLY be because they do/would not understand a document instead of a person as a government with the people within that government to be carrying out the duties assigned them.

 

 

1 year, 10 months ago on The Moderate Middle Road

Reply

 @far2right  @WilliamSchooler  @babcicathy Look up the IRS. When was it LEGALLY given power ? What about that they added the RFID chips back into Obamacare that a lot of us and Ron Paul forced to be taken out of it (Yeah, all who are on Obamacare are to be microchipped. Look up microchipping in vacines while you are at it.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans on state-run insurance exchanges. Contrary to expectations, many states are refusing or otherwise failing to create such exchanges. An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule purports to extend these tax credits and subsidies to the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges created in states without exchanges of their own. This rule lacks statutory authority. The text, structure, and history of the Act show that tax credits and subsidies are not available in federally run exchanges. The IRS rule is contrary to congressional intent and cannot be justified on other legal grounds. Because the granting of tax credits can trigger the imposition of fines on employers, the IRS rule is likely to be challenged in court.

states could kill Obamacare by refusing to implement its insurance exchanges. This strategy would be effective because the survival of PPACA depends on the ability of Beltway bureaucrats to dole out its tax credits and subsidies, but the law stipulates that all such assistance must be dispensed via state-run exchanges. Likewise, PPACA's employer mandates can only be triggered by premium assistance that originates from state exchanges. Even if the federal government creates an exchange in a state that has declined to do so, it would not be authorized to issue tax credits or fine noncompliant businesses. Thus, if the majority of the states refuse to create exchanges, it will doom Obamacare. There is, however, one weakness inherent in this strategy. It assumes that the Obama administration will obey the law. The plan will be difficult to implement if the President and his accomplices simply ignore the text of PPACA and illegally funnel tax credits and subsidies through federally-created exchanges.

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @WilliamSchooler  Exactly. They can do nothing without our agreement, and our money.

Don't buy things that you don't need, and can use if SHTF. Starving them out helps.

Let your representatives know that you want them arrested for XX (list them) crimes they have committed for prosecution. Let them know that YOU know that when they broke the Oath they made themselves NO LONGER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE / POSTION THEY NOW OCCUPY and you want to replce them immediately and are working to do so.

 Educate any military, ask Oathkeepers to puts some billboards up and iv you can afford to, assist by donating. Support constitutional sheriffs, any law enforcement (LEO's), judges that have done their job properly like the judge who decided that the NDAA IS unconstitutional and that it could not be used against Americans.

Let all unconstitutional and corrupt representatives, judges (like the one who did Obama's bidding to stop the NDAA constitutional judge - GET THEIR NAMES OUT IN THE PUBLIC - listing their crimes), LEO's, Military - whatever their rank (Like Dempsey, quasi military Panetta) be brought out into the open, listing their crimes for all to see and exactly how it can affect them. Tying this to their own lives will make education of the public easier.

DEMAND that the Head of the FCC and about 4 layers beneath be arrested for THEIR crimes against the USA and her people:

“It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC,1969

People do not know when those who are in those postions commit crimes, especially those who have immigrated here from tyrat ran countries. They do NOT know that a document can be a government, while the people serving in it are just temp workers (yes, higher paid, bigger lifestye, and better benes) grabbing power they legally do not have.

“God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”. J. Reuben Clark

 

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @far2right You are right, to "yell "Nullification under the 10th Amendment"" would not work. But if you get YOUR state to nullify it, and the Patriot Act, and all the warrantless stuff. Get all the Sheriffs as constitutional sheriffs in your state, get Your governor to start requiring militia training, and order weapons... get together with other states that have done the same .. hmmmm think that might help?

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @gypsynovus No gypsynovus. That is where we start. I guess you believe that the government created the internet, it did not. The weapons created FOR the military were made by private businesses that contracted for the military - many that are corrupt , true. But not all of those people involved are.

Neither are all of our US Military corrupted and believe in destroying our nation and their own families and friends. Why else is the government putting all who return on the "terrorist" watch list? Why are they making up reasons to arrest them and throw them into "psych" wards for "reprogramming" and to get them out of the way? why do you think we ahve mercenaries on our shores in OUR military for higher pay then our own soldiers get?

Why is educating the people so important? Do you think that all those who voted for/ supported Obama would still if they knew they were to be slaves (no pay, no say so in your life makes you a slave)? That the freedom the progressives espouse is the "freedom" from ever making you own decision again: from what you eat, when you are allowed to sleep, to if you ever get to mate? Would the New Black Panthers stand for that, if they knew? As an alternate para military group, would they ket the things they own be taken from them?

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @gypsynovus  @deebar  What part of "We the People" do you not understand? We have to do what WE can to bail ourselves out legally with arrests and prosecutions. Just because they ignore the laws  and our LEGITIMATE government does not mean that we do.

Find all LEO's and judges that still support the US Constitution - support them, stand by them. All the rest - denounce them for their unAmerican activities working to destroy the USA. Show and list the crimes they have done, what agencies and organizations support and put into actions UN Agenda 21 (does take research).

Teach the people about Agenda 21 that takes away our right to own property, businesses, cars, etc; takes away what we already own - NO payment, etc. People hate to lose things.

Teach them the difference between the progressive "freedom": whcihis the right to be free from ever having to make any decisions for your self - what you eat, when you eat, when you are allowed to sleep, who you date if you get to date, will you be allowed to breed (in their eyes we are lower animals, slaves), what education you will get, what type of work you will do, when you will do it, how long you will do it. Under the progressives, you will be denied the right to make ANY decsion for yourself as you are too ignorant (generic "you").

Freedom as the Constitution defends: the freedom to make YOUR own choices - good or bad.

 

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @gypsynovus  The Constitution of the United States of America. The people are sovereign, and if we let this go on, it will go on. Do you know WHO the militia is? It is ALL able bodied men and women aged 18 - 45. Do you know that the Sheriffs are an elected body that is "supposed" to be the peoples protection (also)? If you do not bother to find out what YOUR state constitution says, and then hold YOUR state reps, elected bodies accountable ... where you expecting someone to bail you and yours out? No, the responsibility lies with ALL of us to do what we can to stop it.

 

Go read boiling frogs, go down to classified woman, watch the interview they have their to see who is known to not be a traitor to our nation - of those who serve, have served within our government.

 

Educate all those around you that you can. Start holding lower level legislation within your state accountable: call, e mail, write, ask many questions. Demand that they sign to nullify and ban NDAA, Patriot Act, warrant less everything (it is one more accountability you will have) and it will be passed to all LEO's in your state once the governor signs so that They know what They are to do, and most importantly, what they canNOT do..

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @far2right Get the forms here at this site to get "your" state representatives to nullify or ban Obamacare, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc.

You will need to read your state constitution and fill the information in at the appropriate points. What you will also get from reading it (make sure it is the current version) is what your state reps can and canNOT do.

As far as your sheriffs go, I would send them to the Constitutional Sheriff (cspoa) conventions to learn more about their position under the US Constitution.

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @deebar  @KansasBright They cannot represent us or create debt we are required to pay, or tax us, or create laws for us UNLESS they are under the US Constitution. It is the Constitution that is our government, not the people who are elected or assigned to carry out the duties it has assigned to each branch.

That is why when Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey said that their "authority comes from the UN, NOT from the US Constitution" and that "they do NOT represent the USA, but are representatives of the UN" was treason.

It is also why Obama cannot create EO's because they are created by the "authority" the US Constitution gave to him as the person temporarily serving that branch at this time (besides that the executive branch does NOT have that power).

Plus if that is true (I will research it) then NONE of them are serving as our legitimate government and we can create a new constitutional one immediately. Moving them out of the white house, and getting the appropriate arrests for subsequent prosecutions will be more difficult.

1 year, 10 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @far2right You are incorrect. First state Sheriff's are a huge part of the state's defense against any invasion, incluiding that of the feds {people made states, states made the constitution, constitution is the blueprint for the fed gov, etc.

 

What is left out is the State Militia. The state militia is that every able bodied person in the state between age 18 - 45 ARE the state militia, and when called upon by their state, are required to defend the state from ALL invaders, including Domestic Enemies attempting to destroy the legitimate government. That is why the citizens in the USA MUST be armed, and are supposed to also be trained.

 

Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 1164, a law which breaks the militia down into three groups. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia,

The unorganized militia and

The regular army.

It states: The militia encompasses every able-bodied person - used to say males because only men could serve in fighting positions -  between the ages of 18 and 45.

All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of ANY type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

 

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

 

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and DUTY to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright (emphasis is mine)

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge -  the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era."

 

William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. He describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both".

 

Justice Story, Supreme Court Associate Justice about the Second Amendment wrote:

'The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.'

 

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

 

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, American Patriot

 

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788

 

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

 

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @WilliamSchooler  @KimberlyBoldt That was the way English was spoken and written in that time. 

Think of the changes in the way we speak it today compared to 10 years ago, 15 years ago, etc. some of the changes have been deliberately cultivated: like "Air Support" to make "bombing the cities, etc" sound less warlike.

Right now there are two very different 'definitions' of the term "Freedom" going on politically.

One means that you are free to make a life for yourself:  decide if you will date, marry, have children, what job you will take, how far you will go in education, etc.

The other, the socialist view - what Obama (DNC) and Romney (RNC & GOP) both support - means that you are free from the troublesome burden of making decisions for yourself. Instead they will decide what you will eat and when, what type of education you will receive and in what major, what type of job you will work at; if you will be allowed to date, marry, have chidren; you will not own anything, they will provide the place you live, transport you to the job you are assigned, etc. Of course only select people will be those who make those decisions for you.

 

Two Very different views on Freedom.

1 year, 11 months ago on “Necessary and Proper” = “Necessaria et Opportuna”

Reply

(con't)

 

The Oath is a requirement to get into office, and since it is binding for life, a requirement that must be met to LEGALLY stay in office. Yet we are not holding them accountable. Isn't it time to start arrests and prosecutions?

 

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land that ALL laws, bills, etc must be in pursuance of to be legal. It REQUIRES an Oath from all who serve within the federal government or as heads of state, etc. Basically the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are REQUIRED to take a solemn Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

 

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10.

The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure (political recourse).

 

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

 

Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”.

 

Require, Requirement, Required: "to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation."

 

Those are our civil ways to get accountability - prosecute.

1 year, 11 months ago on “Necessary and Proper” = “Necessaria et Opportuna”

Reply

President Andrew Jackson said: “Congress has no right under the Constitution to take money from the people unless it is equipped to execute some one of the specific powers entrusted to the government…and in such a case it is unquestionably the duty of the government to reduce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not given to it by the Constitution nor taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for the legitimate wants of the government.”

 

What people forget, or never bothered to learn is that the oath required of all whoserve within the federal government is their accountability to us, "We the People".

 

From what used to be on the FBI website when it still served under the US Constitution instead of aiding and abetting its enemies from within as a now treasonous agency. Please note the many times that they refer to "the people" as the last resort against ta corrupt government.

 

'The meanings of the words in the Oath: “I”- an individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer;

“do” -  perform, accomplish, act, carry out, complete, achieve, execute;

“solemnly”- somberly, gravely, seriously, earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and ceremony; “swear (or affirm)” - vow, pledge, promise, guarantee;

“that I will” - a positive phrase confirming present and future action, momentum, determination, resolve, responsibility, willpower, and intention;

“support” - uphold, bear, carry, sustain, maintain;

“and defend” - protect, guard, preserve, secure, shield, look after;

“the Constitution of the United States.”

 

Significantly the Oath is to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is because the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals - who are inconsistent, fallible, corruptible, and often prone to error - too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other.

 

The Preamble sets forth the goals or purposes of the Constitution. The opening and closing words of the Preamble, “We the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”, describe a government ordained and established by the consent of the people.

America is a constitutional republic where elected representatives swear to uphold the Constitution as they serve at the will and by the consent of the people. This was something so rare that some historians maintain it has been accomplished only three times during all of human history: Old Testament Israel, the Golden Age of Greece, and the era of emergence of the United States of America.”

The structure of the Constitution emphasizes the principle of separation of powers. Article I established the legislative branch with the power to make laws; Article II, the executive branch with the authority to enforce the laws; and Article III, the judicial branch with jurisdiction over legal disputes. “It is important to note that the Constitution in no way granted the federal courts the power of judicial review, or an ultimate interpretive power over the constitutional issues”. That was inserted later.

Another aspect of the separation of powers is the principle of federalism. Federalism is a legal and political system where the national or federal government shares power with the state governments while each maintains some degree of sovereignty.

The Constitution helps to delineate the roles of the federal government by spelling out its limited powers, which are outlined in the first three Articles. Section 10 of Article I also places specific, limited restrictions on the states; however, these restrictions actually serve to emphasize the powers reserved exclusively to the federal government (e.g., the power to make treaties with other nations). Article IV delineates a few fundamental requirements incumbent upon state governments, as well as guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government. Other than the limited guidance given to the states, the Constitution does not direct the states on the establishment and functions of state governments. The idea is that there are certain limited activities the federal government is best situated to handle; there are other activities that are best left to the states; and still others best dealt with by counties, cities, families, and individuals.

Under this system of government, the founding fathers realized that conflicts between state and federal jurisdiction would arise. Accordingly, in Article VI of the Constitution, they designated the Constitution itself and other federal laws as “the supreme Law of the Land.” This clause (known as the supremacy clause) serves as a “conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law.

The federal government was intended to be a government of limited powers, there were many who feared the inevitable expansion of those powers, particularly in light of the supremacy clause. Without the promise of a Bill of Rights limiting the power of the federal government, the Constitution never would have been ratified.

The founding fathers built a system of checks and balances into the Constitution, whereby the executive, legislative, and judiciary would check and balance each other and state governments would balance the federal while it, in turn, would maintain a check on the states. The people would check and balance all of it.' (con't)

1 year, 11 months ago on “Necessary and Proper” = “Necessaria et Opportuna”

Reply

Bans and Nullification are both good things for us to do. But the other thing we must do is hold "our" representatives accountable. Remember that the Oaths that they are REQUIRED to take to get into office are binding for life. That they are REQUIRED to keep those Oaths to continue to meet the requirements of the office that they are - temporarily - occupying.

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land, not the federal government. It is our government and a legal document that requires all laws, bills, amendments, etc be in pursuance of it.

 

I have a petition up that will make it easier to hold "our" representatives accountable for their actions:

'We Can Immediately Fire and Replace Any Constitutional Oath Taker That Doesn't Keep the Legally Binding Oath as Required

US Constitution is Supreme Law. The first law statute of the USA was Statute 1, Chapt 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution. The wording of the Presidential Oath - Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. The Oath requirement for all Fed and State Civil officers - Art VI, Sect 1, Clause 4. The Oath is binding for life.

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.'  http://wh.   gov/   XB5b

 

I need enough signatures to get it out to the public to sign. Take out the spaces and if you agree to it, please sign.

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson

Reply

 @StephenSmith1  @mogul264 The Judge who said the NDAA is unconstitutional Judge Katherine Forrest, a recent Obama appointee to the federal bench - who I am sure Obama regrets that appointment ... lol

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @mlk12  @BobGlover  In a way you are correct. The problem that you do not seem to be considering is that those in office, in the courts, in the militay, in police that hold up their Oath are arrested, "detained", put in "mental facilities" for their 'delusions" here in the USA.So when you see one, like the judge who said the NDAA is unconstitutional - it is CRITICAL that you support them  - also for their safety - keep track of them, question and demand to know where they are if they 'drop out of sight".

 

They are fighting for us where they can, but they require OUR support and defense for, and of, them. there are more then you realize. Take the general who refused to follow the "stand down" orders from those in the oval office watching the murder of the ambassador and seals streamed to them from a drone and sent in rescue attempts. He is "retiring". He needs us to watch out for him and see that he stays safe.

 

This is an attack by domestic enemies on the USA from within just like what happened in Germany to their constitutional government. The only difference in the tactics being used is they got to what we now call the corporate media first because controlling what the people know controls thier thoughts. Everything else is going pretty much as it did their: Election Fraud, militirizing the police, putting people into place to take over the government from within, a government within a government, unconstitutional laws, indefinte detainment, warrantless searches, tracking, spying, even the destruction of our money system, etc - all was used in Germany.

 

Not worried, don't believe it? Read the Opening Statement by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States - the opening statement alone will make you a believer. Remember the CIA brought the scientists and others (including Kissinger - who ended up with a high place in our government) from there. The Bushes of that time supported and funded hitler, etc. {the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy... It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. As did companies still here today.

... thoroughly documented account of the role played by Morgan, Rockefeller, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, DuPont, General Motors, Ford, and other industrialists, in helping to finance the Nazis. To prove his point, Professor Sutton provides bank statements, letters from U.S. ambassadors, mainstream media sources, Congressional Records, excerpts from Congressional Investigations, and statements from the Nuremberg trials. Wall Street's funding of the Nazis is part of authentic history.

Other notable figures that are said to have appeared at this meeting include Council on Foreign Relations members John Foster Dulles, and Allen Dulles, of the New York law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Schroeder bank. Allen Dulles would eventually become a member the Bilderbergers and director of the CIA...

Author James Perloff concurs, and reveals the role that the Council on Foreign Relations played in aiding the Nazis. He states, "In 1939, on the eve of blitzkrieg, the Rockefellers' Standard Oil of New Jersey sold $20 million in aviation fuel to ... I.G. Farben [and] even had an American subsidiary called American I.G." Describing the CFR's connection to the Nazis, he lists the directors of the American I.G. as "ubiquitous Paul Warburg (CFR founder), Henry A. Metz (CFR founder), and Charles E. Mitchell, who joined the CFR in 1923..."

Other U.S. companies which contributed heavily to the Nazi war machine include Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) and Union Banking Corporation (UBC), both of New York. Prescott Bush (grandfather of President George W. Bush) was a partner at BBH and director of UBC. UBC of New York, which was founded and chaired by E. Roland Harriman, is now confirmed to have been a Nazi front company.

The Rockefeller File, Gary Allen wrote, "The alliance between Nazi Germany and the Rockefellers is truly shocking." He explained, "Hitler's Luftwaffe ran on Standard petrol, and the Rockefellers were partners in I.G. Farben Industries, whose thousands of war products included the poison gas used in Nazi death camps." Professor Sutton added, "American I.G. Farben, General Electric, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford, and other U.S. firms" were "directly responsible for bringing the Nazis to power."

See why it is imporatnt to know your history? /big grin

 

 

 

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @mogul264  Plus they know that they have aided treasonous activities, but are hoping the American public never learn enough to realize this.

 

As far as their Oaths, they broke them and can be prosecuted under civil laws IF you can find a judge that is also keeping the Oath they were required to take and not aiding and abetting the destruction of the USA.

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @Bob_In_Boston  @DorotheaTeasley  @Bob_In_Boston  @StephenSmith1  @mogul264  Actually you are incorrect,  Bob_In_Boston.

 

Congress is the ONLY government body that has legislative power. It states in Article one, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...”

 

Notice the word "All". There is NO room for interpretation. It does not mean most legislation and it does not mean all legislation except what a President may have a whim to pass, it means ALL legislation. Executive legislation (executive orders) is using the presidential office to pass law whichis not now, or ever has it been legal for a president to do so. It is just that we have ignored the illegality of those actions. Remember: The Constitution is our government, not the people elected to occupy temporary positions within in it to carry out the duties as assigned.

 

The powers of the government are limited by the Constitution. The Constitution is "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution, is void" (illegal, and legally cannot be enforced). It is the Supreme Law of this Land, and any act of the government must be consistent with it (in pursuance of the US Constitution). Only those acts made "in pursuance of" the Constitution are legal, and legally enforceable. It is higher than the government and its laws, for the Constitution created both, and the states - which were created by the people - created the US Constitution.

 

"Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution".

 

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity (presidents take an Oath to Preserve, Protect, and Defend it). Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

 

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

 

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10.

 

Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

 

They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure (political remedy that does not stop civil or criminal actions).

 

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

 

Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”.

 

"Under the American Constitution a new structure of government was established on a much higher plane than either the parliamentary system or the confederation of states. It was a people’s constitutional republic, where a certain amount of power was delegated to the states and a certain amount was delegated to the national government. There was a small dimension of power which they shared jointly. All other power was retained by the people. It is the delegation by the people of certain powers to the states and certain powers to the national government which we call ‘dual federalism.’" W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America

 

Treason: Title 18 US code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

18 USC § 2382 - Misprision of treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

 

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

 

Obama, Panetta, Dempsey "giving" authority over the USA to the UN. They "gave" authority over the US Military to the UN = TREASON in front of the Senate, and in a letter to Boehner. UN at OUR elections to 'monitor" them? UN gun laws coming into effect soon here? UN taxing American citizens soon? All Treason.

 

 

 

 

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @DorotheaTeasley  @KrisJackson  Exactly, the US Constitution was put into place by the states because we needed a central agency to deal with foreign affairs and to see that the states traded fairly with each other.

 

The Constitution created a limited government and listed our natural rights that those serving temporary positions within our government cannot ever touch without us being legally able to fire, arrest, and prosecute them. Congress has the right to impeach them (political recourse).

 

The Oath is their accountability to the people.

 

It is required of them to get inito office because the ONLY power (authority) they get comes from that document. That is why anything done that is not in pursuance of the US Constitution is not legal.

 

Since the legally binding Oath is for life, and is a REQUIREMENT of those offices / positions that are temporarily being occupied - if they break it they NO LONGER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OR POSITION THEY ARE TEMPORARILY OCCUPYING.

 

But teching the law enforcement and the military that is the problem - it is what has been dumbed down so to make those who are TRAINED to FOLLOW ORDERS to not think about illegal orders, or to even know when those orders are illegal.

 

They are so dumbed down that they did not recognize TREASON when Obama, Panetta, and Gen Dempsey openly admitted it in front of videos in the senate at a hearing.

 

Handing over the USA to the UN is treason. Giving 'authority' to the UN over the US Military is treason. Not only that, but NO ONE in ANY OFFICE OR POSITION WITHIN THE FED GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE THAT POWER. Yep, not one person.

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

@StephenSmith1 @mogul264 because election fraud has nothing to do with anything that has happened in the last, and about 6 previous elections (sarcasm).

 

The only thing we need to do is to hold our representatives to their *legally binding Oaths.  That alone would make all this "stuff" 'null and void' and make them (most) arrestable and prosecutable. Why do you think they try to make everyone believe the "oath" is just words?

 

The Constitution is the Supreme law of this land, not those temps we put into office - though they like to make us think they are.

 

* The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

 

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10.

 

The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

 

They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure (political remedy for political offense which does not make them immune to civil or criminal prosecutions).

 

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

 

Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”.

 

These makes it a civil offense, and depending on what their actions was to break the Oath, may also be a criminal offense.

 

If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath REQUIRE it of those who take the Oaths? 

 

If the US Constitution is not our government anymore then we are under attack from within by domestic enemies and it is way past time to support and defend our legitimate government.

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @DorotheaTeasley  @KrisJackson You have made some great points. That does not mean that the quote by Calvin Cooledge is any less relevent - be it a lie he was using to  gain and keep the trust of the people, or that at the time he believed it. The words he said was the truth.

 

Never ignore someone because you do not agree with their beliefs. Learn from those beliefs - learn what they intend to do, what makes them weak, as the old adage said; "know your enemy". It is not less true today,

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @StephenSmith1  You asked why we cannot impeach them because of breaking the required Oath.

Impeachment is a political remedy to a political offense.

 

But breaking the required Oath is also a civil offense because the US Constitution is the supreme law of this land and REQUIRES it of those who are to serve. The FBI website (until a few yeaers ago) considered it their accountability to the people. That we could remove them and replace them for no longer meeting the requirements of the office or position they are occupying. That is why the Oath's are solemn and binding.

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

 

President Truman relieved MacArthur as supreme commander, United Nations Command. Truman explained how,  MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties: “Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy. It is fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution. In time of crisis, this consideration is particularly compelling.”

 

Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office and (2) “selling public wood to the prejudice of the service.” This shows that taking the oath is not simply words. In fact, the practice at the time was to publish the sentence in a newspaper “to prevent in future the commission of such crimes.”

 

The framers of the Constitution intended that the Supreme Court should in proper cases hold unconstitutional acts of Congress and acts of the legislatures of the States.

Oliver Ellsworth, Connecticut Convention, stated clearly the practice then intended precisely as it exists in the courts today:

"This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature [Congress should at any time overleap their limits the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the National judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the States go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the Federal [National] government the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so."

 

"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future.

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism."  The Supreme Court of the United States

 

"They saw all the consequences in the principle and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." James Madison

"Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves". James Madison

 

"Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume." Judge Thomas M. Cooley

 

"The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. . . . If we move in mass, be it ever so circuitously, we shall attain our object; but if we break into squads, every one pursuing the path he thinks most direct, we become an easy conquest to those who can now barely hold us in check.

I repeat again, that we ought not to schismatize on either men or measures. Principles alone can justify that. If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong, like our predecessors, into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, if we see them raising standing armies, when the absence of all other danger points to these as the sole objects on which they are to be employed, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents. But while our functionaries are wise, and honest, and vigilant, let us move compactly under their guidance, and we have nothing to fear. Things may here and there go a little wrong. It is not in their power to prevent it. But all will be right in the end, though not perhaps by the shortest means."  Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Wm. Duane

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @FRENCHIE Exactly. The people are ignorant of the type of government we have.

 

It is important to teach them. Even 'our' representatives have little or no idea. One of the first things taken over was 'education'.

 

‘When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already.... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’  Adolf Hitler

 

Then they controlled the media.

 

Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and agencies,and  music record labels.

When a single company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a few companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we now have with our mainstream media - an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

 

“It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC 1969

 

Manufacturing and distrorting what the people hear and have access to is why the fight to control the internet.

 

Then they started militrizing the law enforcement, even the security agencies of mjor colleges with better military 'toys'. Consider it bribery to do things their way. Very German of them, eh?

 

The law enforcement and military are trained to follow orders. Unfortunately many are not aware that following unlawful orders makes them criminals and they can legally be held accountable for that / those actions when we get the domestic enemies out of our courts.

 

Courts here in the USA get their powers from the US Constitution. When they do not act in pursuance of it they are acting without legitimate power. The same for our representatives.

 

Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey said to the senate - and Obama in a letter to Boehner - that they get their 'authority' from the UN, NOT from the Constitution. Besides being Treason, then they legitimately have no power here. The Constitution is the only thing in the USA that gives our representatives power and authority to do anything legitimately. Because Boehner did not immediately go after them for Treason says that he is 'in bed with them' so to speak. A domestic enemy of the USA.

 

Start presurring the state that put Boehner in office to have him prosecuted. Plus I have a petition going to hjold ALL Oath takers accountable for following the Oath - as our legitimate government requires:

http://signon.org/sign/state-and-federal-oaths?source=c.url&r_by=5870533

 

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @BobGlover So find out exactly, legally under our legitimate form of government, money we have to give to the federal government. If it is supposed to only go to the states - then get on the state representatives that the money goes NO further.

 

No money - less government, less military industrial complex. Will they come for us - sure. But they are going to anyway, ever study history?

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @KrisJackson Actually you are incorrect that it does not exist. The reason that the people are ignorant about the type of government we have (Constitutional Republic), and what the states and the people's powers are.

 

Most imporatant they do not know what those elected are allowed to do or NOT to do - big part of the reason for 'dumbing down' the people.

 

Remember, under the 'new' government in Germany (the 'old' was a constitutional government):

 

“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”  Martin Luther King

 

"We the People" have allowed corruption to get into, and continue in our limited federal government. Like when this country was built: the people came first, made the states. The states made the US Constitution which created a limited federal government with the specific duties assigned to it listed. They practiced "usurption", illegally taking more power for themselves.

We let this happen.

 

"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter.

If all men are created equal, that is final.

If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.

If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.

No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.

If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers." Calvin Coolidge

 

“God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run NOT to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”. J. Reuben Clark

 

”Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it”.  George Bernard Shaw

 

”We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”  Abe Lincoln

 

Hope this helps you on your quest to find what YOUR duty is to be a citizen of this nation, and part of the government, not the governed over like other nations.

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply

 @RogerDodger I agree we also need to re do THIS election since election fraud has been discovered since the beginning (GOP presidential candidate).

 

Considering that everyone I have talked to since we discovered GMO 'did not pass', everyone I have talked to voted For labeling. 21 out 21 people this morning, not including me - so 22 out of 22.

 

Of course it couldn't be election fraud? Right? (sarcasm)

1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification Victories!

Reply