Bio not provided
It might work, but I don't think you could get enough people to participate. When the government stepped up their tyranny of the people at airports with TSA, x-ray machines and physical groping, there was a push for people to protest by not flying. It could/should have put an end to the TSA. It didn't work, though, because too many wouldn't give up their vacations, business trips, etc. Traveling by road or rail simply wasn't convenient enough.
Even if your employers agreed to let you off--and take you back--after a month, what then? Do you think the elected officials currently occupying federal--and most State--governments will listen to us? It isn't part of their agenda. The only possible way to take back our constitutional government is to replace ALL of the current elected officials with those who support the Constitution--ALL of it, not just a few select provisions--and are willing to work our way back to limited government by the consent of the governed.
And at this point, you have a population (culture/society) that has been so thoroughly indoctrinated to abhor and/or ignore moral behavior, they are not likely to accept freedom and personal responsibility--nor will the 'Marxist Media let them.
There is also the possibility, the government would just start arresting individuals and throwing them into America's barbed wire enclosed FEMA concentration camps. Trusting THIS government's reactions could be a monumental mistake.
11 months, 2 weeks ago on Words Don’t Matter, Actions Do
Completely agree. It is long past time to recall and prevent re-election of these traitors.
12 months ago on Words Don’t Matter, Actions Do
Sent to AZ State Senators 3.10.13:
(Addressed to, Senators Driggs, McComish, cc to, Senators Biggs, Bedford, Griffin, Taylor, Lopez and Ward)
Re: SB1112 – 2nd Amendment Preservation Act
Senators of the State of Arizona:
Reported: Senators Adam Driggs and John McComish are preventing SB 1112, The 2nd Amendment Preservation Bill, from being considered by the full Arizona Senate. They “believe it is ‘unconstitutional’ for Arizona to pass a Law that bans the federal government from violating the 2nd Amendment.”
Apparently Senators Driggs and McComish are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution although both took a required Oath to support it. They seem unaware the Constitution has been ratified by all States as the supreme Law of the Land. Article VI, states that to be valid, any Laws and Treaties must be made “under the AUTHORITY of the United States”:…State Constitutions and Laws contrary to the U.S. Constitution are invalid.
If Senators Driggs and McComish still lack understanding, the “Authority” of the United States is only that which is enumerated in the Constitution, granted by ‘consent of the governed’ (the Militia.) Therefore, any Executive, legislative or judicial Member of either the federal or State government(s) who ‘violates’ the Constitution is guilty of malfeasance of office, and of treason.
Arizonans expect our State Legislature to protect us from the federal government’s unlawful intent to diminish and/or remove the 2nd Amendment’s ‘unalienable’ “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” We also expect our Governor and State Legislature to actively nullify any and ALL unconstitutional Laws by federal government that increasingly governs outside the ‘limits’ of the Constitution.
No longer a silent majority, we expect legislation under the Authority of the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, rather than complicit with the loud will of various special interest groups. Representatives, either federal or State, who violate our Constitutional Rights and Laws and seek to remove the ‘unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator deserve the fruits of their perfidy. We are watching; we WILL act.
Thank you. I think far more Americans than not, agree with these qualifications. Unfortunately, the current crop of corrupt incumbent politicians will never vote for the reforms.
I would like to see State laws that all individuals campaigning for elected Office MUST run only on their records and a statement of intent (or where reasonable, an economic plan.) For incumbents, their previous term(s) records of votes and actions MUST be disclosed as part of their campaign information. For newbies, their private sector records MUST be disclosed so voters can judge competency. For ALL elected officials, citizenship records (BC or naturalization records) MUST be disclosed and independently verifiable. (I would never vote for a newly naturalized individual who has no history of supporting America, the Constitution, or the consent of the governed.) For those candidates whose elected office requires constitutional eligibility qualifications, the independently verifiable documents MUST be submitted with their nomination papers, or they are not 'eligible' for the State's ballot.
Since all elections, including the elections for President, are State-held elections, there is no reason for any candidate for representation of the State, either at the federal or State level, to spend $$millions or constantly barrage viewers with ads, negative or otherwise in order to generate support from citizens of the State. I am hoping to interest TAC and I would like to see each State provide a 'candidate' webpage for all State and local offices on the (TAC) and State's website.
Of course, these 'restrictions' will generate Court action. The States must be prepared to tell the Court what they can do with their Decision. The other fly in the ointment is the media. There, too, the State must be prepared to impement severe fines for media interference or ignoring the State's imposed reporting/advertising elections limitations.
I believe if there was a level playing field, independent candidates would fare much better against the establishment corrupt political parties. One way or another, we MUST get rid of the corrupt politicians who, on every level of government, have ignored the U.S. Constitution, and in many cases their State's Constitution, and have sold us into the slavery of tyranny.
1 year, 3 months ago on No More Waiting. Nullify Now!
Michael, I have been reading TAC for some time now and am impressed and thankful for your efforts.
Are TAC chapters being organized in any of the States, specifically Arizona, and if so, is there a way to get in touch with these individuals?
I firmly believe in your TAC efforts that federal reform must be done by the States. But I also believe reform IN the States governments must be done first.
Thank you for the work you are doing.
You have some good ideas, Dawn, but I question at least a couple of them.
Why should taxpayers have to pay lifetime medical benefits for elected officials once they are no longer in office regardless of how many terms the electee serves? Why should we pay any medical benefits for elected officials in the first place. All elected officials receive a salary--paid for by taxpayers. The rest of us pay for medical insurance out of our salaries, whether we are aware of it or not (your medical benefits from companies are taxed as income.) U.S. congressional representative, in particular, receive a large salary AND expense paid benefits for virtually everything--making their salaries available to them for investment, etc.--all at taxpayer expense. We are being financially raped/assaulted!
Why should any federal employee receive retirement benefits other than from social security, like the rest of us, unless they pay into their own private retirement accounts? And to give them 2 x the benefits any private sector individual receives from social security is a continued theft of taxpayer dollars. Government (any and all) unions should be outlawed, as they were prior to JFK's authorization of them. Government is supposed to be a service to the people--not necessarily at individual expense, but definitely not a way to benefit from taxpayers.
I am sorry, but you are incorrect in your 'interpretation' of Article II and the 12th Amendment.
Both read the electoral count by the Senate and the House of Representatives will seat a President when a MAJORITY of ALL electoral votes exists. So even is 1/3 of electoral votes are not exercised and sent to Congess, the remaining electoral votes could still equal a majority (50%+) of the total electoral votes possible.
IF no majority count exists from the electoral votes, THEN the House of Representatives votes for President. The House members vote from the 3 candidates who received the highest number of votes, each State having 1 vote (regardless of the number of Representatives from the State.) If the House of Representatives casts the votes for President, they must have a 2/3rds Quorum (67); one or more members from 2/3rds of the 50 States; but regardless of the Quorum number (67+), the vote must be a MAJORITY of all States (51) for a Presidential win.
Of course, Amendment XX specifically states that an elected President must be 'qualified' (meets all eligibility requirements) before s/he may assume the Office of President. Since it follows that if Congress 'counts' the votes, then Congress is also responsible for determining the President is 'qualified' to hold Office. Congress failed their responsibility in the election/electoral count of 2008, and is likely to fail in their responsibility again in 2012--because Congress, to a man/woman, believes they no longer have to adhere to, or support and defend, the Constitution.
Do you have any information on the subject matter of the lost amendment?--or when it was considered? Keep in mind the 27th Amendment was part of the original proposed amendments in the Bill of Rights. It was finally ratified on May 7, 1992 -- and may easily have been considered 'lost' for 200 years.
The reading suggestions offered to you are all excellent sources of information. You might also consider taking the 2 free constitution courses offered by Hillsdale College--Constitution 101 and 201 at https://constitution.hillsdale.edu/. Both courses are 10 lesson video courses and Q&A sessions, with some additional reading The courses are not for grade or credit, but meant as sources of learning about the history and intent of the Constitution. Once registered, all archived video lectures and Q&A sessions, and all intenet linked readings are available for the participant's convenience. Although the time and effort required for the courses is easily accomplished by those working full time and raising families, a participant can finish each course as quickly as possible, or as long as it takes.
I highly recommend these courses from Hillsdale, one of the few (maybe the only) colleges that takes absolutely NO government funding for either the college or students and accepts NO government interference in its operations and teaching.
(My first time commenting, also.)
SCOTUS was correct in stating Congress has no authority under the 'Commerce Clause' to implement or enforce Obamacare. It should have ended with this Decision. If a law is unconstitutional under ANY provision of the Constitution, it IS unconstitutional. It cannot be resurrected under a different constitutional provision, and deemed legal.
Obamacare is unconstitutional in any and every way it is considered, including as a tax.
Congress has specific, enumerated, and very limited constitutional powers. Although taxing is an enumerated power, Congress can only constitutionally tax in order to execute and enforce its limited powers. Amendment 16 gives Congress the power to tax any and all incomes without regard to uniformity or apportionment, however, it does NOT expand Congress' limited powers in any other way. Congress may still (constitutionally) tax only to support and enforce its limited powers.
The supreme Court is WRONG to state or even imply that Congress has 'unlimited' taxing powers, and if nullification is the answer to unconstitutional laws, it must also be the answer to unconstitutional Court Decisions--whether it's the supreme or federal Courts. SCOTUS may think it is 'infallible' in its Decisions, but as with all Branches of federal government, it ultimately answers to the sovereign people of the United States. (By the way, the supreme Court Justices and federal judges were not given 'lifetime' positions. They were given positions to hold office 'during Good Behaviour.' Do you think deliberately abrogating the constitutional Rule of Law should be considered 'Good Behaviour'?)