The Unbiased Truth About Political Parties
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
Political Parties are not government. We seem to be very confused on this fact quite regularly. But knowing this is essential to keeping the proper perspective on elections.
Often people get upset when party leadership demands very specific acts of party loyalty. Maybe they make candidates sign a loyalty pledge. Maybe they chastise politicians of their party for breaking ranks. The members of these political parties can righteously be upset at the hypocrisy of their leadership. HOWEVER…
Members of the political parties have no right to be upset about this demand by their leadership. The Republican Party is not government. The Democrat Party is not government. Both parties are private corporate clubs. They are not required to be “open minded.” As a matter of fact, the entire purpose of a private corporate club is that they CAN discriminate based upon their platform. So there exists no “freedom of speech” within a private corporate club political party.
It is well within the rights and the powers of the private corporate club called the Republican Party to require their members to sign an oath of loyalty. It is well within the rights and the powers of the private corporate club called the Democrat Party to require their members to sign a “non-compete clause.” People cannot be outraged by that; they cannot even be surprised by that.
If there is outrage over the private corporate club called the Republican Party imposing these requirements upon its members, it only proves that we are fundamentally confused about WHO these parties really are.
The problem is NOT that theses private corporate clubs require party loyalty. The problem is that these private corporate clubs hold quasi-governmental power! The problem is that people mistake these private corporate clubs for government entities.
Ever thought how ridiculous it is that a private corporate club has the power to dictate where, when, and how we vote? Ever realized that an election primary is not a civic function, but the choosing of the representative of that private corporate club? Ever think how tyrannical it is that all Americans are forced to fund primary elections of private corporate clubs to choose their representatives?
Ever thought how absurd it is that a private corporate club can decide which laws we have and don’t have? Ever thought how outrageous it is that a private corporate club can determine who will be our representative, governor, or president?
That is exactly what happens when the people take up loyalty to a political party. That is exactly what happens when government is run by establishment party politics. Think about it. How many laws are debated on the platform of party? How many decisions are made in government based upon party politics? I know you have heard these arguments:
“We cannot support that because the Dems…”
“We must pass this because the Republicans…”
“We cannot pass because the Republicans won’t…”
“We must support this person or law because it’s a Republican…”
If we actually grab hold of this reality, we might better understand why we are strung along from election to election. Remember in the 2010 election that the mantra was “take back the House.” All we need is a Republican majority in the House, and we will change the world. We gave it to them. What changed? Then the demand in 2014 was, “We must have a Republican majority in the Senate to stop this out of control president!” We gave it to them, and nothing changed. Then we heard something along the lines of: “We can’t change anything unless you give us a Republican President.” After 8 years of being strung along, can we see any difference in the operation of our government in the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branches? During each election, on my radio show I ask our listeners to make a list of things they want “their candidate” to accomplish if elected. Pull our your list. Has anything changed? Have they reduced spending or debt? Have the every even passed a real budget? Have they begun to respect the rights of the people or the limits of government required by the Constitution?
The Constitutional reality is that if Americans want reduced spending, get a budget passed, or reduce government as a whole, all we need is a Constitutionally minded House majority. We don’t need private corporate club unity throughout the entire government. The only reason for total party is control is total political power, not the rights of people.
Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution gives the simple majority of the House alone the power to fund and defund. The Constitution establishes a budget system that is based upon the “power of the purse” resting in the House alone. The Senate “may” offer “amendments”; but if they don’t, then constitutionally the House budget stands. There is NO constitutional power for the president to veto any budget. Budgets are not law because they expire, so they are not bound by the same process as laws. There is a very specific reason that budgets were left in the sole power of the House: to concentrate the power of government in the people. And the truth is that a simple majority in the House could defund ANY activity funded by the federal government, whether it is Planned Parenthood or the executive branch!
“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” James Madison, Federalist #58
“The Constitution places the power in the House of originating money bills. The principal reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.” James Madison, 15 May 1789
Knowing the truth makes you ask the right questions. If changing the House was all we needed, then why did nothing change in 2010? If a “conservative” majority in the House is all we needed to get a balanced budget and control of the executive branch, WHY do we keep getting all these excuses?
Here is another “right” question that is HUGE. Did you know that in every federal election 435 House Reps are up for election? But did you also know, at that same time, there are over 30,000 seats up for election on the State and local level? Why are we then absolutely and completely consumed, in conversation and media, with presidential elections that will involve, ultimately, only two people?
The answer? Because it is NOT about fixing the government; it is about consolidating power. The office of the President was not created to represent the people. That office was created to represent the States in foreign affairs and federal appointments. Because of the agenda in politics and education, the American people have been deceived into believing the President is the representative of “the people.” Because of this deception and loyalty to private corporate club politics, our presidential elections have become nothing but one private political club consolidating all government power within their corporate leadership, and the other private corporate club just waiting for their turn. It is nothing but prostituting for power.
That's why nothing ever changes. Each party understands there is simply a shift in whose turn it is. The power the other party accumulates, is a power they will in turn exercise. So if they eliminate power for the other party, they also eliminate power for themselves. It doesn't not serve either's interest to reduce power, spending, or control. Consequently they assume the posturing of conflict to convince the people there is a battle, when in fact, both parties are battling for the exact same thing... more power, more control, more personal wealth.
George Washington warned us about this very consolidation of power in his farewell address:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Finally, here are the REAL questions we must answer:
Why will the people be more upset about a private corporate club requiring their membership to be loyal to the club than they are by the fact that our laws are made and our government is run by private corporate clubs? When will we start choosing candidates based upon their Constitutional qualifications and character instead of the color of their party?
UPDATE: Since I wrote this article in June of 2018, the Colorado Civil Rights Division did exactly what I predicted they would do, and perhaps what the SCOTUS wanted them to do. They didn’t stop persecuting Mr. Phillips. Instead they took the SCOTUS advice and changed their methods of persecution so their actions would be viewed as “legal.” It will be interesting to see where the persecuted go from here. It will be interesting to see if those will admit this case was no victor for Religious Freedom, but quite the opposite. We must see truth if we are going to be effective in defeating the lies.
SCOTUS Gay Wedding Cake Decision Did Nothing To Protect Religious Freedom
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
The Supreme Court of the United States rendered its opinion on a highly anticipated case regarding the right of a baker to refuse to design and create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony based upon his religious convictions. However, for SCOTUS, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom, but one of unjust government discrimination.
Jack Phillips, a practicing Christian, often refused to design and create baked goods based upon his religious beliefs. His store was closed on Sundays and other Christian holidays, he refused to create or design desserts for Halloween, and he refused to make desserts that contained alcohol.
Phillips did not refuse to serve the same-sex couple who later filed a complaint. He only refused to design and create a cake for their wedding. He remarked that he would be happy to design and create cookies, birthday cakes, shower cakes or brownies, but not a wedding cake due to religious objections.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the commission, after several hearings, decided that Phillips had violated Colorado’s public accommodation laws by refusing to create and design this wedding cake for the same-sex couple. The commission did not accept Phillip’s defense of religious conviction. In fact, members of the commission, on record and as justification for their decision, mocked Phillip’s beliefs and compared his religious convictions to slavery and the Holocaust.
The Supreme Court found in favor of Phillips in a 7-2 opinion, based particularly on the statements of the Colorado commissioners.
There are some very significant points that must be made to clarify this carefully written opinion. Because of the great public anticipation over this case, there will be a tendency to make more of what was said than was actually said and mischaracterize the magnitude of this decision.
The court did not render its opinion on the basis of religious freedom. They did not declare that private business owners are free to discriminate based upon religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, they said the opposite:
“It is the general rule that (religious and philosophical) objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and public services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”
Phillips made multiple statements asserting his refusal to make the cake was based upon his religious convictions. However, it seems the court only references these objections for the purpose of condemning the Colorado commissioners’ apparent discriminatory statements voiced against Phillips. This court never asserted that Phillips was justified in his refusal based upon his right to religious freedom.
It is therefore not clear that this is an overall victory for private business owners or Christians to publicly maintain their convictions.
The court took time to clarify that it should be “assumed” that “when it comes to weddings … a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform that ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”
It is interesting that the court feels it should be obvious and therefore not questioned that professional clergy maintain full rights to expression of their religious freedom but a baker does not. It would seem that the court sees the possession and expression of fundamental rights like freedom of religion as inherent in a profession rather inherent to all persons.
This court did not declare that Phillips’ personal objections justified his refusal to bake this cake. Instead, it took a safer and more politically correct approach by finding that the Colorado commissioners’ statements applied the Colorado public accommodation law in a discriminating and biased manner.
The court said, “the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” However, the government cannot use Phillips’ religious beliefs as the basis for the application of their laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that when commissioners on the Colorado board made statements describing Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” and equating his refusal to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage to the acts of slavery and the Holocaust, they began down the path of discriminating against him.
In addition to these condemning statements, the Colorado commission had, at the same time, determined that three other bakers could refuse to bake cakes critical of gay marriage, contrary to their secular convictions, making clear their bias and discriminatory application of this otherwise “neutral” law.
The majority opinion determined that it was this discriminatory act by the Colorado commission that required the court to overturn this case. Again, for the majority opinion, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom of expression, but one of unjust government discrimination.
The court, almost in passing, also mentioned that Phillips’ may have been justified in his refusal to design and create this wedding cake because Colorado had not legalized gay marriage yet. His refusal, at that time, was not only in compliance with state law, but also a refusal to participate in an illegal activity.
Kennedy added this point of fact as a way of publicly warning business owners in states that have legalized gay marriage that they have no religious freedom argument to withhold services if state law otherwise compels them.
There is one aspect of personal rights the majority opinion mentions but strangely never fleshes out: the matter of freedom of speech.
The majority court introduces the question: Is the government’s law forcing Phillips to design and create a cake contrary to his personal message a violation of freedom of speech? But then, in what seems to be a lapse of concentration, the majority opinion never answers this question definitively.
It isn’t until we get to Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence that we find a truly worthy discussion of this important element. Thomas’ opinion on the matter of freedom of speech is so thorough and so supported by precedent it makes one wonder why the majority court refused to give this topic its due consideration.
Thomas points out that it is well within the history of the Supreme Court to support the expression of offensive beliefs in the name of freedom of speech. After all, he reminds us, if the burning of a flag or a 25 foot cross (Virginia v. Black), or designing and creating “a film featuring Klan members brandishing weapons and threatening to ‘Bury the niggers,’” (Brandenburg v. Ohio) are all protected speech, then surely designing and creating a cake ought to fit these categories as well.
By the terms laid out by Thomas, this case should have absolutely been decided in favor of Phillips on the merits of freedom of speech. Why the majority court would introduce this element but then fail to complete its thought on the matter is puzzling. Why the majority court would choose a single justification for their opinion when they could have had two compelling arguments is equally puzzling.
One final matter worth discussing is the dissent written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Not surprisingly, Ginsburg feels that this case should have been decided in favor of the same-sex couple. However, her argument against the majority opinion is so weak it makes clear her bias.
She does not address the fact that gay marriage was illegal at the time Phillips refused to design and created the cake. She does not even broach the freedom of speech aspect. Instead she asserts that the biased statements of a few commissioners against Phillips, during a government hearing in judgment of Phillips, do not rise to the level of “hostility” toward Phillips and therefore cannot be the justification for overturning this case.
Apparently, Ginsburg believes in a lower standard of discrimination for government than private citizens by claiming that these clear and impermissible words of hostility placed on the record by members of the commission and used as justification for their decision were not an exercise of content discrimination, yet the baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage that was then against the law and violated his religious beliefs was discrimination.
by KrisAnne Hall. JD
This is an informational presentation I gave at a rally in Ft. Walton Beach, FL. Much of this information can be found in Charlotte Iserbyt’s book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. As shocking as it may be, it is all factual and verifiable. Please educate yourself on this vital issue.
As we are consumed by the media frenzy over every new crisis, we must understand the real problem and therefore obtain the real solution. If we are to restore America, we must recognize what has brought us to where we are today. We cannot overcome the enemies if we do not know who they are. One of the greatest contributors to America’s march toward Marxism is the brainwashing of generations of America’s children. America’s children have been kidnapped by the enemies of American Liberty. Our educational system has become concentration camps of brainwashing and Marxist programming.
If we are to correct this menace, we must know the people and principles upon which our educational system has been built since the 1800’s.
“The plea for the predominance of learning to read in early education seems to me a perversion.”
“Undue premium is put upon the ability to read at a certain chronological age…the entertainment plus information motive for reading conduces the habit of solitary self-entertainment”
“we violate the child’s nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography. The true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child’s own social activities”
“The mere absorption of facts and truth is so exclusively an individual affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of learning; there is no social gain therein.”
No surprise we graduate our high school seniors at a 50% illiteracy rate, having this as the very foundation of America’s educational system.
What about the actions of our own government?
The General Education Board was incorporated by congress in 1902; endowed by John D. Rockerfeller, Sr. The purpose was to set up an educational laboratory to experiment with the very educational system Wundt, Thorndike and Dewey proposed. The Director of this congressionally-established organization, Frederick Gates said, “In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk.”
The 1917 Congressional Record of the US Senate published this statement:
“The General Education Board was authorized to do almost every conceivable thing which is anywise related to education, from opening a kitchen to establishing a university, and its power to connect itself with the work of every sort of educational plant or enterprise conceivable will be especially observed.”
In 1918, in an issue of New York World, William Boyce Thompson, Federal Reserve Bank Director and founding member of the Council on Foreign relations made the following observation:
“Russia is pointing the way to great and sweeping world changes. When I sat and watched those democratic conclaves in Russia, I felt I would welcome a similar scene in the United States.”
Dr. Augustus Thomas, Commissioner of Education for the State of Maine stated to a conference of world educators in 1927, “If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration.”
John Eugene Harley, Law Professor at Harvard published a book called International Understanding in 1931 and made this statement: “And the builder of this new world must be education. Education alone can lay the foundation on which the building is to rest. Plainly the first step in the case of each country is to train an elite to think, feel, and act internationally.”
President Herbert Hoover in 1932 appoints a research committee on recent social trends, not approved or funded by Congress, but an Executive action underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation. No report was ever made to Congress or to the people. It assembled the largest community of social scientist ever assembled to assess the social condition of the nation.
NEA federally chartered in 1906, created the Educational Policies Commission in 1932 and published a document titled Education for all Youth with the following goals for solving problems in the educational system and working toward the new progressive education:
In 1942 the American Federation of Teachers published a book titled America, Russia and The Communist Party in the Postwar World “If this war is to be followed by a just and lasting peace, America and Russia must find a way to get along together…the UN, including America and Russia, is the only agency that can establish such peace.” The UN Charter becomes effective on October 24, 1945 with the US Chamber of Commerce as a prime mover in establishing the UN. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) and its mandate for international intellectual co-operation had already been working under a League of Nations resolution on 21 September 1921.
Right in line with the General Education Board, Thompson, Thomas, and Harley, in 1958 Eisenhower signed the first set of agreements with the Soviet Union, which included an education agreement. Agreements just like this have been signed by every single president since Eisenhower.
George Bush, Sr. has stated time and time again, “we have an unprecedented opportunity to build a new world order.”
The concerted effort on every front continues to make our children believe they are global citizens. On May 2011 Superman relinquished his US citizenship. In the 900th Issue, Superman says, “I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them I am renouncing my US Citizenship”.
In our recent years we have lived with No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and Common Core. It seems as if these programs are getting progressively worse, but in reality they are simply becoming progressively closer and closer to the orgininal design. Strangely enough, this design is disclosed in the documents of these programs. For example, Rase to the Top's established and printed purpose, as stated in national education directives is to transfer loyalty from the family to the government. The teacher manuals state that we are to be teaching Constructivism where “students construct [their own] understanding of reality, and [realize] that objective reality is not knowable” (p.10)
Our children have been manipulated by a pernicious design since before the mid 1800s. Our elected representatives on the state and local level have the ability to restore education according to the intent of the founding of this nation and the will of the people.
What is that going to take? We as parents, grandparents must say our children are NOT animals.
Our children are NOT fodder for experimentation. Our children are OUR CHILDREN and will not be manipulated to love government more than us.
Our children are the future of this great nation and we will NOT surrender our future to ideals and programming that is Anti-American, Anti-God, and Anti-morality.
We should NOT surrender our Children. We need to take back our children, take back their education, and WE TAKE BACK the future of America.
This monster will not be changed overnight – during the decade or more it will take us to regain control of the system, our children will still be being brainwashed. I believe we must get our children out, until we can reclaim the government education industry and return it to the people. Now knowing the globalist objectives, I believe We MUST no longer participate in government manipulated education. We MUST make the sacrifice worthy of our founders and say, my child/ grandchild is MY responsibility, and I will teach them according to the values and Ideals we hold dear. We MUST utilize private and homeschooling options, we must form community alliances and homeschooling cooperatives; I believe we must use private citizens and private donors to build a new system of education that belongs to the local communities. We must set about separating ourselves from this system of indoctrination before it’s too late.
We are either serious or we are not. Our future is at stake or it’s not. Our voting will be all in vain unless we raise up a new generation of patriots. WE MUST RESCUE OUR CHILDREN.
Don't forget, a full educational course designed to teach you about the pernicious design of this progressive education system is available today at www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com
by KrisAnne Hall, JD
What is the proper role of Government? We have witnessed the perspectives of those in government, we have heard the answers in recent presidential debates, but what did those who DESIGNED it envision? Wouldn't you like to KNOW what government is supposed to be doing? The interesting thing is, we don’t have to guess, we don’t have to make it up, we simply need to look to the framers of our Constitution. It is almost simplistically elegant the way they described the role of the Senate and the House. Yet, even the simplest of explanations seem to have eluded the entire government machine. As the employers of our government, it is essential that we know what government is supposed to be doing and require them to fully accomplish their job description.
What follows is a brief and simple primer about the structure of our Republic according to our founders. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and fourth President, said:
“The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.” He lists them as war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce. He explains that the general welfare clause does not grant the government the power to do generally whatever they want; it simply describes the purpose in delegating those few powers he listed. In other words our founders believed in and intended limited government, very limited.
“I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who rarified the Constitution conceived—that is is not an indefinite government…but a limited Government. The Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined…war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce.” James Madison
By the same token, Congress was to have a limited and strictly defined role as well. Congress was not established to “become” the federal government but to control it on behalf of the people. That is the reason they hold the most influence and control through the checks and balances established through powers of impeachment and congressional oversight.
In the American Constitution The general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac[it]y. ~James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 24 Oct. 1787
First, the Senate was established to represent the States in the federal government. That is why each State is allotted the same number of Senators and the Constitution guarantees, in Article V, that each Senator is to have “equal Suffrage in the Senate.” This is to ensure equal representation and therefore equal control for all States. The Senate’s primary job description is to protect the States from federal encroachment and ensure each State’s sovereignty. “Defenders of the 10th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.
President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the Senate have no similitude to nobles. First then not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom and virtue are not precarious, for by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices; and they will have none of the peculiar follies and vices of those men who possess power merely because their fathers held it before them, for they will be educated (under equal advantages and with equal prospects) among and on a footing with the other sons of a free people.~Tench Coxe- An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States II September 28, 1788
The House was designed to be the representatives of the people. That is why there are more house members than senators, to better reflect the population of people in each State. The House’s primary job description was to be the guardians of Liberty, so the people can maintain the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. “Defenders of the 9th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.
Each member of this truly popular assembly will be chosen by about six thousand electors, by the poor as well as the rich. No decayed and venal borough will have an unjust share in their determinations. No old Sarum will send thither a Representative by the voice of a single elector. As we shall have no royal ministries to purchase votes, so we shall have no votes for sale. For the suffrages of six thousand enlightened and independent freemen are above all price.~ Tench Coxe- An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States III September 29, 1788
But here we are today with a Senate that looks more like a protector of the federal government than a defender of the States and a House that feels it’s primary role is to “protect” national security instead of the rights and Liberty of the people. Placing security over liberty seems to be a common affliction of our Congress. Remember Patrick Henry made it perfectly clear that without Liberty life was not even worth living. Benjamin Franklin rightfully declared that if security was placed above Liberty, we would lose them both.
Our framers made it clear that if the federal government was not following their constitutional duties or abiding by the limitations established, their actions (their laws) were null and void.
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, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution… But it will not follow…that acts of the large 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. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.~ Federalist Paper #33
This is the fundamental principle of State nullification. If States understood their proper role they would KNOW that when the federal government creates unjust and unconstitutional law, it is their job to protect the people from it and declare the sovereignty of the people over the powers delegated to the federal government. If they really understood their oath to the Constitution and what their obligations were, THEY would be nullifying every unconstitutional act and the actions of every unconstitutional agency. This principle of unconstitutional laws being null and void was well settled with the drafters of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78:
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.
No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
James Wilson declared during the ratification debates:
““…the power of the Constitution predominates. Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.”
Of course there are those who would assert that the Supreme Court has “declared” State nullification invalid. The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court is one third of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (the division of government with the least power, by the way), a Federal government created by the States and all its power is delegated by the States through the Constitution. Allowing SCOTUS to determine the degree of sovereignty each State has over the federal government is the ultimate expression of a conflict of interest. Let us remember that the Federal government, which includes the SCOTUS is a creation of the States. Would you allow the defendant in a criminal case to decide HIS own guilt or innocence? Of course not! But allowing the Supreme Court to determine how the Federal Government (of which it is a part) is operating with respect to State’s powers is to have the offender declaring his own innocence. Is the Supreme Court capable of making the proper decision? I’m sure they are, but they are equally capable of making the improper decision and such would be the destruction of liberty by declaring the 9th and 10thAmendments irrelevant. Hear this truth from the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, 1800:
“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign [States]… 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… consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution [States], 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.”
The current lack of understanding of the proper relationship between the States and its Federal Government as well as the neglect of the proper roles of our Congressional employees is leading directly to the destruction of our Constitution. And as Daniel Webster warned, we as a nation have an obligation to hold onto this great Constitution, or suffer consequences of our neglect.
Is our Constitution worth preserving…Guard it then as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change. ~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806
We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism. Daniel Webster July 4th 1802 Oration
Separation of Church & State In Context by
KrisAnne Hall, JD
Separation of Church and State. I know of very few statements that carry so much emotion and so much misconception at the same time. Our education system passes its own agenda with this phrase. Our court systems have failed America with their rulings misapplying this phrase. Our churches have been negligent to their responsibilities because of this phrase. The culmination of all this wrong doing has lead this nation down a road that, may I boldly say, our founders never intended. All because we have failed to understand the history that motivated Thomas Jefferson to make his statement to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
What would we do as a nation if we owned the truth about Jefferson’s statements in this letter? Would we have the courage to change things? Would we have the courage to stand against the false premises and give truth the victory? Well, let’s see, because here is the truth.
When the first settler’s came to the continent fleeing religious persecution in their home country, they established charter governments. Each new settlement had a new charter. These charters wanted to make sure that they would never be prevented from practicing their religion again, so they repeated the government formula they knew, ironically exactly like the one they just fled. Each charter established the religion of that charter. The thought was, if the government is OUR religion, we will never be persecuted by our government for OUR religion. But they also understood that as new administrations came and went, there would be a danger of those newly elected changing that law, then the danger would exist again. So they took additional remedies, they created “test act” qualifications for office.
Test acts were oaths that each person had to take before they were eligible to hold any governmental office. These oaths required a sworn allegiance to the religion of that charter. Additionally, part of the laws of these charters established means for persons of this religion to receive a license from the charter government to build a church or preach the established religion. So, if you were not of the faith of the charter, you were not able to obtain a license to preach or build a church. If you were not of the faith of the charter, you were not able to hold office to change the law so you could build a church or preach from a pulpit. This is obviously not religious liberty, this is government mandated religion. And the penalties for breaking these laws were severe, to include public execution. This religious charter worked for those of like faith and practice, until someone elected to office decided to break their test act oath and change the government mandated religion.
The problem came when someone lived in a charter contrary to their beliefs or when a religious denomination was not represented at all in any of the charters of the new colonies. These individuals were thrown into a liberty conundrum. Do they follow the law and violate their conscience? Do they follow their conscience and violate the law? Either way, there is no way to have liberty.
This problem existed for the pastors and preacher of the Baptist denomination. Men like Obadiah Holmes could not take a license to preach. Even if they would, they could not profess a denomination they did not support, so they could not have an official church, and could not legally preach in any charter. History tells us that this did not stop these men from preaching. However, it did hold some dire consequences. If you doubt me, go ahead and research these men. They were arrested, fined, imprisoned, and tortured for refusing to take a license to preach. And yes, that happened right here, in the new American Colonies.
Several states, being led by Virginia refused to ratify the proposed Constitution because they felt:
“Whether the new Federal Constitution, which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.” Virginia General Committee, 1788
Virginia was led in this stand by a group called the Virginia Baptist General Convention, John Leland was their leader. Virginians wanted Leland to be the delegate for Virginia in the Constitutional Convention. Leland did not want to be a delegate; he wanted to remain a pastor to his church. However, he felt so strongly in this matter he was willing to do just that.
John Leland met with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and struck a deal. He offered James Madison his position as delegate for the state of Virginia as long as Madison promised he would make sure there was sufficient protections for religious liberty; namely a Bill of Rights. Madison made his promise and held to it, being not only an ardent proponent for religious liberty but for the entire Bill of Rights. If you are interested in a fairly good account of this agreement, you can find this story in movie titled, Magnificent Heritage.
Once the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights adopted, several founders tried to pass a bill to establish a tax to pay for Christian Teachers. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to mention two, were adamantly opposed to this taxation. They felt this taxation was a direct assault on the religious liberty they had fought so hard to protect. They felt:
“…it is believed to be repugnant to the spirit of the gospel for the legislature thus to proceed in matters of religion; that the holy author of our religion needs no such compulsive measures for the promotion of his cause; that the gospel wants not the feeble arm of man for its support; that it has made and will again through divine power make its way against all opposition; and that should the legislature assume the right of taxing the people for the support of the gospel it will be destructive to religious liberty.”
They knew that where the government taxed they had an obligation to regulate. If Christian Teachers were to be paid, even in part by taxes collected from the people, they would become employees of the government. Where the government employs, they will also, dictate. (Precisely why vouchers are not a benefit but the downfall of Christian schools) The supporters of religious liberty prevailed and the bill was defeated.
What most fail to see is that religious liberty is a principle of the Judeo-Christian world view. It is the only world view that supports the statement that “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.” This is why Leland reminded those who were fighting for liberty there is an essential principle to limiting government to maintain liberty. He said:
“Everyman must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile it to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let me be free.”
The Judeo-Christian world view requires that government not dictate a person’s conscience because every individual will be held accountable one day before God and they will not be able to use government as an excuse for their belief or unbelief.
Our founders were fighting for a nation where all would be equally free “Jews, Turks, Pagans, And Christians”. They knew from history, that Christianity could only prevail in a nation where Liberty was a primary principle of the people. Where the government, through power or sword could dictate, there is no liberty. In the Letters from a Federal Farmer IV, the author stated,
“It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion; but when we are making a constitution it is to be hoped for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact.”
So, when Thomas Jefferson was elected president the Danbury Baptists wanted to encourage their new president to continue to fight to maintain religious liberty. In a letter to President Jefferson they congratulated him on being elected and encouraged him to stand firm on this issue. President Jefferson responded to this letter in 1802 with the following words:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Now combine that explanation with the clarification offered by Jefferson in the second Session of Congress, regarding the adoption of the act for “establishing religious freedom”:
“…that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on their supposition of ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all liberty,” it is declared, “that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”
Anyone with any critical thinking skills can look at this information as see the true application. Thomas Jefferson was making a statement that the Government has no business in the affairs of the church. Period. Then if you take into account the very words of Jefferson and even those of Ben Franklin it will be clear that they never intended for God to be removed from Government.
Thomas Jefferson said , “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”
Benjamin Franklin said this at the Constitutional Convention: “In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection.... All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor...have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?.... God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Unfortunately for America the courts have not taken the time to understand this text in its historical context. I find it ironic that there were judges recognizing that to truly and correctly interpret a provision in the Constitution it is vital to refer to the intentions of the Founders. Yet, in this instance, where they do quote a founder, they get it entirely wrong. Is that a sign of judicial activism: the courts using whatever they can lay their hands on conveniently to complete their agenda? Or is it simply ignorance of history and misapplication of principles? I can’t help but think that if some attorney had taken that time to present an historically correct argument the courts would have never have been able to take Jefferson’s quote completely out of context and create a precedent that has been used changed the face of Liberty in America.
Jefferson’s words of ‘separation of church and state’ were a declaration that the government has no business in the affairs of the church. By Jefferson’s own words, this was never to imply that God had no place in government. Now you have the truth and to whom much is given, much is required. The responsibility remains with the people to make a difference. WE must take back the narrative and speak truth. WE must elect people who understand the true foundation of America. WE must teach our children Liberty First Principles and where they come from. WE must restore Liberty perspectives so we can built a better tomorrow.