Tag Archive for: Nullification

FBI Misconduct Jury Nullification Solutions

/in /by

KrisAnne and JC delve into the real issues with the FBI Memo and a truly shocking story of judicial misconduct creating a complete destruction of Liberty all across America.  Listen, learn and leave behind the lies that are meant to distort, deceive, distract, and divide Americans.

Alternatively listen to “FBI Misconduct Jury Nullification Solutions” on YouTube

Show References –

Jury Nullification Article: http://fox17online.com/2018/02/02/jury-tampering-conviction-upheld-for-man-who-passed-out-fliers-on-sidewalk/

Judge Eric R. Janes and his boss Chief Judge: Paul H. Chamberlain

Phone: 989 772-0911

Brian E. Thiede:
Prosecutor  (231) 592-0141  bthiede@co.mecosta.mi.us

Judge  Peter M. Jaklevic:

(231) 592-0794

http://www.co.mecosta.mi.us/courts.html

Article V Conventions or Nullification ~ An ADULT Conversation

/in /by

Nullification or Article V conventions?

Article V Conventions and Nullification are NOT mutually exclusive, nor is one the magic pill for all of our federal problems. Each is a legitimate Constitutional solution, but each has a different aim and application. Each plan has its inherent dangers and there are legitimate concerns that should be considered and these dangers guarded against. They can be used together in the defense of Liberty as long as we understand each in its own context and consider the pitfalls involved. It must be noted that we are having this discussion because of the very fact that we have stepped so far out of the Constitutional boundaries given to this government that we are operating practically in a post-Constitutional America. At this point, it is unlikely that any solution will be perfect or without peril.

Two different animals

Article V Convention is a long term fix aimed at making corrections at the federal level. Nullification is an immediate defense at the state, local and individual level. Article V aims to make structural changes or further clarifications to the operations of the federal government and its relation to the states by amending the Constitution. Nullification aims to make no changes to the current Constitution, but is simply an assertion by the individual sovereign states and communities of the authority they already possess and a declaration of the limitations to federal power already defined by the Constitution. Article V convention in the current context seeks to fix what is assumed to be broken or lacking in the federal system and is to be used in the rarest of circumstances. Nullification, as intended by the framers, was to be a part of “republican maintenance,” whereby the central government was to be continually kept in check by its masters, the people through their states.

Both have their merits and their dangers. Let us take a look some concerns that the framers themselves noted. We should keep these things in mind so that we can work TOGETHER to defeat the common enemy…TYRANNY.

Some of the problems with Article V:

WHO are the delegates and what is their motivation?

According to James Madison in Federalist 49, one significant problem with conventions is – WHO will be the delegates? Madison discusses two options for choosing delegates: either through the Legislators or through popular vote of the people. In each case he believed there was cause for concern.

In modern terms, when delegates are chosen by the legislators, what we could see are appointments based upon party loyalty, power or popularity rather than upon Constitutional expertise and dedication to Liberty principles.  When the delegates are chosen by popular vote, typical election dynamics could determine the outcome.   Voters would vote based upon party popularity and perhaps even a “lesser of two evils” and the same corrupt politicians would now be “fixing” the very problems they created. Madison framed the outcome this way, “The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention… They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them.”

According to Madison, the real difficulty with delegates boils down to “motivation”.   What will be the motivating force behind the delegates and their amendments? Madison recognized that the only reason we have our current Constitution is that the framers had just come from a bloody revolution that kept the delegates focused upon LIBERTY and that forced them to set aside their party politics and personal motivations and it was still no easy path:

“We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the antient government;” ~ James Madison Federalist 49

Madison seems to be telling us that without some overriding and unifying motivation, the convention would likely degrade into another Republican vs. Democrat drama. If we cannot get delegates that are properly constitutionally minded rather than driven by political gain and greed, this will never benefit us.

WHEN will it be done?

One practical difference between nullification and convention is the time each takes to implement. Any advocate of Article V must admit that this is a LONG TERM goal and not a quick fix. To call convention, choose delegates, agree on amendments, an Article V convention could take several years, possibly 5 to 10 years. Adding to the time frame is the Article V requirement of 3/4 ratification by the States.   That means EVERY AMENDMENT must be agreed upon (debated), individually, by 3/4 of the States to ratify.  During such a time frame, it would be prudent to use nullification to puts the brakes on at the state level until corrections (if truly needed) can be made at the federal level.

What will be the scope and impact?

Probably the most debated aspect is the notion of a “runaway convention.” Some say the ¾ ratification is a check on a runaway convention, that ¾ of the states would never go along with a total rewrite of the Constitution or the addition of harmful amendments. Of course, ¾ of the states DID ratify the very harmful 16th and 17th amendments. Tinkering with the foundation is always risky business. SO at the end of the day it may well come back to the main issue of the motivation, focus and education of the people and their delegates. What about the opposite of a runaway convention? What about a do-nothing convention? What if we do open-heart surgery on the Constitution for something as cosmetic as a balanced budget amendment?!

Nullification:

First, Nullification is a constitutional solution not because it is enumerated per se, but because the Constitution is a contract (technically a compact) among the States that created the federal government. The States are the parties to the Constitutional Contract and the federal government is the PRODUCT of that contract. Inherent in EVERY contract is the right of the parties to that contract to control the product of the contract. The States are the representatives of the people in this contract and have a DUTY to keep the federal government within its constitutional boundaries and thus protecting the rights of the people. It is inherent in the very nature of the Constituion. Nullification is that act of the PEOPLE through their States to keep the federal government within in its “limited and defined” boundaries and should be as regularly carried out as an oil change in your car. Madison states this principle again in Federalist 49:

“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived; it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government; but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”

This is not the forum for a full explanation of Nullification. If you are unfamiliar with this term or have in the past heard that it is not an option available to the States for a myriad of reasons, please take the time to read the FACTS about nullification before you give in to any one position. THIS LINK will get you started.

Fear of Nullification

The first problem with nullification is fear and lack of education. For some, nullification’s association (rightly or wrongly) with the Civil War and slavery (despite the fact that it was used to resist slavery) throws a veil of fear over the entire issue. So care must be taken not to add fuel to the fire of racial division because those who capitalize on such things will use it for their own design. Many mistruths and misconceptions regarding this Liberty solution must be overcome in order to even utilize this option. Retorts such as “the South lost the war,” “SCOTUS says no,” or “it’s the law of the land” are common among those ignorant of the concepts of State and local autonomy and nullification.

Even as nullification happens all around us today with, States legalizing marijuana and same sex marriage; states denying the federal government power to enforce the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012 and Obamacare; local and state governments refusing to enforce federal gun restrictions, some will still say that nullification is an obscure and outdated concept. With more than 100 years of distorted history, overcoming fear and lack of education surrounding Nullification is no easy task.

Participation by the States:

Whereas Article V requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment, Nullification can be achieved on a State by State basis. However, many staes that would at first glance be thought to be inclined to resist federal encroachment are often controlled by “federal supremacists,” those who believe that the federal government is superior to the states. Many state legislators do not understand the true nature of the states’ relationship to the federal government and they understand the states’ right and duty to interposition even less.

Federal Enforcement of Unconstitutional Acts

One more roadblock to nullification is the acquiescence to federal bullying and bribery. The dirty little secret is that the feds generally do not have the resources to enforce most of its dictates; it must co-opt state and local resources. This is done primarily through bullying and legalized bribery. The feds use state EPA, state DOE, state and local law enforcement elements to enforce its demands. In most cases the state and local entities comply. Without such compliance the federal dictates would be ineffective and in most cases unenforceable. The most obvious attempt at forced compliance will be through the withholding of federal funds. Any State who intends to maintain their supremacy over the federal government will have to be able to become self-sufficient in the face of federal funding withdrawal and brave leaders will have to be willing to call the bully’s bluff. In an arena where it’s all about the money and in a political system where politicians climb the ladder of power by giving and receiving favors this is also a significant obstacle.

Runaway Nullification

Sometimes opponents of nullification characterize the concept as “ignoring laws you don’t like.” The question at issue in nullification is not whether we like the law or not, the question is whether the law is constitutional or not. A possible danger is that states may wish to “nullify” inherent natural rights, such as those protected in the bill of rights from the abuse of the federal government. When such tyranny arises on the state level, the citizens must be ready to resist this tyranny as well, or else choose to live as slaves.

The REAL Solution lies within the operation of BOTH methods!

What Article V conventions cannot do to stop tyranny now, nullification can if successfully implemented accomplish with near immediate effect. Where Nullification ends, Article V provides a long term solution to strengthening the restraints on the federal government, if done by the right people for the right reasons in the right way. If we DO NOT engage in Nullification now, we will never survive as a republic long enough for the Article V Convention to have any hopes. If we just engage in Nullification and do not follow through with shoring up the established boundaries, I believe we will dissolve into individual sovereign States and the Republic will die.

We will not succeed if we are so caught up in our own causes that we have to defeat everyone else’s. That is egocentric and immature. Truth be told, we will not succeed without all the efforts of all the people working together in the defense of Liberty. We need nullification daily to maintain the Republic, yet if we continue to allow the foundation to erode, we may indeed need a convention to right the ship.

So let’s approach the defense of Liberty like grown-ups. Let’s work together instead of trying to punch each other in the eye to elevate ourselves.

I have confidence that when all is said and done, our future will look back and say, “Coming up with a new and better form of government was nearly impossible.   The original Constitution itself was not the problem; it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.”

Cato Institute Declares States Are Not Sovereign

/in /by

The New York Times published on September 3, 2013 and article written by Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, on the “Limitations of Nullification”. I have had the honor of having personal discussions with Mr. Levy on several issues and even had the opportunity to debate him on the issue of nullification in a forum in South Florida. It will be no surprise to Mr. Levy that I disagree with his opinion. Opinions aside, I would like to have the opportunity to present the facts.

Mr. Levy’s main premise is that the States have the option to not agree and not enforce federal law, but they do not have the ability to prevent the federal government from enforcing its laws within the States.

“That’s because federal officials are authorized to enforce their own laws, even if they cannot compel the states to do so. Thus, on the second point, the nullifiers are wrong: states cannot impede federal enforcement of a federal law merely because the state deems it unconstitutional. That is up to the federal courts.”

Mr. Levy’s premise is flawed and a mere review of the facts makes that clear. This country was built upon the foundation of free, independent, and sovereign States.

“Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States…” Lee Resolution June 7, 1776

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,…solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776 (emphasis added)

The fundamental foundation of this country is built upon the understanding that our States are free, independent and sovereign in the same manner that Great Britain, Spain, France and Germany are free, independent, and sovereign (e.g the State of Great Britain). Because the States are free, independent, and sovereign countries they had the authority to come together in a contractual agreement, otherwise termed as a “compact” that created the Union and the federal government. The federal government is the creation of the States and the Constitution. The formation of the constitutional compact did not alter that free, independent, sovereign nature.

I find it ironic that Mr. Levy quotes Justice Scalia in Printz v. United States to make his point. Levy’s use of Scalia’s language in this case is legally inaccurate. Justice Scalia takes great effort in this case to maintain the sovereignty of the States over the federal government, citing many examples of how the States are a vital check in the federal power balance.See the multitude of ways Scalia reasserts the sovereignty of the States in this case:

“…[the States] they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,” (citing The Federalist No. 39, at 245).

“…the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” (citing Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415 (1938)).

“Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion.”

“It is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends, and no comparative assessment of the various interests can overcome that fundamental defect.” (citing by comparison Bowsher v. Synar – 478 U.S. 714, 736 (1986))

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (citing The Federalist No. 51, at 323)

Nothing Scalia said in Printz ever asserted that the States must just sit back and take federal enforcement of unconstitutional law. As a matter of fact this case says exactly the opposite.

Levy claims James Madison supports the premise that the Supreme Court has a type of Supremacy over the States, quoting The Virginia Assembly Report 1800. This could not be a more inaccurate statement of James Madison’s view of the States and the Supreme Court. A complete reading of the document Levy cites, shows Madison’s point actually contradicts Mr. Levy’s assertion.

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution (i.e. the 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…” Virginia Assembly Report 1800, James Madison (emphasis added)

By this statement it is clear that Madison never meant to assign the Supreme Court supremacy over the sovereignty of the States. As if to punctuate his point, Madison continues;

“consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution (i.e. the 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.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800, James Madison. (emphasis added)

With all due respect to the Cato Institute, Mr. Levy’s confidence in the Supreme Court is misplaced, not founded by fact or history, and is contrary to the very foundation of this nation; the sovereignty of the States. We must remember that the Supreme Court is yet the third branch of the federal government; it is not an independent governmental body. For Mr. Levy’s “limits on nullification” to be true, the States are no longer free, independent, and sovereign entities, but merely subjects to the federal government with no recourse to limit or control the power the States themselves delegated to it. For Mr. Levy’s opinion to be true, the only limit upon the federal government’s power is its own will. A central government’s whose only limitation is its own will is a Kingdom and not a Republic.

“for the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration…the obvious tendency and inevitable result… would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison

Is Mr. Levy asserting that the Cato Institute supports the premise that this country is to operate as a Kingdom?

NullificationPart 1

/in /by

After perceiving a long train of usurpations of power by the federal government, which culminated in legislation known as Obamacare many Americans took to the streets in protest. They appealed to the Legislature to no avail. The legislation ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court. We then witnessed a colossal rewriting of our founding documents in the majority opinion to the Obamacare mandate. Justice John Roberts in a few lines pulled down the pillars of the Republic and set us on the path to totalitarianism. Nearly half of the population rightfully regards this legislation as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. The truth is, not only should the States be able to deal with their own health insurance issues, but the federal government has no legitimate authority to rule by such dictates. Yet, many who vowed to fight it “to the end” have now acquiesced and declared that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land.” So is this the end? Since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high, must we now bow to an all-powerful government, from which no area of our daily life is off-limits? Or is there a remedy yet remaining? Can the States legitimately resist federal law or is this “treasonous” as some have suggested?

To answer these questions we must first understand the nature of the Republic we call the United States. These States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution. This compact, or contract, made among the States not only created the federal government but also dictated the limited and specific powers delegated to the federal government by the parties of this contract. Secondly, since the States are the parties to the compact and the creators of the central government, then the States, naturally, are the masters of their creation. That is to say, they are sovereign – independent of, separate from and sovereign over the federal government. All of the powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the States and the people. The 10th Amendment makes that very clear.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 10th Amendment to the US Constitution

It is upon this foundation that the States have the ultimate right to stand against ANY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government. The 10th Amendment declares that the federal government is to only operate within their delegated powers. James Madison explains those delegated powers in Federalist Paper #45:

 “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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…” Federalist Paper #45

Madison then goes on to explain “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Federalist Paper #45

Therefore, the 10th Amendment in conjunction with Madison’s explanation makes it clear that the States’ powers are numerous, the federal powers are few, and the federal government has no business interjecting itself into the powers reserved to the States. To claim the 10th amendment says anything else would make the Constitution a complete absurdity.

Since there are no areas of power that are simply floating out in the neutral zone waiting for someone to use them, if the federal government uses a power that was not Constitutionally delegated, it must steal it from the States. When the federal government does this, it removes power from the States, rights from the people, and makes the Constitution completely meaningless. Such overreach sets the precedent that no power is reserved to the States and that all power is open for federal taking. This effectively nullifies the 9th and 10th Amendments, and destroys the Constitutional barriers established to contain a limited and defined federal government. What will then be the federal government’s limitations? Nothing but its own will.

“That they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely in cases made federal, but in all cases whatsoever…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…” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

This is, in essence, what Justice Roberts declared in his opinion on Obamacare, overturning the very purpose of the Constitution itself – to enumerate the powers of a limited central government and bind it under the authority of the States. What happens when the barriers of the Constitution are completely swept away? The federal government will now have the ability to exercise any power over the States whatsoever. The people will be rendered completely powerless and irrelevant. What will be the purpose of elections then? We will no longer be a republic, but a government ruled as a Kingdom.

 “…for the federal government toenlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases…the obvious tendency and inevitable result…would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” James Madison, Virginia Resolutions 1798

So, when the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution, and the people have no recourse in the federal system, what is the remedy? What is the proper course when the federal government has gone rogue? The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and The Father of the Constitution, James Madison speak very clearly on the position of the States as the sovereign defenders of the foundations of our Republic. It is the founders of the Republic who must give us our remedy…

READ PART II HERE

Nullification, the Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 2

/in /by

(Here is a link to PART 1)

James Madison gives us this answer regarding the remedy to the states for combating federal overreach. In fact, according to our founders, it was not only the remedy but the DUTY of the states to stand in defense of the Republic.

“…in the case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, …for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties…” Virginia Resolutions of 1798 James Madison

What is this interposition? It is what Jefferson referred to as NULLIFICATION of the unauthorized acts of the federal government. It is the States declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply!”

“Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Nullification is legitimate act of refusing to implement unconstitutional federal directives.

   “That the several states who formed [the Constitution], 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 the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions 1799

To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine. In fact our founders believed that if the States did not refuse to submit to unconstitutional use of federal power, the result would be the elimination of state powers, elimination of the rights of the people, and the complete dissolution of the Union and our Constitution.

 “the doctrine which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through which department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of the Federal Union.” Fort Hill Address, John C. Calhoun July 26, 1831

If the federal government uses a power that it was not delegated, it does so unconstitutionally. The federal government exists solely because of the Constitution. Therefore any act that is unconstitutional destroys the very legitimacy of the federal government’s actions and therefore has no effect whatsoever. Since it has no effect, the States are merely declaring that fact, and are therefore not required to submit.

An epidemic of Constitutional ignorance has made it popular in our day to declare “this is the law of the land because the Supreme Court says so,” and since SCOTUS has said “nullification is not valid,” then it is not a proper remedy, some even claim that it is treasonous. The men who founded the nation found the assertion offensive that the Supreme Court had the ultimate authority to dictate to the States the acts of the federal government.

 “The idea that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism– since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution would be the measure of their powers.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution 1799

To assume that the Supreme Court has the final word on what will or will not be implemented throughout the land is to abandon all power of the states, and throw them into complete submission to a federal power. It would be like allowing a criminal to determine his own guilt or innocence.

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution…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, 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,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

Even Federalist, Alexander Hamilton made clear that the Constitution is binding upon any branch of the federal government. To suggest that the creature could overrule its creator was to our founders a complete absurdity.

 “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.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78

It is incumbent upon the STATE REPRESENTATIVES to carry out their oath of office, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and be the guardians of the liberty of its citizens. The Governors and Legislatures must draft a Resolution proclaiming the sovereignty of the state and the unconstitutionality of the federal power and asserting the state’s duty to deny said power. That Resolution must then be transmitted by the Governor to the Senators and Representatives representing the state in Congress.

Unwilling to shrink from our representative responsibilities…It would be [deceitful] in those entrusted with the GUARDIANSHIP OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY, and acting under the solemn obligation of the following oath, —

“I do swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States,” — not to warn you of encroachments, which, though clothed with the pretext of necessity, or disguised by arguments of expediency, may yet establish precedents which may ultimately devote a generous and unsuspicious people to all the consequences of usurped power. Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia January 23, 1799

When petition fails…when Congress refuses to enforce Separation of Powers and protect the sovereignty of the States…when the Supreme Court joins in the unconstitutional use of power, we cannot admit that revolution is the only solution that remains! Revolution does not save the Constitution, it can only destroy it. There must be another peaceful resolution; and there is: It is called Nullification. For the federal government or the States to deny this method of constitutional remedy is to say they are resolved to the destruction of the Constitution and the potential of driving its people to revolution.

 “…our Constitution is most worthless and tyrannical, if the usurpations of those who administer it, cannot be resisted by any means short of revolution. I have always considered the reserved powers of the States, as the only real check upon the powers of the federal government; and I have always considered it, not only the right, but the imperious duty of the States, so to apply that check, as not to dissolve the Union. And I have never been able to discover any mode of doing this, except by the positive refusal of the States to submit to usurpations…” Judge Able P. Upshur,An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (No. I)

The acquiescence of the states, under infractions of the federal compact, would either beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governments into impotency and contempt, or prepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of these infractions until the people are aroused to appear in the majesty of their strength. Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, January 23, 1799

Therefore, in upholding their oath the States must stand against any legislation that serves to steal power from the state, thus destroying the Constitution. If the States fail to stand against this tyrannical use of power by the federal government, they will consent to their own destruction, or worse, to revolution.

“Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect; nay, let the artificers of monarchy be asked what further materials they can need for building up their favorite system.” Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1799

Nullification and What They're Not Telling You

/in /by

I am compelled to share with you a dirty little secret. This secret is one that the government doesn’t want you to know, especially your State legislators, that is if you have one like my dear senator Don Gaetz. You see, senators like Don Gaetz will tell you that if you believe in the sovereignty of the States, if you believe that the States bear the right to nullify unconstitutional federal law, well, you should be “shot and hanged”(yes, he actually said that, read here). These legislators will explain to you that nullifications is a “kooky” principle that will only result in a “banana republic” in which States will be allowed to nullify whatever law “they don’t like.” If you have a legislator like this, be concerned, as his ignorance has just exposed him for who he is; a tyrant at worst, wholly unqualified to serve at best.

States do not choose, as is asserted, to nullify “whatever law they don’t like,” but only those laws the States find to be unconstitutional assertions of authority by the federal government.

Such States, and state legislators, truly believe that we have a limited and defined federal government. They know those limitations are codified within the Constitution and the power of that limited government is derived from the consent of the governed. They also understand that the primary function of government is to secure the Liberty that belongs to the people. It is only logical that if the government is exerting a power, it is left to the creators of that government to judge and affirm whether that power is justly used. To assert otherwise, that the federal government through the judiciary, law, or executive order is the final arbiter of its own power is simply illogical and wholly despotic.

What the despots don’t want you to know is that nullification is happening and has happened all over the United States, enacted by both States and local governments alike. Not only did it occur in 1798 and 1799 to protect the citizen from the Alien and Sedition Acts, not only was nullification used to OPPOSE slavery in the 1850s, but it is happening RIGHT NOW in response to unconstitutional and unjust federal laws. It is not surprising that you don’t hear about this in mainstream media, but why are our legislators unaware of this? Are they really ill-informed and misguided, or do they simply want us to believe they are? Consider thisCurrently at least three states are supporting legislation called the Privacy Protection Act that would nullify federal surveillance laws and the use of drones within the borders of their states. The federal government does not have the authority to violate the rights of the citizens through surveillance. That is precisely why we have the 4th Amendment. And when a law is contrary to the Constitution, as Alexander Hamilton said, it is null and void.

There are at least 29 States that have either passed laws or are supporting laws to nullify the federal Real ID law that would take your driver’s license and convert it into a “national identity card.” Once again the federal government does not have the authority to demand such a requirement upon the States. These States understand the ramifications of yielding this power to the federal government and are standing against this unconstitutional assertion of authority.

At least Three states are supporting legislation to nullify the unconstitutional definition of the commerce clause as adopted by Congress and endorsed by the Supreme Court. The Commerce clause was never meant to “control”state commerce, but to create an environment in which States engage in commerce with each other freely. It absolutely does not allow the federal government to regulate industrial practice within the State. The Intrastate Commerce Act effectively nullifies federal laws and regulations that violate such limitations by regulating commerce and other activities that are solely intrastate.

The federal government has no authority under the Constitution to create and enforce criminal laws. Three States (Wa, Ca, Co) have passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana and five other States are also currently supporting legislation to nullify federal marijuana laws. If the federal government has the authority to ban one plant, what is to limit their authority to banning others, for whatever reason they see fit?

In 2012 the federal government put into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This Act, nearly unanimously supported by the “conservative” Republicans in our House of Representatives, authorized the president of the United States the authority to transfer the power vested in him under the Laws of War, to any circumstance the president considers a “hostility” whether foreign or domestic. It allows not only for the indefinite detention of US Citizens, but permits for any use of force that would be allowed under the Laws of War and gives the president the authority to transfer that power to “domestic terrorist fighting forces.” Eight States are taking measures to stand against this obvious use of tyrannical power authorized by the federal government.

Our final example, though not the last expression of State nullification, addresses the unconstitutional regulation of firearms and subsequent disarming of the people. Our Second Amendment clearly and definitively protects the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms, at all times. There is absolutely no room for the federal government to interfere with that right in any way, shape, or form. Any laws written to address the illegal use of firearms must originate on the State level. In a decisive response to current attempts by the federal government to unconstitutionally insert themselves in a State issue, seven States have passed the Firearms Freedom Act and many others are currently supporting this nullifying legislation. Additionally, nine States are also working on legislation called the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which renders all federal gun laws, regulations, rules, acts, orders, etc., null and void within the borders of the state.

Nullification is not just a State issue. It is a community and individual issue as well. As of January 23, 2013, there are over 90 Sheriffs across the country that are REFUSING, in writing, to enforce any federal gun control laws, and the list is growing every day. We need to support these Sheriffs and demand that our own do the same.

There you have it, the dirty little secret that you are not supposed to know: Nullification exists, nullification works, and nullification is the RIGHT of every State to stand against the unconstitutional assertion of power by the federal government. Share this bit of information with your State legislator and if he still wishes to hold fast to the idea that nullification is not lawful, proper, or “kooky”, then mark this person as one who has no interest in preserving your Liberty.

“The reason why Men enter into Society, is the preservation of their Property; and the end why they choose and authorize a Legislative is that there may be Laws made, and Rules set as Guards and Fences to their Properties, to limit Power, and moderate the Dominion of every Part and Member of the Society…whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People…” John Locke, Second Treatise.

Show Cut Aid

Letter To TX AG Greg Abbott

/in /by

Dear AG Greg Abbott,

My name is KrisAnne Hall. I am a Constitutional attorney, author, and educator. I am writing to you at the request of your constituents.

The drafters of our Constitution felt the most powerful check on the usurpation of power by the federal government rested with the States. James Madison called it “interposition” and declared that “…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose…” (Virginia Resolutions of 1798 James Madison). For the central government to claim a right to determine the Constitutionality of its own actions and to assert powers not delegated denies the very nature of our Republic and makes the Constitutional restraints enacted by our founders null and void. You shouldn’t take my word for it, please read and hear the words of the men who wrote the Constitution…

Is federal law supreme because of the “supremacy clause?”

The supremacy clause declares “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,” the key phrase being, “made in pursuance.” Federal law cannot be supreme if it is not first in compliance with the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton made this point very clear…

 “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.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78

Can the Supreme Court determine federal law to be Constitutional?

If the Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of a federal act, then we are not a Republic of sovereign States but a monarchy. The Supremacy Clause declares the Constitution to be Supreme, not the federal government. “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, alsomay exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…….” James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

The federal government seems to have forgotten that it was the “sovereign and independent States” that created and ratified the Constitution. It was the Constitution that created and defined a limited federal government.

 “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 ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government— but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792

The founding documents and the men who wrote them make it unequivocally clear that the States have the final word on whether their creation, the federal government, has trespassed its clearly defined boundaries. AND IT HAS. Our States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution. The States’ compact created the federal government and defined its limited and specific powers. As the creators of the federal government that means the States are the masters of their creation. The 10th Amendment makes that very clear. The Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution. The people have no recourse in the federal system, and must now turn to their States. The Framers considered it the duty of the States to stand against EVERY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government.

 “That the several states who formed [the Constitution], 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 the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” Kentucky Resolutions 1799 Thomas Jefferson, Writer of the Declaration of Independence

Nullification is the State declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply with dictates not enumerated in the Constitution!” To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine.

You must take a stand in defense of the Constitution and the rights the citizens that hired you to represent them. The legislators of Virginia in 1799 warned of the consequences of when a State refuses to stand against abuse of power by the federal government…

“The acquiescence of the states, under infractions of the federal compact, would either beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governments into impotency and contempt, orprepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of these infractions until the people are aroused to appear in the majesty of their strength.” Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, January 23, 1799

Rest assured many will not comply with this abuse of federal power forever. If you do not protect your citizens now, what will you do then?

If you wish to read a more in-depth description of the State’s duty to interpose, please go to the following link and both part 1 and part 2 of this explanation that you’ll find in an article called  “Nullification: the Duty and Rights of the States.“

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

President, founder, Constitutional Education & Consulting

www.KrisAnneHall.com

cla07@windstream.net

 

Letter to Indiana Sen. David C. Long

/in /by

Dear Sen. David C. Long,

My name is KrisAnne Hall. I am a Constitutional attorney, author, and educator. I am writing to you at the request of your constituents.

I have reviewed your letter January 31, 2013 in opposition to SB 230 and its efforts to nullify Obamacare. I understand your position regarding Article 5 conventions. However, nullification is not unconstitutional and nullification and Article 5 conventions are not mutually exclusive.

The drafters of our Constitution felt the most powerful check on the usurpation of power by the federal government rested with the States. James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, called it “interposition” and declared that “…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose…” (Virginia Resolutions of 1798 James Madison). For the central government to claim a right to determine the Constitutionality of its own actions and to assert powers not delegated denies the very nature of our Republic and makes the Constitutional restraints enacted by our founders null and void.

You shouldn’t take my word for it, please read and hear the words of the men who wrote the Constitution…

Is federal law supreme because of the “supremacy clause?”

A proper read of the Supremacy Clause actually supports Madison’s assertion of interposition. Although the Supremacy Clause states that “the Constitution and the Laws of the United States” “shall be the supreme law of the land,” the framers required those laws to “be made in pursuance of” the Constitution. Therefore, any law that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution CANNOT be classified as the “supreme law of the land.” Federal law cannot be supreme if it is not first in compliance with the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton made this point very clear…

 “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.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78

Can the Supreme Court “deem” federal law to be Constitutional?

If the Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of a federal act, then we are not a Republic of sovereign States but a monarchy. The Supremacy Clause declares the Constitution to be Supreme, not the federal government. “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, alsomay exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…….” James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

The federal government seems to have forgotten that it was the “sovereign and independent States” that created and ratified the Constitution. It was the Constitution that created and defined a limited federal government.

 “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 ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government— but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792

The founding documents and the men who wrote them make it unequivocally clear that the States have the final word on whether their creation, the federal government, has trespassed its clearly defined boundaries. AND IT HAS. Our States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution. The States’ compact created the federal government and defined its limited and specific powers. As the creators of the federal government that means the States are the masters of their creation. The 10th Amendment makes that very clear. The Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution. The people have no recourse in the federal system, and must now turn to their States. The Framers considered it the duty of the States to stand against EVERY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government.

 “That the several states who formed [the Constitution], 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 the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” Kentucky Resolutions 1799 Thomas Jefferson, Writer of the Declaration of Independence

Nullification is the State declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply with dictates not enumerated in the Constitution!” To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine.

You must take a stand in defense of the Constitution and the rights the citizens that hired you to represent them. The legislators of Virginia in 1799 warned of the consequences of when a State refuses to stand against abuse of power by the federal government…

“The acquiescence of the states, under infractions of the federal compact, would either beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governments into impotency and contempt, orprepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of these infractions until the people are aroused to appear in the majesty of their strength.” Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, January 23, 1799

Establishing an Article 5 Convention requires the agreement of ¾ of the States; that will take more time than the citizens of Indiana have to protect their rights. There is an immediate need for the States to stand against this egregious federal usurpation of State power and rights of the people. Interposition as Madison termed, or Nullification as Jefferson called it, provides that immediate protection while the States can come together for a more long term remedy.

Rest assured many will not comply with this abuse of federal power forever. If you do not protect your citizens now, what will you do then? As a “Conservative” we should surely be concerned with the “state’s bottom line,” but as an elected representative who has taken an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States,” the integrity of the Constitutionally protected rights of your citizens must be supreme.

If you wish to read a more in-depth description of the State’s duty to interpose, please go to the following link and both part 1 and part 2 of this explanation.

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

President, founder, Constitutional Education & Consulting

www.KrisAnneHall.com

cla07@windstream.net

 

Open Letter to the States to Stand Against Obamacare

/in /by

Dear State Legislator and Governor,

Much of the population rightfully regards the Affordable Healthcare Act as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government.  It is undeniable that there is no power neither enumerated nor delegated to the federal government to compel a citizen to purchase health insurance under threat of penalty of law.  For the central government to claim such power denies the very nature of our Republic and makes the Constitutional restraints enacted by our founders null and void.

Some claim that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land” since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high.  This admits that we are not a Republic of sovereign States but a monarchy.  The Supremacy Clause declares the Constitution to be Supreme, not the federal government.  “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also….” James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

The founding documents and the men who wrote them make it unequivocally clear that the States have the final word on whether their creation, the federal government, has trespassed its clearly defined boundaries.  AND IT HAS.   Our States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution.  The States’ compact created the federal government and dictated its limited and specific powers.  As the creators of the federal government that means the States are the masters of their creation.  The 10th Amendment makes that very clear.  The Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution.  The people have no recourse in the federal system, and must now turn to their States.  The Framers considered it the duty of the States to stand against EVERY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government.

“…in the case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, …for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties…” Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison “Father of the Constitution”

“That the several states who formed [the Constitution], 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 the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”  Kentucky Resolutions 1799 Thomas Jefferson, Writer of the Declaration of Independence

Nullification is the State declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply with dictates not enumerated in the Constitution!”   To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine.

 You must take a stand in defense of the Constitution and the rights the citizens that hired you to represent them. Rest assured many will not comply with this mandate.  If you do not protect your citizens now, what will you do then?

Nullification explained part1