Yesterday the DOJ, several US Cities, and the United Nations partnered in a Global Police Fore Initiative. Is THIS what we want Congress funding in the next budget? Is this what you want in your home town?
If America takes in more Syrian Refugees it will destroy America. I will give you the proof to that statement.
Alternatively you can listen to “Syrian Refugees, Fundamentally Transforming America” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube
What is the Constitutional role of the Speaker of the House? You might just be as surprised as I was to find out the truth. Let’s get educated!
Lessons from Speaker of the House and Overpasses For America the America needs to learn. Lets Get Educated!
I was recently contacted by a concerned Texan regarding a town hall meeting she attended with her Congressional Representative. Her email to me reads as follows:
“I have a constitutional question. At a town hall yesterday, we had a heated discussion with our Congressional representative Mike Conaway. Our question was why isn’t the House withholding funds for Obama’s overreaches? Conaway’s reply was the House can’t do that alone, it also takes the Senate. I have been under the impression the House alone controlled the purse strings. Am I correct?”
I wanted to respond to this email publicly since it involves an important constitutional issue. I fear that many are confused on this vital check and balance and because of our ignorance of this principle we are losing one of the most important controls on government incorporated into the Constitution.
Article 1 section 7 of the Constitution is the governing text regarding this issue of spending. It reads:
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
Since the Constitution is a contract, pursuant to contract law we must look to the drafters of the contract when we need clarity. James Madison explains exactly what we need to know in Federalist 58:
“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support 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 salutatory measure.”
Madison also explains that one of the main reasons the House was vested with this important power was to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government” as the people may demand.
On May 15, 1789, James Madison, then federal representative to his District in Virginia, had a conversation with fellow Virginia Representative Alexander White during the ratification debates:
Mr. White: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with. I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not let out of their hands.”
It is interesting to note that Alexander White is repeating the principle of the power of the purse Madison identified in Federalist 58; that it is the duty of the House to have a “control over the whole government” to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”
Madison replies to White with confirmation:
“The principle reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they (the House) were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.”
It is clear, according to the drafters of the Constitution, that the House alone was vested with the power of purse. Pursuant to Article 1 section 7, the Senate may propose amendments and may concur, but their assent is not necessary. As both White and Madison stated, this power rests in the House alone because it is the House that is chosen directly by the people as their representatives and best suited to redress their grievances and reduce and control all the other branches as the people see fit. If the House proposes a budget that the Senate refuses to vote upon, then the House budget stands. If the Senate proposes an amendment to the budget and the House doesn’t want it, then the original House budget stands. It is also important to note that constitutionally speaking the president has no veto power over a budget.
Some may confuse the procedure for passing a law with the procedure for passing of a budget. A very important distinction must be recognized; a budget expires, a law does not. A law must follow the procedure of all the houses of Congress, with veto power by the president because in order to get rid of a law it must be repealed. Budgets, 
however, expire and must be renewed by each congressional session. No future congress is ever bound by a past congressional budget. That is why the Senate is not necessary and President is procedurally excluded from the budget process.
We must also remember that one of the chief purposes for vesting this power in the House was to reduce the overgrowth of the other branches of government. It is counterintuitive to ask the House to exercise that control over the Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary and then require those branches to concur with that control. It is highly unlikely that our founders would create such an absurdity with in the Constitution.
The current budget procedures, invented outside the boundaries of the Constitution, by past Congresses, have achieved exactly what both Madison and White have warned, they have let this vital power out of their hands and placed into the hands of those not constitutionally fit to fulfil the demand. We need educated and principled leaders in Congress to stand against this usurp of the greatest check and balance on governmental overreach.
Another budget crisis. The real crisis is the ignorance in Congress that allows this to happen. Let me show you, so you can show your Representative, just HOW the budget is supposed to work & WHY the Congress must stop the spending NOW!
Alternatively you can listen to “The KrisAnne Hall Show” on YouTube
Critical thinking is essential to the preservation of Liberty. Sometimes, critical thinking means we must identify the spin and seek the truth.
Government land grabs are becoming more and more prevalent every day. There are executive agencies taking private land through regulatory acts. The federal government is seizing up more and more private land under the auspices of environmental preservation and national parks. We are even seeing the military taking private land and calling it national security. Our framers believed that the Right to secure property was vital to the preservation of Liberty. Under what circumstances can the government legally and constitutionally take our land?
From John Locke, the father of our understanding of Natural Law, in his “II Treaties”:
“The Supream Power cannot take from any Man any part of his Property without his own consent. For the preservation of Property being the end (purpose) of Government, and that for which Men enter into Society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the People should have Property, without which they must be suppos’d to lose that by entring into Society, which was the end for which they entered into it, too gross an absurdity for any Man to own.
For I have truly no Property in that, which another can by right take from me, when he pleases, against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think, that the Supream or Legislative Power of any Commonwealth, can do what it will, and dispose of the Estates of the Subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure…
For a Man’s Property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable Laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his Fellow Subjects, if he who commands those Subjects, have Power to take from any private Man, what part he pleases of his Property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good.”
We have an inherent Right to acquire, possess, and secure private property. That doesn’t mean that the government has a duty to provide all people with property. It means that we have the Right to acquire it without government control and permission and once we acquire it, we have the Right to possess it and protect it. The entire purpose for establishing government is to collectively protect the inherent Rights of the individual. To accept that the government can operate contrary to its entire purpose, by taking those Rights instead of protecting them, Locke calls that a “gross absurdity.”
Locke’s principle of the inherent Right to acquire and possess land is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1795:
“From these passages, it is evident, that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent and inalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects that induced them to unite in society. No man could become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact…” Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, US, 1795.
The government should not arbitrarily take property from the people. Arbitrary taking is a clear violation of the Constitution and as the Supreme Court so eloquently states, it is contrary to the primary object of government. But not only that, James Madison explains that arbitrary taking of private property is the mark of an “unjust government”, an act of “complete despotism:”
“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.” James Madison, Property, 1792
The principle of the inherent Right to possess is embodied in the 5th & 7th Amendments to the Constitution when it declares that “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Notice the three restricting elements: due process, public use, just compensation. How do we determine what is adequate due process and what is just compensation? According to contract law, the law that is controlling over the interpretation of the Constitution, we must look to the framers of the Constitution for guidance. Alexander Hamilton says,
“It is there declared that, no man shall be disfranchised or deprived of any right, but by due process of law, or the judgment of his peers. The words “due process” have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature.” Alexander Hamilton, Remarks on an Act for Regulating Elections, New York Assembly, 6 Feb. 1795
Due process is an act of the courts of justice, not an act of the legislature. It is not within the delegated power of the legislature to pass a law that takes your land, the legislature’s only power is to negotiate a settlement with the land owner. When that negotiation fails, any taking must be facilitated through the courts via proper application of due process. How must that be done?
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” – 7th Amendment
When the government attempts to take any property valued at more than $20, due process means a trial by jury of our peers. This means that private property should not be a legislative act. Private property should not be taken by a single judge, or even a tribunal of judges. Private property should not be taken by an executive agency.
The Supreme Court in Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance explains that, in reality, there are only 3 ways a private citizen can legally and constitutionally give up their private property Rights.
“Public exigencies do not require, necessity does not demand, that the legislature should, of themselves, without the participation of the proprietor, or intervention of a jury, assess the value of the thing, or ascertain the amount of the compensation to be paid for it. This can constitutionally be effected only in three ways.
What we can conclude by the application of these principles and the accompanying law is that:
This Supreme Court in 1795 believed that if the federal government could take land from private land owners outside these limited constitutional parameters, that government would,
“display the dangerous nature of unlimited authority; it would [be] an exercise of power and not of right. Such an act would be a monster in legislation and shock all mankind…
It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance, in every free government; and lastly, it is contrary both to the letter and spirit of the constitution. In short, it is what every one would think unreasonable and unjust in his own case.”
James Madison made a plea, in 1792, to the people of America and for future generations:
“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions….
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.”
Do we have a just government? Does our government deserve the full praise due to wise governments? Do our legislatures, courts, and governors equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights? This is our real litmus and this is one of the ways that history will judge America.
This is not a hypothetical. This is not satire. This is a real-life situation, happening right now in Nevada. This is tyranny in its most defined form. This is evil. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke
What could the Constitution, Vaccinations, & A New Executive Order all have in common? Let’s look at see!
Alternatively listen to the KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube