Get Informed - Get Equipped - Get Inspired

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties...
when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved"
- Sam Adams

PayPalDonateNow

Art SPLC

Southern Poverty Law Center Interview

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

An investigative journalist from the Southern Poverty Law Center contacted me today for an interview.  She emailed me some questions and I provided a written response.  In the interest of preserving the conversation and ensuring honesty, I am printing the SPLC questions and my written respsonse.  I have no idea what portion of my response, if any they will publish, so here is the full monty. ~ KrisAnne

 

From Rachel Janik of the Southern Poverty Center:

I’m an investigative reporter with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and I’m reaching out because we are writing an article about a talk you gave earlier this month at an event that included the group the League of the South. Here are my questions:

-Can you explain why you thought the League of the South venue was a good fit for your presentation?
-Would you be able to share with us the slides of your presentation, or a Youtube link to your speech? If not, can you give us an idea of what it was about?
-You believe in states having autonomy, correct? But what’s your position if a state wants to secede or implement a law contrary to federal statutes? May a state reinstitute segregation? Discrimination of LGBTQ people? Slavery?

Thank you so much for your time and attention to these questions. We are on a very tight deadline, and I understand if you are not able to get back to us before publication. If we hear back from you after the story is posted, we are more than happy to run an update with your comments.

My Response:

Greetings Rachel,

Thank you for your honest inquiry. I will be posting my response to you in full at my website.  I will begin by letting you know how I work.  I do not solicit events or venues.  For nine years every event, for years exceeding 250 classes in over 22 States every year, all my classes are scheduled because someone invited me to come to their venue.  I have no speaking fees and have never turned down an opportunity to teach any of the classes that I teach unless I could not physically do the teaching.  I have spoken to groups of all political identities, all ages, and all levels of government.  Your question of “why you thought the League of the South venue was a good venue for your presentation” does not apply to me.  I do not seek venues that “fit” a particular class.  My classes are not political, they are factual, historical, and constitutional; they are about Liberty and the responsibility in a Constitutional Republic to be an educated and self-governing people. 

I discovered that I my teaching ran contrary to the position of The League of the South, namely I do not believe that the Constitution and the republic it created have failed. I do not believe that the “Empire should be dismantled and reformed.”  So I felt it was an opportunity to promote liberty, unity and demonstrate that the system that the founders gave us can indeed be relied upon. Frankly, my classes fit every venue, every person, and every age.  The blessings of Liberty are a gift to all people and are not contingent upon gender, sexual orientation, faith, or skin color, therefore I do not discriminate against any group who desires to know more about our Constitutional Republic and how it is supposed to work.  Even more so, if the group is reputed to have offensive views I feel that the message of liberty for all that I teach is more than appropriate.  I explained this in a post I already made in reference to this event.  https://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/resources/articles/412-public-statement-on-racism

I have attached a google drive link of my PowerPoint presentation.  Note the last slide.  I always end with this slide and emphasize that our methods should lead us to liberty and unity, not hate, violence, and disharmony. 

As to your question regarding LGBTQ, Slavery, and Segregation. The short answers are no, no and no.   It is interesting that the assumption is that State sovereignty is intended to oppress people rather than to defend against oppression (like a state refusing to comply with the unconstitutional dictates of a despotic President for instance).  Liberty is inherent to all people.  All government, both State and federal are instituted to protect liberty.

“All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…and to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Declaration of Independence

When any form of government fails to secure that liberty, it fails to accomplish the single purpose for its existence and becomes an unjust government.  Our system of Republican Federalism was established to exist with very powerful checks and balances to ensure that no form of government can deny the rights of the people unchecked.  The separate spheres of government that exist in the creation of State and federal are designed to mutually check each other within their enumerated boundaries.

“Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different government will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself…”  Federalist 51

“The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject within their respective authorities than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” James Madison, Federalist 39

For instance when the federal government demanded that States return “fugitive slaves,” the State of Wisconsin, from 1854 to 1859 asserted its sovereignty and refused to comply with a power not delegated to the federal government and contrary to the rights of the people. (Ableman v Booth 62 US 514 (1859)  If the designed checks and balances had been working properly, NO Japanese American would have been unconstitutionally and unjustly seized and detained in camps even though the president “ordered” it and SCOTUS “sanctioned” it.

As with any power in government non-compliance can be used for good and it can be used for evil.  But the essential checks and balances our founders established within these separate spheres of government enable the people to ensure that one sphere will not become so powerful that it may exercise its will without restraint. This essential check and balance that exists in our Constitutional Republic is the shield against slavery, masters, and oppressors, not a restoration of it.

The Supremacy Clause upholds the authority of the Constitution and establishes that all Acts of the Legislative branch must me made consistent with the terms and enumerations of the Constitution.  The Supremacy Clause also very clearly establishes that any Act of Congress not made “in pursuance” to the Constitution is invalid and not binding upon the States.

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.  James Wilson

“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.” Alexander Hamilton

I support the Constitution and the tenor of the commission under which it was created.  Therefore I support every law of the Legislative branch creates under those terms and understand that every State has a duty to comply with those laws.  I also understand, as instructed by those who wrote the Constitution, that every State has no obligation to submit to any federal law that is not made within those terms. And while I am not a proponent of secession, a state certainly has that contractual right when it feels that the compact has been irrevocably broken.  Our states are not fiefdoms under subjugation to an unquestionable despot.  Yet while a State may secede or be expelled, that State would lose all benefits and privileges afforded to it under the federal compact.

Blessings,

KrisAnne Hall, JD

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter