Get Informed - Get Equipped - Get Inspired

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


Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter
art supreme court
Before Stacking A Court - 6 Facts You Need To Know About Our US Supreme Court
By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Over the years there have been a few presidential administrations who have proposed adding additional seats the Supreme Court.  Court packing is not a new or novel proposal.  However, if the American people are to allow their federal politicians to increase, or decrease, the number of Supreme Court justices, it is essential that we understand how this high court was created and its proper limited and defined authority as established by the Constitution. 

Those who ratified our Constitution were deeply concerned about the tendency for courts to expand their authority over time and they did everything they could to ensure that America would not be ruled, as Britain often was, by an Oligarchy of judges.  Whether you have 3 justices or 13 is not as important as making sure those justice stay confined to the boundaries of their authority as delegated by the Constitution.  If we have justices that believe their authority is supreme, if Americans are taught to believe that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority to their own power and the power of the federal government, we will have created, not by fact but by error, the very government our founders separated from.

Americans, whether liberal or conservative, must know these six facts about the Supreme Court and the Constitution that created it.

1. “The powers not delegated to the federal government…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution makes it clear; if a power is not specifically delegated to the federal government is a power that is reserved to the States. Powers that have not been specifically delegated to the federal government are not powers the federal government can lawfully exercise.  The powers delegated to the courts are enumerated in Article 3 of the Constitution and thorough read of Article 3 proves there are powers specifically not delegated to the Supreme Court so they will remain at the State level.  In fact, the majority of judicial authority was to remain at the State level without federal court involvement.  The legal proof of this comes from those who ratified the Constitution, the true authority for the meaning and application of the Constitution.

"The great mass of suits in every State lie between Citizen & Citizen, and relate to matters not of federal cognizance."   Madison to Washington 18 Oct. 1787

"The foundation of this assertion is that the national judiciary will have no cognizance of them, and of course they will remain determinable as heretofore by the state courts only, and in the manner which the state constitutions and laws prescribe.: -Federalist #83

2. “…the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Article 6 sec 2

Only laws created by the federal government that are made pursuant to constitutionally enumerated powers are the “supreme Law of the Land.” Laws created by Congress, executive orders created by the executive branch beyond that delegation of power have no force or legal binding power over the States or the people; i.e. it is not the supreme Law of the Land.  The language of Article 6 section 2 establishes that any law made by Congress that is inconsistent with the Constitution, in this case outside delegated power, is an invalid law, not binding upon the States or to the people.  There are many proofs of this principle in the texts of those who created the federal government, here are just two:

“No law, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid.” -Federalist #78

“…for 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, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 1787

Additionally, Article V of the Constitution outlines the only legal way the Constitution can be amended and judicial opinion is not one of those ways.  Therefore, if the Supreme Court renders an opinion that is contrary to the Constitution, that opinion ought to be seen by the people as "null and void" as well.  As Article 6 clause 2 establishes, the judges of the States are not bound by any act that is established outside the authorization of the Constitution.

3. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,”

Although we often hear people refer to Supreme Court Opinions as the "law of the land" that is Constitutionally incorrect. The writing of law is a power exclusively held by Congress. Court Opinion cannot be law without violating the express limits separation of powers established by the Constitution. A violation of separation of powers is a per se violation of the Constitution which renders the court opinion invalid (see #2).

Violations of separation of power were of the utmost concern to the drafters of the Constitution. James Madison explains, quoting Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws (1748), in Federalist #47:

“there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,"

Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, warns of the consequences of allowing the judiciary to violate separation of powers to be violated:

“Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.”

4. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;” Article 3 sec 2 cl 1

The power of the Supreme Court is limited to matters “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties” made “under their Authority.” If a power is not specifically delegated it is not a matter over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.  Article 3 of the Constitution specifically enumerates those powers.  The Constitution is not a document of government "can'ts," it is a document of government "cans."  If the power is not specifically delegated, it is not authorized.  Hear the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:

“…an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." -Federalist #83

To those who ratified the Constitution this was simple logic, but it is a very important fact that is misconstrued and disregarded all too often in modern America.  Therefore, using reason, fact, and logic we must conclude Supreme Court Opinions regarding State land, Environment, Education, Firearms, etc... are not binding upon the States. To claim otherwise violates the Tenth Amendment, Article 3, and Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution. (See #1)

5. The Supreme Court is Designed to be the Weakest Branch of Government

When you look at Article 3 you will notice the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is very limited and very specifically established.  As a matter of fact as the Constitution and newly proposed federal government was being debated, Alexander Hamilton explained:

"The judicial declared by the constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified.  The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction..."   - Federalist 83

"The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.  It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments…" -Federalist 78

"It proves incontestibly that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power..." -Federalist 78

6. The Supreme Court is Not the Ultimate Authority on Any Federal Authority... Including its own.

For the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of its own power asserts that the federal government’s only limitation is its own judgement and will. Such a premise would negate the very existence of the Constitution that created the federal government. The judiciary is just as limited in its power by the Constitution as the other two branches of government.

James Madison explains the limitation of the power of the Judiciary in his Virginia Assembly Report of 1800:

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution [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, 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.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1812: 

“The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them…government will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we Separated.”

Courts don't issue rulings, Kings issue rulings. Courts issue Opinions and when those Opinions are not consistent with the Constitution those opinions are no more binding upon you than your next door neighbor's opinions.

In short, it really doesn’t matter how many Supreme Court justices we have.  What matters will they follow the limited and defined delegation of power as those who created that authority intended and hold the other branches within those same limits?  If they answer to that question is “yes,” then pack away.  We know, however, the politicians who are seeking to “pack the court” are not doing so to get judges who will be true to the Constitution.  These politicians seek to manipulate the people and the laws for their political favor by seating activist judges who will ignore the standards over their own authority to increase the power and influence of those who put them in power.  Americans of all political ideologies must see the long term damage of this action and deny our members of Congress that authority.  To ignore these self-evident truths will ensure Jefferson’s warning becomes prophecy and will reconstruct the Supreme Court into the “venal and oppressive government from which” they separated.


Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter
 after office imp art
The Precedent for After Office Impeachment
By KrisAnne Hall, JD

On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave a very famous speech.  In that speech he said:

“For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

The facts I am going to provide may cause aguish to some.  However, if you will follow me all the way to the end, I will show you that the knowledge of this precedent as preparation and instruction, could cause as much good as distress.

Impeachment is a provision within the Constitution the drafters, and those who ratified the Constitution, gave us as means to not only dismiss those from office who have violated their solemn trust, but to also ensure those impeached could never hold office again and therefore hold the opportunity to violate that trust again.  Impeachment is found in several sections of the Constitution; Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5; Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7; Article 2, Section 4; Article 3, Section 1- each section adding to the other the proper meaning, purpose and application of the power of impeachment.

Impeachment is a Criminal NOT Political Process

Impeachment begins when members of the House of Representatives draw up an Article(s) of Impeachment in which these members alleged that the “The President, Vice President and [any] civil Officer of the United States” has committed a crime.  Article 2 section 4 outlines the very specific terms for a Constitutionally authorized impeachment.  Every Article of Impeachment must find its origin in the conditions of the Constitution as outlined in Article 2 section 4.

Article 2 section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The standard for impeachment is criminal NOT political.  The only relevant question is Did a person in the trust of a federal office violate that trust by committing an actual crime?  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, gives us a bold warning of what will go wrong when impeachment is used for political punishments instead of strictly holding to the criminal terms of impeachment outlined in Article 2 section 4.

“In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

When the House votes and ratifies an Article(s) of Impeachment, that Article(s) becomes a criminal charging document.  When that criminal charging document is delivered to the Senate, the next stage of impeachment begins: The Trial by the Senate.  To reinforce the judicial nature of this process, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over this Senate Trial. 

Senators are expected to review the Article(s) of Impeachment, conduct an evidentiary trial, and then judge the Impeachment based upon due process and criminal legal standards.  For the Senate to conduct a trial based upon political bias rather than evidence and due process makes a mockery of the process Impeachment and transmute America into a Banana Republic.

Precedent For After Office Impeachment

The “ALL CIVIL OFFICERS” phrase in Article 2 section 4 is a catch all that includes everyone who currently works for the federal government as an elected or appointed officer or has worked for the federal government in that past.  Some may argue that once a person leaves federal employment, the option for impeachment is no longer viable.  However, the precedent of impeachment tells us otherwise and a view of history can help us understand why.

William Belknap served as Secretary of War under Ulysses S Grant from October 25, 1869 – March 2, 1876.  While Secretary of War, Belknap’s extravagant life style came into question.  You see, Belknap only made $8k a year but was known for his extravagant lifestyle and expensive parties.  Congress launched an investigation into his finances and found corruption that extended back to 1870.

According to Senate records, in 1870, “Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory.  Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment.  Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.”

Some of the accusations against Belknap included, indirectly selling weapons to France and for accepting illicit kickbacks in exchange for making political appointments.  Gun running, kickbacks, political deals for financial gain…isn’t that exactly what evidence strongly suggests Hillary Clinton is or was involved in?

According to Senate records, “On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.”

Belknap’s resignation did not stop his impeachment.  “Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment.”  What was Congress’ chief accusation against Belknap: “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

Testing That Precedent

Precedent is often established in error.  Whether precedent is legally or historically correct doesn't stop the modern system from asserting it as authority and knowing that precedent is essential in creating an argument for or against it.  The precedent of Belknap has yet to have been tested, so in the legal world that makes it controlling.  But if modern politicians try to use the Belknap precedent to attack someone for political vengeance, they may end up getting more than they bargained for.  For example, Hillary Clinton was accused of a very serious federal crime.  Although the Department of Justice decided not to criminally prosecute her for that crime, under the Belknap precedent there would be nothing to stop Hillary from coming under the prosecution of impeachment, in today’s Congress, or any Congress in the future, causing her to lose her pension and to be blocked from running for federal office every again.  Do not forget, the Department of Justice disclosed very damning criminal evidence against Eric Holder in the “Fast and Furious” scandal.  Under this precedent Eric Holder could also be impeached. 

The character of Belknap can be seen in numerous modern politicians.  If members of this Congress choose to test the Belknap precedent, how many of them could find themselves on the impeachment chopping block in the future?  With this knowledge in hand, while civil officers in Congress are throwing around the threat of impeachments, there is no excuse as to why James Comey, Eric Holder, Lois Learner, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and yes several Supreme Court justices ought not be impeached even today.

So there is a precedent to allow impeachment after office for the president, vice president, and every civil officer.  The question remains, do those with the power to impeach really want to open that Pandora’s Box only to find themselves consumed when the change in political winds come, because all of history dictates they will come.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter


written by JC Hall

 The anarchist movement has a long history and encompasses a wide range of movements from the labor movement to the free love movement, from anarcho-communism to Rothbardian economics. Anarchist theory is not inherently violent, but there is a violent faction within the broader anarchist movement which is revealing itself once again in America. As the violent wing gets exposed, anarchists of all stripes will rally to defend their particular branch of the family tree while largely ignoring their violent cousins - the revolutionary anarchists.  Hearings will be held about the events of January 6th and you will hear it framed as White Supremacists, Trump Supporters, ANTIFA or simply left versus right.  All of that will be a distraction and will miss the bigger picture, as usual and the Revolutionary Anarchist faction will continue remain a mystery to the American public.  Welcome to American politics!

Some perhaps are only familiar with the peaceful forms of anarchy, extolling the virtues of harmonious existence in communes and mutual aid societies. On the peaceful side are anarcho-pacifists, Christian anarchists, free-love anarchists and free-education anarchists. Regardless of the benign, intellectual side with its laudable theories of mutual aid and self-determination, there has been a consistent wing of anarchism that embraces revolutionary violence as the primary tool of change. These are the individuals, the revolutionary anarchists, who seek to plunge America into chaos. These are also the people that give the government an excuse to sweep up anyone they don't like into a broad dragnet by invoking the label "domestic terrorist."
Anarchism is not widely understood by Americans today, even less understood is the historical divergence of individualist anarchists and collectivist anarchists after the failure of Robert Owen's New Harmony commune. Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker and his followers in Boston were peaceful, yet they still regarded the state as wholly evil as illustrated in the Journal "Liberty."
"It is an institution of force and as such incapable of being reformed. To Tucker and his comrades, the political process and voting are nothing more than mechanisms for the tyranny of the majority. Thus, they considered attempts to work within its structure to be futile." -Edward P. Stringham
For some this "institution of force" could only be resisted by force. American history bears out the decidedly violent tendencies of the collectivist anarchist movement launched from Chicago and New York City. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are members of both the individualist and collectivist camp that believe in political violence. This fact makes the left-right dichotomy of less use in the present environment.
A Legacy of Violence
Historically, revolutionary anarchist factions advocated "PROPAGANDA Of The DEED," - political violence, including bombings and targeted killings of members of the ruling class for the purpose of provoking broader violence and uprisings. 
"we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda." -Johan Most
Another part of their methodology was "EXPROPRIATION." Expropriation means robbing/burglarizing people and businesses that are seen as part of the ruling class or as benefiting from their "evil system."  This was on full display in the summer of 2020 with anarchists looting, robbing and burning local businesses across America; yet, this is nothing new in America's revolutionary anarchist movement:
  • Revolutionary anarchist Luigi Galleani and his followers carried out assassination attempts and waves of bombings in cities across America and  from 1914 to 1932 in what they saw as attacks on "tyrants" and "enemies of the people." Mail bombs were sent to public officials, businessmen and law enforcement.  A bombing at the home of the US Attorney General led to the sweeping Palmer Raids in 1919.
  •  Sacco and Vanzetti were famous anarchist martyrs who allegedly robbed a shoe factory as an act of Expropriation. The anger at the anarchists stoked a fervor that lead to their execution for the robbery. Having since become anarchist/progressive folk heroes, they were posthumously pardoned by Michael Dukakis.
  •  In the anarchist Haymarket Square bombing in Chicago, a labor rally against "police violence," a bomb was thrown at a police officer. The incident left seven police and five civilians dead. 
  •  Revolutionary anarchists also carried out the notable Wall Street Bombings and the assassination of President William McKinley.
As the Palmer Raids teach us, the outcome of the anarchist violence is ALWAYS the same - the government reacts by taking more liberty away from the people, by targetting political oppposition and opposing views. Due process, freedom of speech, press, assembly, association privacy are all assaulted in reaction to the anarchist violence. In this way the revolutionary anarchists are a convenient band of useful idiots that serve the statist cause. A bit of irony to go with your tyranny.
 Still Going Today
The anarchist movement continues to thrive and the revolutionairies continue to organize.  In 1980, the First International Symposium on Anarchism was held in Portland, Oregon. In 1986 anarchists held the Haymarket Remembrance Conference in Chicago and then annual conventions in Minneapolis (1987), Toronto (1988), and San Francisco (1989).
In 1989 Love & Rage network formed in Chicago, infusing racial and other themes into the revolutionary anarchist movement:
"A new wave of radicalization is spreading around the world. Federations of anarchists are being organized in the U.S and Canada, and in other countries. The ‘platformist’ current within international anarchism, with its emphasis on the need for anarchists to organize themselves, is having worldwide effects. In these conditions, it is not surprising that there should be an interest in the last major attempt to build an anarchist federation in North America: the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation (L&R). Founded in 1989, it lasted to 1998, almost ten years, with branches in Mexico (Amor y Rabia) and in English-speaking Canada." - A history of North American anarchist group Love & Rage
In 1998 the L&R Network split primarily over their organizing statement of beliefs and the argument of white privilege. L&R split into two new networks.  First, the "Fire By Night Organizing Committee," which deliberately chose to conceal anarchism from its name "to create a new revolutionary politics more in tune with the conditions of the 21st century." It maintained offices in NYC and San Francisco.
The second - the Fresh Revolutionary Anarchist Group, "a federation of collectives united around firm anarchist/anti-authoritarian politics and outlook, oriented to the working classes and most oppressed, and active in building Anti-Racist Action as an anti-authoritarian mass movement." 
The movement continued organizing throughout the 90s and 2000s with numerous organizations and individuals: David Graeber, CrimetInc, Black Rose Anarchist Federation, Atlantic Anarchist Circle, Demanarchie newspaper collective, Common Ground Collective, Workers Solidarity Alliance, May First Anarchist Alliance, Four Star Anarchist Organization, Autonomy and Solidarity, Red and Black, and Wild Rose Collective and many others.
The revolutionary anarchist movement has manifested lately in the current ANTIFA movement and among elements of the BLM movement. It is no coincidence that the refrain of prominent organizers during the summer was "make America ungovernable." This is not a Democrat or Republican movement. It is not a movement that follows a particular leader. Sadly, Americans can only perceive their world in these tribalistic terms, and this allows the revolutionary anarchists to hide behind the tribalistic fog that engulfs the minds of America partisans.  The revolutionary Anarchist movement is neither right nor left, it is right AND left.  Their tools is violence against people and property with the hopes of disrupting or destroying the state so that it may be abolished or replaced.
Not all anarchists are revolutionary anarchists, undoubtedly a majority of the anarchist family loves peace. But the REVOLUTIONARY anarchists do not.  And don't be misled, contrary to what the name implies, the world of revolutionary anarchism is highly organized and well-funded. Revolutionary anarchism is not just an idea. It is real. It has real members and many come armed with pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. 
I don't excpect to hear this topic come up during any hearings.  America's leaders pretend that they know nothing about this history.  They are only conerned with winning points for their team, so that they can maintain their power and position.  As usual the American people lose under the leadership of blind partisans who care only for themselves.  However, you can be informed and avoid the getting sucked into the useful idiot trap.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter
   impeach trump art
Did Trump "Incite" a Riot? A Memorandum of Law
by KrisAnne Hall JD

AUTHOR'S NOTE: If you are looking for some proactive measures to take to influence your US Senator, you have my permission and encouragement to send this to your Senators.  My thought is, even if you believe your Senator will disregard this settled law, you should send it anyway.  We should never be silent with truth and every elected officer should be presented with the truth so they cannot claim ignorance.  It would be a very powerful message if you could organize your circle of people to all send this Legal Memorandum.  If you have any questions, you can always reach me at 

Memorandum of Law
TO:        Members of the United States Senate
From:    KrisAnne Hall, JD
RE:        HR24 – Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States for High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Date:     January 13, 2021


              On January 6, 2021 a group of Americans assembled in Washington DC: some to protest the counting of Electoral College votes they believe were cast as a result of a fraudulent election, some to support President Trump, some to encourage the counting of the Electoral College votes, some to protest President Trump, and some to simply create chaos and destruction.  During this assembly some in this assemblage chose to engage in violence that resulted in damage to the Capitol building and the loss of life.  During this assembly of multiple groups and individuals, including President Donald Trump gave a speech, which transcripts are available.

              HR 24- Articles of Impeachment allege that the actions of those who carried out the violence are attributable to President Donald J Trump due to words uttered at a rally and thus subjects him to legal and constitutional impeachment from office pursuant to Article 2 section 4 of the US Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection.”

Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution reads:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Questions Presented

  • Is President Donald Trump guilty of “Incitement of Insurrection” by inciting violence against the United States?
  • Is President Donald Trump subject to impeachment and conviction according to the Constitution under Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection?”

Answers & Discussion

Incitement has a very settled definition in law and the standard is referred to as the “Brandeburg Test” as resulting from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969). 

The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In Brandenburg, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally and, after speaking a laundry list of racial slurs, Brandenburg then said; "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken."   In this opinion, the Supreme Court held that the government can only infringe upon freedom of speech by criminalizing speech when a two-prong standard created by this court is met.  The standard is as follows:

  • The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
  • The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Further Supreme Court opinions give specific direction on the application of the Brandenburg Test.  The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which an Indiana University protestor said, “We’ll take the fucking street again” (or “later.”) The Supreme Court held that the university protestor's profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as speech that “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Mr. Evers made threats of violence against anyone who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg Test and found that Mr. Evers’ speech was protected under the principles of freedom of speech: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

The question is, Did President Donald Trump engage in speech that qualifies under the Brandenburg Test as inciting.  The only relevant evidence in this accusation will be the transcripts of President Trump’s speech.  In this transcript we see no language that fits the Brandenburg Test definition of inciting.  What a reader of this transcript will find is:

“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Using the Brandenburg Test, as established by the Supreme Court of the United States, it must be concluded that President Donald Trump’s speech did not rise to the criminal level of inciting.  Consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinions, the speaker over a group cannot be held accountable for the actions of that group unless the speaker “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND the speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”  It is highly dubious to assert that directing a crowd to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” incites violence and insurrection.  There can be disagreement as to the appropriate nature of President Donald Trump’s words in general.  There cannot be disagreement as to the statements made in his speech, since they are recorded and freely available. 

This is the only reasonable and moral way to maintain the essential standard of freedom of speech as enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights.  Any standard that deviates from this test in favor of criminalizing speech oughto be unacceptable in a nation built upon the essential principles of personal liberty.

The Supreme Court held in Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989) that freedom of speech is "a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." In RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992), the Court held that even “hate speech” is protected under these terms of the First Amendment.  Finally, the Supreme Court held in Gregory v Chicago 394 US 111 (1969), “To let a policeman's command become equivalent to a criminal statute comes dangerously near making our government one of men rather than of laws. There are ample ways to protect the domestic tranquility without subjecting First Amendment freedoms to such a clumsy and unwieldy weapon.”  To allow disagreement over words and meanings, to allow political dissention to become the standard of criminal activity violates the Constitution and the standards established by the Supreme Court, transmutes America away from a land whose foundation is settled in due process and rule of law to the “clumsy and unyielding weapon” of politicians, mob rule, and arbitrary standards that are antithetical to everything that embodies our Constitutional Republic.

Because President Donald Trump’s speech does not meet the two-prong test as established by the Supreme Court, it must be concluded that his speech has not risen to the level of criminal activity.  Since the standards of due process lead us to conclude that no crime was committed, the House Impeachment accusation is unlawful as there was no violation of a "high crime or misdemeanor."  Finally, because the criminal elements of inciting are not met, President Trump cannot, under the law and the Constitution, be convicted by the Senate at trial.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter


stop the steal

Stop The Steal Contact Scripts

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

The calls and emails are making a difference, but we need to keep encouraging and demanding our Senators AND our House Reps join the objections to these fraudulent Electoral College votes. Please call and email both of your State Senators AND your House Representative and demand they Stop legitimizing fraud. We have included a sample script to help you.

If you don’t know how to contact your US Senator please go to this link:

If you don’t know how to contact your US House Representative, go to this link and enter your zip code:

Together we can save our Constitutional Republic.

Call and Email script for Senator “Stop the Steal”

I am contacting the Senator because I am alarmed and outraged by the evidence of voter fraud of our last election being exposed through the various State hearings. The American people are being disenfranchised by this blatant violation of the laws. I want the Senator to know that we demand to be heard and the Senator is our representative with the duty to speak on behalf of our State. The Senator MUST second the objection to the Congressional certification of the Electoral College votes in question. The Senator must make every intention to object immediately public to encourage others to take a stand and do the right thing. The Senator must publicly and actively stop the theft of this election or I will never vote for the Senator again. The actual fate of America’s election process rests upon our representatives to Stop This Fraud.

Thank you for your time and public efforts to save our Constitutional Republic.



Call and email script for Representative “Stop the Steal”

I am contacting Representative (NAME) because I am alarmed and outraged by the evidence of voter fraud of our last election being exposed through the various State hearings. The American people are being disenfranchised by this blatant violation of the laws. I want you to know that we demand to be heard and as our representative you have a duty to speak on behalf of our district. As my Representative you MUST second the objection to the Congressional certification of the Electoral College votes in question. As my Representative you must make your intention to object immediately public to encourage others to take a stand and do the right thing. You must publicly and actively stop the theft of this election or I will never, in good conscience, be able to vote for you again. The actual fate of America’s election process rests upon our representatives to Stop This Fraud.

Thank you for your time and public efforts to save our Constitutional Republic.



Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter