DOJ: It's OK for the Govt. To Kill Citizens, Trust Us!

/in /by

Assassination of US Citizens

The Department of Justice has released a document that they claim justifies the killing of U.S. citizens in the name of national security. Michael Isikoff from NBC news publicized the DOJ’s White Paper that sets out the “legal” authority of the President to assassinate US Citizens.

In the beginning, the DOJ legal argument attempts to make it appear that only “U.S. citizens who are senior operational leaders of al-Qua’ida or an associated force of al-Qua’ida” are considered eligible for assassination.  However, by the end of the analysis, the DOJ document has moved beyond “foreign countries” to include any geographic area and authorizes lethal force against any person classified as a potential hostile by the President or by any “high level official of the U.S. government”even when there is no evidence to support such an accusation.   Sound too “Orwellian” to be true?  Read the full analysis HERE and YOU be the judge.

In the DOJ’s paper “Imminent threat” is redefined to include a citizen plotting about some threat at some distant time.  The government does not have “to have clear evidence that a specific attack…will take place in the immediate future.”   And though much is made about the Law of War, the citizen to be assassinated can be far from the “actual hostility.” The DOJ eliminates the barriers of “geographic limitations,” and asserts the ability to “follow” the target to a “a new nation.” Let us not forget the provisions of the NDAA that allow the President to transfer the powers under the “Law of War” to the FBI, making it possible for that “new nation” to be the U.S.  No Constitutional protections, no review of a judge, no jury of your peers, no requirement of actual “imminent threat,” and no need for you to be caught on the battlefield (unless you remember that the government has already declared the ENTIRE PLANET to be a battlefield!).

In criminal court, to put someone in prison or sentence them to death, the burden of proof that must be met by the government is “beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”  In order to get a search warrant the Fourth Amendment requires the government to meet the standard of “probable cause” as reviewed and approved by a judge. The Fifth Amendment requires that before the government can take someone’s life they are guaranteed an indictment by a grand jury and conviction by a jury of their peers.  One would think that at least these standards would apply if the government is going to take a citizen’s life.  Unfortunately that is not the case here and the only reference the DOJ makes to the Constitution is to point out that it DOESN’T APPLY!  What is the burden of proof for the President to assassinate US citizens?  According to the DOJ, the government must simply “demonstrate” that the United States’ interest in preventing an anticipated threat of violence outweighs “the person’s interest in his life,” again, with no “clear evidence that a specific attack…will take place in the immediate future.”  Citing their standard of proof, the government quotes the court of Cf. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 535: “the Court accords the greatest of respect and consideration to the judgments of military authorities…the scope and discretion of that discretion is necessarily wide.”  And of course in this case, that scope the government asserts, would be transferred to the “high-level official of the U.S. government” making the determination.

It is interesting to note that throughout its paper the DOJ continually appeals to the “government’s inherent right to defend itself” while this administration does not seem to recognize such a right among its citizens.  Will we be given the same deference when we defend ourselves? Will George Zimmerman be given an inherent right to self-defense under the same standards as the government asserts? Apparently this administration only claims such a right for the government? The framers said each of us have an inherent right to self-defense (Sam Adams said, “The rights of the colonists are these; First life, Secondly liberty, and third property and the ability to defend them”).

What’s the Big Deal?

What is wrong with the Executive branch of a government engaging in the assassination of our citizens, who are classified by the government as combatants against this country, absent due process?  If they can do this without a “speedy and public trial,” we are trusting the government to convey truthful and accurate information to justify their actions. Our founders were intimately aware that the governments often have their own perspective on things and have the power and tools to justify their actions at all levels. Their point would be that a government not only has an agenda, but also has the power to control and manipulate information. Richard Henry Lee stated that we must not only guard against “what men do, but what they may do.” They knew the unrestrained power of the government must be continually checked against the Liberty of the people.

What about the fact that the government has already redefined who is a “terrorist”? Just look at Janet Napolitano’s report, as head of the Department of Homeland Security, warning America regarding who is a terrorist; “rightwing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms – and returning war veterans.

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Our founders knew that in a government that has the ability to define the enemy, and the uninhibited inclination to define its own citizens as terrorists, tyranny is already established. Unrestrained power of the government must be continually checked against the Liberty of the people.  It is Liberty that is the most important asset to any peace loving nation. Benjamin Franklin is quoted to have said, “Those who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor security.” How could he make such a bold statement? Because he knew from history that trading Liberty will NEVER result in greater security and once Liberty is traded, you never get it back.  I find it very telling that our founders never said, “Peace must be supported at all hazards.” Eliminating enemy combatants –good; assassinating US citizens…a destructive assault on Liberty. This is the Constitutional quagmire we have created by maintaining a completely inept political administration that is completely ignorant of the Constitution and the principles of Liberty it protects.

I ask you, how can authorizing this level of arbitrary power be acceptable in the eyes of our Congress who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?  How can these elected representatives justify the worst arbitrary power and the most destructive authority to our individual liberty? Read the full analysis HERE.

 “To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution”. (Alexander Hamilton, Fed. Paper #84, quoting Justice Blackstone)

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.

No Budget, No Pay, No Honor

/in /by

Mr. Boehner,

We The People are now in possession of your plan called “No Budget, No Pay.” You are such a clever boy, I’m so proud that we paid our House of Representatives to bunker off with you to a retreat so that you could all pool your ignorance and come up with this jewel. What did we get for our tax-payer dollars: More proof that you and those who follow you in the House of Representatives are completely pusillanimous cowards to the point of disgrace.

I am not quite certain what kind of game you are trying to play, but stop it; will you please just stop it? In the last four years you have made our House of Representatives, if not the entire Congress, completely irrelevant to the running of this nation. You have handed more power to the executive branch than it has stolen from you. Through your infinite wisdom you altered the NDAA of 2012 to give the President of the United States the unilateral and arbitrary authority to use the powers under the Laws of War for any situation he might deem a “hostility,” completely eliminating the need for Congress to actually DECLARE war. You have failed time and time again to protect your citizens from the harassment and abuse of power waged upon them by the very agencies that YOU FUND and have a duty to OVERSEE AND CONTROL. And NOW you intend to give Barack Obama and his administration unlimited spending authority for three months in exchange for what; the promise that the Senate will engage in a Budget DEBATE sometime in the future? How stupid do you think we are? We know what a politician’s promise is worth and we also know how much this administration can spend in three months with a blank check from Congress. Since we no longer need you to declare war, you refuse to defend your citizens from arbitrary and abusive government, and the Executive branch can tax and spend without you, please do tell me, sir, what are we actually paying Congress to do these days?

John Adams warned us of a day when morality would fail and pretexts would be invented to take the property from those who have and give it to those who do not. He said it would not be long before “the idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them.” Since we know that you are joyfully engaging in the extravagant debauchery that will destroy this nation, which one are you, sir, idle, vicious, or intemperate? I guess it does not matter, as your actions have classified you and Liberty cannot afford someone like you in government.

I believe that we can only judge men by their actions. You and those who follow you love to wrap yourselves in the flag and call yourselves “conservatives.” I have discovered by your actions that the definition of a “conservative” is one who loves money, power and prestige and cares little about the Constitution. Now you have fallen so deeply in love with our money that you want to have unlimited access to it so you and your president can become intimately engaged in your political fornication at our expense. You forget one thing, sir, that is not your money, its not even mine anymore, it belongs to my son. You may have been able to sweet talk my generation into debt, but you are now interfering with my son’s Liberty and that WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. You have a very short time to mend the errors of your ways. You and your supporters will be removed from office and frankly we no longer care if the “other side” wins. We know where they stand and we can prepare for them. It is you who are more dangerous than the snake we can see. You are a predator of the worst sort. So don’t try to sweet talk us anymore. We will no longer be betrayed by your kiss and 30 pieces of silver.

Mr. Boehner, since you and your followers love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, GO HOME from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your defense. Crouch down and lick the hands of your lord and master, Barack Obama. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

Sincerely and in Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall

Mother, Veteran, Constitutional Attorney, Lover of Liberty, Hater of Tyranny

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

Brother Can You Spare a Dime

/in /by

As we embark on this New Year, we are continuing the struggle to regain control of our governments, and escape the fate predicted by our founders.  Maintaining the limited form of government our Constitution demands is vital to the preservation of this nation.  If we fail, the unfortunate reality will be that we will have failed to maintain the gift of the Republic that was bought for us by the sacrifice of ease, estate, pleasure, and blood of our forefathers.

The first step to correcting a problem is understanding that you have one.  We The People seem to be very aware that there is a problem.  Our government, on the other hand, seems completely clueless.  The President of the United States is issuing executive orders for government pay raises. Congress is engaging in every mode of spending that can be conceived. Both “sides” arguing over how much to tax and no one discusses the profligate spending. Our founders and even their immediate successors warned that this perspective in government would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

It will take character and resolve to make the painful and difficult decisions to preserve the Republic, so that future generations will have an opportunity to enjoy the Liberty that has been purchased for us.  As usual, the oracles of history have some lessons if we would simply listen.

Federal Government Out of Control

Apparently, things began to go awry for the federal government rather early on.  An expansion of Congressional power through the forced construction of the General Welfare clause is one of the chief culprits.  A great example of this can be found in the Congressional arguments surrounding the Cod Fishery Bill of 1792, a bill to subsidize the Cod Fishing industry.  In this, James Madison defines the proper nature of government to a House wanting to unconstitutionally expand its power and reach.

Not an Indefinite Government but a Limited Government

Madison says, “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, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

General Welfare Does Not Mean Generally Everything

Yes, we are supposed to have a limited and defined federal government.  Madison was very simply explaining that the clause “common defense and general welfare” was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries.  In other words, this clause does not name a power; it simply describes the purpose for the powers named.  Then with amazing foresight, Madison explains the consequence of allowing the federal government to turn these “clauses” into defined powers:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

Limitless Spending Changes the Very Nature of the Republic

Madison, in describing the consequences of this forced construction of the Constitution, prophesies for our day.

“…I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

Government Charity Dangerous Precedent

Yet, America did not listen. In 1831, Congress once again attempts to reconstruct its powers through the artifice of “charity.”  This time, the argument is about supplying wood for the Poor of Georgetown.  The Mayor of Georgetown sent a letter to the House of Representatives asking for relief of the poor of that city and soliciting the House to grant a donation of some wood in the vaults of the capitol for their use.  This sparked a forgotten, yet a very relevant debate for this day.

Congress Cannot Give Public Property For Charity

The first to speak up was Congressman James Polk (D-TN), the future 11th President of the United States.  In showing a moral character and commitment to the Constitution that is rarely seen today, Polk said he knew it would be viewed as being ungracious to oppose a resolution in behalf of the suffering poor of this District, or any other. However, he went on to oppose the resolution of the House to offer this support as “the precedent of appropriating the public funds for such a purpose was a bad one.  He reasoned that if they allowed this seemingly small act of charity, then “every winter, when the snow fell, or the Potomac was frozen, applications would be made to Congress, and members would be engaged in the dignified object of buying and stowing wood, to give to the poor District of Columbia.”  Polk opposed this spending on principle, as the House “had not the power to make the donation requested.” And what began with Georgetown would blossom into dependency throughout the nation. It was not the amount he objected to, but that the “representatives came to legislate on great concerns of the nation, not to give away the public property.” He made a final plea to the House, with their vote, to “put a check” on legislative power.

The next to argue was James Blair, Congressman from South Carolina.  Blair gets right to the point; that it is not in the power of Congress to give out donations from the public treasury for the purposes of charity.  He correctly reasons:

“If so, it would have power also to vote millions of the public money to feed and clothe the suffering poor.  The House had no right to give away the public money for any such purpose; and if gentlemen were disposed to be liberal, let them be liberal out of their own money.”

Polk then moved the floor for the following substitute, by way of amendment:

“That the Sergeant-at-arms be required to deduct from the compensation of the members of this House on day’s pay, and deliver said sum to the Mayor of Georgetown, to be applied to purchase fuel for the paupers of that town: Provided, nevertheless, that such deduction shall be made from the compensation of such members only as vote in favor of the resolution.”

I believe our representatives could learn several lessons from this:

  1. The money collected from the people is NOT revenue but PUBLIC PROPERTY.
  2. In spending public property Congress is limited by the proper confines of the Constitution, not ones established through forced construction.
  3. Personal moral integrity could inhibit Congress from violating points 1 and 2.

Let ours be the generation that listens from the framers and their experience.  Let ours be the generation that avoids what others called the inevitable demise of a Republican government.  Let ours be the generation that can claim the victory of Liberty for our future generations.

“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

victor 207x300

Article II Section 4: The Impeachment of Eric Holder

/in /by

Through Article II section 4 of the Constitution, the people have delegated a great power to Congress to remove certain members of government from office.  A careful reading of this section shows that Congress has the power to remove not only the President and the Vice President but ALL civil officers.  One standard for removal is conviction of a high crime or misdemeanor.   The language of this clause is very clear even using legally demanding language.   This clause in the Supreme Law of our land demands Congress to act as they did when Former President Clinton was impeached for contempt.

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~ Article II Section 4 US Constitution

We know Presidents and Vice Presidents are impeachable, but have we forgotten the third category of people in this clause: all civil officers?  Eric Holder is a civil officer.  Eric Holder is a civil officer that has been found in contempt.  The Constitution therefore DEMANDS that Congress remove Eric Holder from office.  So what are they doing?  Last report in the mainstream media is that they are going to “sue” him in civil court.  Sue him?  The Constitution does not offer that option, however it does demand he be removed from office.  I think at this time it is relevant to point out that Article II section 4 does not have a stipulation that removal from office is only necessary in non-election years. All employees are required to fulfill their job description regardless of what time of the year it is, and Congress should be no exception.  Have they forgotten that they took an oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION?

Honestly, how can Congress possibly live up to their oath when they apparently have no understanding of what the Constitution means and their job requirement within it?  Then again, we give them no training.  If we were running a business and the members of congress were employees of that business, We The People would be in danger of a lawsuit for negligent supervision of our employees.  Negligent supervision occurs when an employer fails to properly train its employees and the employees commit an act of negligence as a result of their lack of proper training.   We are not training our congressional employees and they are committing negligent acts that are resulting in the destruction of our Constitution.

Many of us received and email from Congress demanding that the people remove Eric Holder from office. The email reveals that Congress is either shirking its duty and passing the buck to the people or is unaware of their obligation under Article II section 4.

It’s time for Attorney General Holder to step aside. He’s misled Congress, and entirely botched the investigation of the Operation Fast and Furious debacle — yet he still leads our nation’s Justice Department. It’s just another example of the Obama Administration’s transparent hypocrisy that despite the tragic and very human toll of this scandal, Attorney General Holder refuses to resign — and President Obama refuses to remove him.

WE the People MUST restore justice to the Justice Department.

So, is Congress inadequately trained or do they simply feel too burdened by their responsibilities?  Are they truly overwhelmed by their duty to support and defend the Constitution?  Are they really looking to their employers, We The People, for relief as the email assert: “it’s up to the American people?”

If our employees are unable to do their job, perhaps we need to put out some help wanted ads.  Perhaps, this time we need to list plainly and clearly what the job requirements are and demand those who are hired have the proper training and exhibit a proven proficiency in the very object of their oath: the Constitution of the United States.  If we do not, then We The People, the employers, are guilty of negligent supervision and our children will suffer the consequences of our negligence.

American Call to Action

/in , /by

As given at the Day of Prayer and Unity Rally at the Texas State Capitol, Austin, Texas June 22, 2013

WATCH the video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/Qfy25stQtLc

Benjamin Franklin reminded his people as they engaged in the debates over the foundation of this nation:

“In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine Protection- all of us who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor.  Have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”

Because we have forgotten that powerful Friend- we do not find ourselves in an economic crisis, we are not in a political crisis, and may I just lift the veil of illusion, we are not in a national security crisis.  Because we have forgotten that powerful Friend we find ourselves in a MORAL crisis.  This moral crisis has led to a loss of honor in this nation- a loss of honor in our government.

What is honor?  Honor is integrity plus character working together in the mechanisms of morality.  Integrity is not doing the wrong thing.  Character is doing what is right just because it is right, even if it is not politically advantageous or popular.  Lack of Honor in this nation has the immoral leading the Justice Department, the immoral leading the IRS, the immoral leading our Congress and the immoral leading the White House.  And now this immorality has infected the Supreme Court.  Where the highest court of the land is no longer bound to the highest law of the land and can declare, without any conviction whatsoever, that I have no rights unless I declare them.  Because we have forgotten that powerful Friend, we have forgotten that our rights do not come from government, our rights do not come from the Supreme Court- Our rights come from God and I don’t have to declare them, our framers already did!

But losers point fingers and winners fix problems.  It’s time to stop pointing fingers and start working to recover our Constitution, recover our Liberty, and recover our faith. But we will ONLY succeed if we remember that powerful Friend.  We must remember we are not a reflection of our government; our government is a reflection of its people and those with honor, those with character, those with integrity are not reflecting very brightly.

If a sparrow cannot fall to the earth without God knowing, is it possible for a nation to prosper without His aid?  We must fix this problem; our future depends upon it, our children are depending upon us!  Sam Adams said:

“If we tamely suffer a lawless attack on liberty, we encourage it.  Doing nothing is NOT doing nothing.  He is explaining to us, that sitting around complaining is not doing nothing it is actually being a cheerleader for tyranny!  He says, if we tamely suffer a lawless attack on tyranny, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.  It is a serious consideration, as ages and millions yet unborn will be the miserable sharers of our experience.  The liberty we lose today is not ours.  We are living in the luxury of liberty bought with the sacrifices of generations that have come before us.  The liberty that we squander today is the liberty of ages and millions yet unborn.

I always find it ironic, that our framers said over and over again that they were pledging Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor for ages and millions yet unborn, they gave everything they had to give because they knew the unborn had a right to liberty. But how do we treat the unborn today?  We don’t even give them the right to life!  If we want to put honor back in government, we MUST put God back in our homes and back in our education.  Patriots, it is time to start reflecting God!  So we have a government that reflects morality.

If America is to perish from the earth it will not be because of bullets and bombs- it will be because we have forgotten that powerful Friend.  And it won’t be because of me, it will be in spite of me.  I am going to fight, I will labor, I will toil until my last breath to ensure that we have a Constitution that will ensure that ages an millions yet unborn will enjoy the liberty that men and women have died for so that WE could enjoy Liberty.   Daniel Webster addressed his people, on July 4, 1806 and asked, “Is our Constitution worth preserving?”  I ask you that question today?  Is our Constitution worth preserving?  He said,

“then, guard it as you would the very seat of your life.  Guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against those seeds of change.  Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again.  Such a government once destroyed would leave a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with riot, tumult, despotism, and revolution.”

Is our Constitution worth preserving? You see we have all the motivation we need right here in this room.  Will all those under the age of 25 please stand?  I travel all over this country.  I am sometimes away from my family for 3 weeks or more at a time.  The only motivation I need , I want to show you, because it is the only motivation I need, is in the eyes of these young people.  We have a responsibility, our Constitution demands it.  We don’t have a Constitution to create a government, we have a Constitution, as it proclaims, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  Our Liberty has been secured for us now it’s time for us to pick up that mantle and secure it for them.  So as you walk through your life from this day forward and lock eyes with these young people, no matter where you go, the only question that can come to your mind is this, “what have I done to secure their liberty today?”  It is a daily question, it is a daily challenge, a daily responsibility.  And if you cannot answer in the affirmative, then you have answered already with Daniel Webster’s call, “a government once destroyed will have a void to be filled.”  And if you have done nothing to secure their liberty today, what you are doing is condemning them to “perhaps with centuries of riot, tumult, despotisms and revolution.”  Which one of generations do you want to condemn to the pits of slavery?

It is our turn to pick up that mantle, so that these young people will not have to buy back a gift that we were supposed to purchase for them.  They will not have the luxury of doing it from the ballot box or through petition, they will be forced to do it with their blood.  Winston Churchill said,

“still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when the victory is sure and not too costly, you may have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.  Yet, there may even be a worse case.  You may have to fight, when there is no hope of victory, for it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

So America, we have a mantle to pick up, we have a charge to take.  It is time for you to get on your knees and beg the God who is the author of mercy for the mercy he has to give to us, for the grace he has to give to us, for the strength that it is going to take to stand against this framework of the antichrist that is flourishing in front of our faces. Get on your knees and pray to that powerful Friend.

And when you are done praying, STAND.   Stand for God.  Stand for good.  Stand for all that is right and true.  Stand for the Constitution.  Stand for Liberty.  Stand against the fiery darts of tyranny.

And having done all, Patriots, remember that powerful Friend and STAND!