Open Letter re: "Gun Legislation"

/in /by

Our government is traveling down a very dangerous road. We have neglected our duties as responsible employers and we are about to pay a dear price. We must arm ourselves with the truth to educate our employees and assist them in doing the right thing. The following is an open letter to our Senators and Representatives to educate them in this “gun debate” and allow them to make the right decisions. By giving this information, we not only educate them, but we identify which employees are willing to do the right and which are not. If we do not educate, they can claim ignorance. If we provide them with the proper tools and they refuse to use them and continue to destroy our Constitution, we must mark them as enemies and eliminate their ability to do further destruction.

Please assist me in educating our Senators. Please share this letter. Send it to them multiple times, so to be sure they KNOW we are serious.

Thank you,

In Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

Dear Senator,

Today, as you begin to debate so-called “gun legislation” please consider the following four points:

1. The nature of this legislation. This is NOT “gun legislation” this is 2nd Amendment legislation. Our right to bear arms is a RIGHT given to us by God, not a privilege granted through legislation. It is not something that is up for legislative control. Would we so easily accept “religion legislation”?

2. The sanctity of the 2nd Amendment.

What does the phrase “shall not be infringed mean?” The words are not complicated, they are not elusive. In the legal world, when a judge sees the words “shall not” there is no discussion to be had. It means, literally ‘SHALL NOT,’ completely disallowed, impermissible. It should mean the same to Congress. Noah Webster defined the word “infringed” as “to break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey.” The right to bears arms shall not be broken, shall not be violated, shall not be transgressed. The 2nd amendment shall be fulfilled, shall be obeyed. That is a very clear boundary, not mutable in any way. You don’t need to fully eradicate something for it to be violated or transgressed. Simply placing a hand on something can violate the sanctity of that object. Therefore, the only correct answer to the question, “what does ‘shall not be infringed’ mean?” is as follows: The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be touched!

3. The purpose of the 2nd amendment.

WHY do we have the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights? Contrary to popular belief, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting, skeet shooting, gun-collecting nor even self-defense from robbers and muggers.

The framers of this nation made it extremely clear why this right is to be protected.

According to George Mason, we bear arms to keep from becoming ‘slaves’ to our government: “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advise …to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

According to Noah Webster, we bear arms to prevent the government from using a standing army to enforce unjust, unconstitutional, and oppressive laws on the people: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed…The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed…A force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional…jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive”

According to Richard Henry Lee, we bear arms to preserve Liberty: “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms…”

According to Patrick Henry, we bear arms to overthrow tyrants: “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”

It is notable that the framers declared a “right to bear arms” not a right to “own muskets”. Arms meant the same to them as did to the Supreme Court in 1939. (See United States v. Miller, 307, 174 (U.S 1939) issuing the opinion recognizing that the second amendment protects the people’s right to bear the same arms as the military.)

Therefore, the only correct answer as to WHY our right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights is as follows: The whole body of the people has the right to bear arms to preserve liberty, prevent the government from enforcing unjust, unconstitutional, oppressive laws; to keep from becoming enslaved by our government and to overthrow tyrants.

4. The process for altering the 2nd amendment. This legislation, being 2nd Amendment legislation, is wholly unconstitutional as the 2nd Amendment can ONLY be modified through the Amendment Process.

Be it known that if you continue down this unconstitutional path in your assault upon the Liberty of the American people and upon the foundations of this nation, you will be marked as a tyrant and an enemy of Liberty. We the people, being the only legitimate source of power in this nation, demand that you honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Sincerely and In Liberty,

Your Employers

Obamacare: Who Runs Your Life?

/in /by

Thomas Paine wrote on December 23, 1776, “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.” Our founders stood against taxes and government mandated purchases. The colonists demanded that the British Government recognize that their Constitutions did not authorize this type of government control. As a result, the British Government repealed several laws, to include the Stamp Act. This might be a happy ending except the government was not willing to let go of this power; they were simply appeasing the people. The government did recognize the Constitution did not authorize their exercise of power, so they remedied that “oversight” by passing a law called the Declaratory Act.

The Declaratory Act was a legislative act that declared the government “has, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.” In addition to expanding the powers of the government, this act stated that all “resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations” that even questioned the government’s authority are “declared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.” The government now only needed to prove that the each law was “fit for the good of the empire” to justify its mandates. Thomas Paine and his fellow countrymen recognized that when the government declares for itself unlimited power, there is no limit on the intrusion into and control over the lives of the citizenry.

In the NEW DECLARATORY ACT, Obamacare, the government has declared that they have a “compelling governmental interest” in every aspect of our daily lives, literally a power to “bind us in all cases whatsoever.” The original argument against Obamacare was that if the government can force us to purchase healthcare, they can force us to purchase anything. This objection remains true. The mandate of one purchase establishes the precedent of future mandates. To argue otherwise is a denial of the very principles upon which our government has come to operate. Unwelcomed intrusion into our lives and the lack of control over our own decisions will only increase as Obamacare and its underlying philosophy fundamentally transforms the landscape of liberty.

CVS, a major retail chain, recently told its employees that because of the new Obamacare costs, they must now “reveal their height, weight, body fat percentage and other personal information for health insurance purposes.” CVS feels it must “incentivize healthy living” to justify providing healthcare to that employee. Make no mistake, this is the very thought process our government will adopt to justify its intrusion into your life. The Supreme Court has determined the only criteria needed to justify the government regulating any aspect of your life is proof of a “compelling governmental interest,” which does not sound much different than the British standard of “fit for the good of the empire.” Now that the Supreme Court has declared the mandate to purchase healthcare is a compelling governmental interest, the government will have a compelling governmental interest in promoting “healthy living.” Within that compelling governmental interest will be the government’s right to determine how “healthy living” is defined and what the recipients of its healthcare must do to ensure compliance with the government’s standards of “healthy living.” These standards are already being pushed forward.

Just last year, the White House, through its “healthy living” incentives, endorsed by Michelle Obama, pressured Mc Donalds into redesigning its children’s Happy Meals, forcing them to provide fruit in addition to fries, whether the parents wanted them or not.

A compelling governmental interest currently justifies the government in enforcing Food Safety Modernization Act that gives the authority to regulate roadside produce markets and opens the door for the government to regulate your home garden. The FDA is currently employing SWAT teams to raid small farms and markets to seize raw milk and cheese because THEY have determined them to be contrary to “healthy living” and therefore have “a public health duty” to confiscate them. (Is this the “army” Thomas Paine was referring to?)

Let us not forget NY Mayor Bloomberg’s attack on “sugary drinks” and cigarettes, citing “healthy living” and even death prevention as the motivation to control people in their consumption of these items.

Recently the Center for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report that parents who feed their children solid food before the age of 4 months are jeopardizing their child’s health. In a clear declaration that the government knows more about a child than its mother, the CDC condemns ignorant and penny-pinching parents for feeding their children solid food before the government has determined them to be old enough to eat it. How long before the government starts mandating baby feeding regimens, authorizing doctors to interrogate parents and requiring them to report parents who dare to feed their child contrary to government regulations?

Acceptance of Obamacare at the State level sends a clear message to Washington DC that our States will allow the federal government to “bind us in all cases whatsoever.” Thomas Paine called that Slavery…we call it a compelling governmental interest. Will we accept servitude in exchange for free stuff? Or will we defend Liberty and refuse to comply with these unlawful and unconstitutional mandates? The answer to these questions will determine what kind of country future generations will inherit.

Obamacare-We Have No Choice? A Letter to Your Representative

/in /by

Has your representative responded to your concerns over Obamacare with the suggestion that there is no choice but to submit to this federal Act because the Supreme Court or the Supremacy Clause requires it? If so, he has just indicated his Constitutional ignorance. DO NOT ACCEPT this as the final word on this matter. DEMAND your representative engage in a rational dialogue with you.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; Obamacare is NOT about healthcare, it is about accepting an unlimited federal government and the destruction of the Constitution. Require your representative to make a choice.

Holding our elected employees accountable means engaging in a proper dialogue and requiring reasoned and intelligent responses. Don’t quit after the first letter. Keep pushing them into accountability and then follow that accountability with consequences.

Here is my suggested response to this ignorance that will sell our children into slavery. IF your representative refuses to respond, send it again and again. IF your representative still refuses to respond, he has admitted to the undeniable conclusions in this letter and CANNOT BE REELECTED; even if that means the opponent wins. How can I say this? “Because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” ~Winston Churchill.

Dear Representative,

I have received your response to my concerns over the PPACA. You have stated that you believe we are bound by this federal Act because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution requires it and the Supreme Court of the United States, in their ruling, demands it. Your understanding of this Act deeply concerns me. As a constituent who is responsible for the position you hold, I expect you to maintain a dialogue with me on this issue and will not accept your explanation as the final word in this matter.

When the PPACA was first passed, there was an immediate alarm heard across the nation. The primary concern that fueled the multiple law suits against this Act, of whom you were a supporter, was that if the federal government can force the States and its people to purchase healthcare, what can’t they force us to purchase? Have we forgotten that valid argument? Has the Supreme Court’s ruling somehow altered that conclusion? Surely the Supremacy Clause existed when we felt this alarm. What has changed? Nothing. The Supreme Court did nothing in their ruling to eliminate the inescapable reality that the federal government now has no limitation in binding its citizens to purchase mandated objects. The Supremacy Clause still requires the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, over all other laws and treaties.

Does the Supremacy Clause create a situation where federal law is supreme over the Constitution? If it did, it would create a paradox. How could it be that a federal government, defined and limited by the Constitution, could pass a law that is supreme to the Constitution? What would then be the limitations of the federal government? Do we believe that the Commerce or General Welfare clauses can create an unlimited government that can bind us in all cases whatsoever? The FATHER of the Constitution says that CANNOT be.

Neither the Commerce Clause nor the General Welfare Clause can authorize the federal government to bind the States without limit; and neither can the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. If we acquiesce to an interpretation of the Constitution that establishes NO LIMITS to the federal government, what in the world is the point of the Constitution? Why do we even have a Republican government? The FATHER of the Constitution warns us:

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

I am sure that you agree that we did not establish a monarchy in this nation. Logic dictates that James Madison is correct in stating that a government that is not limited is one that is a monarchy. If the federal limitations established by the Constitution be expanded by decree of the federal government itself then there is no limit to its reach. A mandate to purchase healthcare is a mandate to purchase anything the government chooses.

The question remains can the Supreme Court transform our federal government into an unlimited government? The Supreme Court is, after all, a PART of the federal government. How can the federal government have the authority to determine its own limitations?

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the –States-… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…” James Madison

If we are to have a Constitutionally limited government it is incumbent upon our elected representatives to maintain those limitations. We CANNOT allow the federal government to define its own powers and limitations, else we allow the federal government to transform itself into a monarchy. I am sure you will agree that no man is perfect and all governments are capable of making error in judgment. That is precisely why the framers of this nation created a government with MULTIPLE checks and balances. YOU are a part of that system; YOU are one of those checks. We are requiring you to do your job and maintain a limited federal government so that the people can maintain their Liberty.

Honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution, NOT the federal government. You must know, as Alexander Hamilton declared, “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution, NOT the federal government. You must stand against a federal government that can mandate purchases and therefore bind it’s the people of this nation in all things they choose. Listen to the warning of Thomas Paine:

“Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but ‘to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER’ and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

Let me reiterate…We MUST maintain a dialogue in this matter. I cannot accept your recent communication as a final word. I am therefore expecting a reasonable response to the concerns stated in this letter. If I do not receive a response, I will have no other choice to then understand that you do not accept these facts to be true. I will then be forced to believe:

1. You support an unlimited federal government;

2. You feel no obligation to fulfill your role as a check against unlimited federal power;

3. You agree that the federal government can bind the people of this nation in any circumstance they feel fit;

4. You support the forced slavery of the citizens of this state.

If that is the case, you have failed as our elected employee. As a rational person I am sure you can agree that we cannot maintain an employee who refuses to communicate with a supervisor and supports behavior that will destroy the company. As reasonable owners of this Constitutional Republic, who wholly respect and sovereignly reverence the price paid for this company, we cannot allow that to happen.

I will be waiting for your prompt and reasonable reply.

Sincerly,

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