Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night

By R. Altomare, Founder of BreathEasy

January 11, 2022

Have you ever wondered what the Truman Show would have looked like if Truman had been treated poorly by his actor/neighbors instead of everyone’s best friend?

How badly do you suppose Christof could have abused Truman from his lofty, moon-based perch?

Furthermore, how would Truman have responded to such consistent maltreatment?

Would he resist? Would he knuckle under assuming his treatment were normal? Or would he go insane? From where I’m sitting now, I think we’ve seen all three of these possibilities in just the last two years, no? We are all Truman now...

And if Truman ever did push back against the tyranny that he lived under his entire life, what do you suppose the final straw be before he threw down his smart, brown leather attaché and roared,

“No more!”

Personally, for my money, I think it would be the constant drip, drip, drip of naked hypocrisy that we see exhibited by our (unaudited) ‘elected’ officials, lo these past 2 years that would finally send Truman over the edge towards action. Why? Because hypocrisy is such a personal insult, that it is difficult to countenance.

And I have to say, it’s getting hard to keep up with these fools, now. It’s coming pretty fast, and I’m getting pretty furious.

If you’ll remember, last week I wrote a piece on the nation’s Usefullest Idiot, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (OMG AOC). In that piece, I wrote about how Daddy’s Little Congresswoman fled to Free Florida to vacation while her constituents (more than the whole state of West Virginia according to her latest Cortez-ism) were left to shiver through their masks in NY.

Well, it turns out her comrade, America’s Prom King wannabe and first runner-up in the Hypocrisy Olympics, Eric “Honey Pot” Swalwell, was also just spotted lounging in the lobby of a Miami hotel just a few days after her visit and after having tweeted in December:

“As we end 2021, mired in a deadly pandemic, you should know who has prolonged it. THESE GUYS. Republican liars. Your vacation cancelled. Your kids back to virtual learning. And back to masks everywhere. For blame look no farther than #theseguys”

Not ‘everywhere,’ you jack-hole.

Which of course explains why “Honey Pot” was in Miami in the first place. Because when you are a supposedly ‘elected’ official (from an unaudited election) you are not only immune to any number of virulent strains of sickness rumored to be spreading across the land like an Antifa-caused wildfire in the Pacific Northwest, you are ALSO immune from your own illegal demands on the serfs you rule.

Now, the fact that "Honey Pot” was seen mask-less in Free Florida and proving once again that there is nothing to fear from the WuFlu is not my point. Nor is my point that he demonstrates for everyone that he is a raging hypocrite and walking security risk.

No, my point is that these puppets politicians are so stupid that they can’t even be bothered to pretend anymore. They have seemingly given up any pretense and are now so consistently acting out their inner despot so often that I’m starting to wonder if we’re not all on some hidden camera show. Does Candid Camera have a C-SPAN version? Is there a Christof in our moon, too?

And, as if the gruesome twosome weren’t enough, it turns out that Geraldo “Tomb-Raider” Rivera was also vacationing in Free Florida recently. There’s no word yet on the price of tickets to this Traitor Convention but I bet the swag bags were filled with the sweat of another man’s brow.

And lo and behold, Geraldo claims to have gotten the WuFlu, too. Watching his admission on live television was a sight to behold. This poor sap claimed to be “fully” vaccinated (whatever that means now) and up to date on his now-monthly (?) booster shots and yet still contracted the scourge of the common cold. I’ll say this, though: he legitimately looked stupefied at how such a thing could have happened, unless that’s just his face now.

Now, because patriots fully understand and appreciate the levels of depravity and coordination that exists between the ‘government’ and the ‘press,’ there are now rumors that these claims of sickness by OMG and Tomb Raider are to be used as an attempt to smear Free Florida’s liberty and its governor, Ron DeSantis.

Never let a nasty case of the sniffles go to waste...amirite?

If Eric “Honey Pot” Swalwell claims to have gotten sick after his jaunt down to Free Florida to definitely NOT meet up with a Chinese spy, we’ll see these fools for exactly what they are: enemies of a Free Republic;

...oh, and fools.

Yours in the Fight,

R. Altomare

Founder of BreathEasy

Find Patriot Businesses, Spread the Word, Live Your Life.

Breathez.org

Share this post

The Latvian Constitution makes guarantees of certain human rights, to include the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”  The Latvian Constitution even codifies, in section 99, that separation of church and state is a fundamental right.  All of that is true in Latvia, unless a certain prosecutor general happens to disagree with your Christian beliefs, then your rights as a Latvian become subject to arbitrary and discriminatory attacks and threats of fines and permanent shutdowns.  This is the current experience of New Generation Church, its pastor Alexei Ledyaev and several thousand members nationwide. 

On November 10, 2021 Latvian Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, filed a petition against New Generation Church, its pastor and members for refusing to comply with mandates that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and for criticizing government.  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s disregard for fundamental human rights is rivaled only by his disregard for facts.

The Latvian people have written their Constitution to consent to a limited government authority which is established to protect and defend the fundamental human rights of every Latvian.  Among those fundamental human rights are freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The Latvian Constitution, section 93 establishes that the government of Latvia must protect “everyone’s” right to life.  Section 96 puts the Latvian government on notice that “everyone” has an “inviolable” right to their private life, home, and correspondence.  This right would have to extend to verbal as well as written correspondences, otherwise the right itself would be nullified.  This understanding of the extensive nature of the inviolable right to all correspondence agrees with section 100 of Chapter VII of the Latvian Constitution: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep, and distribute information and to express his or her views.”  All should recognize that people ought to speak well of their governments, when they deserve to be spoken well of: but to remain silent in the presence of an abuse of power is only the right and joy of tyrants.  A free people will know they are free by their freeness of speech.  Section 100 of the Latvian Constitution specifically says, “Censorship is prohibited.”  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns inclusion of accusations against the church for “criticizing government” serves as proof of the lawless violate nature of the Petition.

Contrary to the claims of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition, it is not New Generation Church that is violating the law; it is Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns who is violating the law of the Latvian Constitution, violating his duty to the people, and operating in direct and explicit violation of the rights of the People of New Generation Church.

The Latvian people have also declared that all Latvians “shall be equal before the law” and have the “right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court” being “presumed innocent” until proven guilty.  Sections 94 and 95 state:

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.  No one may be deprived of or have their liberty restricted, otherwise than in accordance with law.  The State shall protect human honour and dignity.

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns implies that the exercise of one’s religious beliefs are not an essential service to life.  However, all of history and humanity contrasts with this assertion.  Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead gave a truly relevant and powerful explanation of the fundamental nature of religious liberty and the essential right to practice that religion. 

Religious and other beliefs and convictions are part of the humanity of every individual. They are an integral part of his personality and individuality. In a civilised society individuals respect each other’s beliefs. This enables them to live in harmony. This is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society… This freedom is not confined to freedom to hold a religious belief. It includes the right to express and practise one's beliefs. Without this, freedom of religion would be emasculated.^[1]

James Madison, author of the American Constitution and advocate for the defense of the Natural Rights of the people, stated this in his essay on the inherent rights of all humanity:

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.^[2]

When we understand the principles both Lord Nicholls and James Madison describe, we must conclude that one’s religious beliefs and their practice are vital elements of “Human Dignity” and “Life,” making Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s declarations a violation of Latvian Constitution, written specifically to protect such fundamental rights.  Although Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns may argue that the Latvian Constitution establishes that certain rights “may be subject to restrictions,” a baseless and arbitrary order to cease and desist the entire operation of the churches of thousands of people is not a restriction, it is an obliteration.

If the Latvian Constitution declares in section 101 that “every citizen of Latvia has the right, as provided for by law, to participate in the work of the State and local government…” which the current government has deemed essential, how can Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns legitimately assert that the exercise of religion, as codified in section 100, is less of a right by declaring freedom of worship non-essential?

Additionally, the facts at hand completely contradict Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accusations.  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accuses New Generation Church of violating the indoor occupancy rules for the COVID-19 orders.  The fact is, New Generation Church has gone above and beyond the demands of government for indoor occupancy and has taken extra measures to ensure the cleanliness and safe environment of the church. 

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns however offers no proof, whatsoever, that New Generation Church is a threat to the community. 

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns offers no proof that any one person within New Generation Church has become ill or been the cause of further infection in the community because his or her attendance in the church. 

As a matter of fact, because certain government facilities and shopping places remain open, it would be impossible to assert that the church was any more of a threat to the health and safety of the community than a government facility or a store. These accusations give the impression that the prosecutor has an axe to grind.

• • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is not providing New Generation Church with “equal protection before the law” as required in section 92 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is interfering with the New Generation members’ free exercise of the right to “liberty and security of their person” by denying them their right to due process and equal protection under the law contrary to sections 93 and 94 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is violating, not protecting, the “human honour and dignity” as required of him in section 95 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is attempting to censor the pastors and members of New Generation Church in direct conflict with section 96 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is assaulting the fundamental inviolable rights of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion of the pastors and members of New Generation Church as given to them by God and codified in the Latvian Constitution.

Let it be understood; Constitutions do not grant rights to the people.   Constitutions are a covenant by the people that create government for the sole purpose of protecting, defending, and securing the people’s inherent rights. Governments are instituted among the people deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  Constitutions are the written declarations of that consent.  Listen to this relevant analysis from the Supreme Court of the United States:

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of its legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.^[3] 

Therefore, the act of any single agent of the government contrary to the Constitution is also unjust, unlawful, and void of legitimate authority.

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is contrary to multiple provisions of the Constitution of Latvia, therefore this Petition, by all legal, social, and moral justifications, is without legitimate authority.  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is a violation of the rights of the people and the purpose of the power of the Latvian government.  To say otherwise is to declare Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns an autonomous agent who is not bound by the supreme law of the land.

If the government and its agents are not limited and defined by the Constitution and the rights of the people are not protected by the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, then one must ask, what is the limit to government power and what is the actual purpose of that declaration within the Latvian Constitution?

When one studies the years of political and social crisis that led to the drafting the Constitution of Latvia and to the adoption of the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, Latvians should resist setting aside these vital protections for any reason.  The words of the Supreme Court of the United ought to carry the same power and impact in Latvia as they do in the United States:

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency.  Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.^[4]

The Petition of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is an arbitrary attack of the rights of every Latvian.   The question every Latvian will have to ask is:  Will the government be confined to the limits of its power as defined in these foundational documents or will the government be allowed to attempt to “emasculate” the church through unjust and discriminatory laws?  Latvians must demand equal application of the laws.  If it is safe to meet in the store, if it is safe to meet in a government gathering, it must be equally safe, if not safer, to meet in the church. 

Now the People of Latvia must make a choice.  Do you stand for the inherent and inalienable Rights given to you by God, or do you submit to draconian and violative demands made upon you by government officials that look more like dictators than servants of the people?  Do you wish to remain free, or trade away the freedom given to you by those who sacrificed to give it to you?  If the Latvian government will not condemn and withdraw the Petition put forward by Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, the people of Latvia must collectively make a public condemnation, to the saving and securing of their own rights.  If Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns can be allowed to violate the Latvian Constitution and the most sacred rights of humanity with impunity, then no Latvian is secure in their rights.

Finally, but not least, the people of the world must make a choice.  Do we allow our brothers and sisters in other countries have their natural and inviolable rights trampled upon by their government with our silent permission?  Make no mistake, silence is consent.  If the history of the world does not condemn us for our past silence in the face of government oppression it must embolden us to speak up today.

 Learn more about the History of the US Constitution and its proper application at LibertyFirstSociety.com

^[1] Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) and others [2005] UKHL 15.

^[2] James Madison, Property. National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

^[3] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

^[4] Home Bldg. L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).

Share this post

January 3, 2022 

Robert Altomare, Founder of the BreathEasy App. Coming Soon 

www.breathez.org 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is the Ignorant Communist gift to Conservative, Free Market satirists that keeps on giving. I mean, really, who were the applicants they decided against when they were picking who to run in the election?? 

In recent weeks, this walking/talking cautionary tale has graced us with three, count them: 3, examples of what Stalin meant by ‘useful idiot.’ And I swear to God, I don’t know how she pulled it off, but this ignoramus has managed to be both a self-important, narcissistic apparatchik and demonstrated a lack of self-awareness so great that it rivals Joe Brandon, but without that pesky, pant-crapping dementia (or so I’m told).  

Let’s start with an article I ran across a week or so ago by David Harsanyi entitled, AOC’s Grasp on American Governance is a ‘Farce’ which came out on Christmas Eve on townhall.com. In it Harsanyi describes AOC’s foot stomping little hissy fit about Joe Manchin torpedoing the Build Back Better raid of the American Treasury. Harsanyi quotes AOC as complaining that Senator Manchin engaged in an “egregious breach” of President Brandon’s “trust” when he refused to support the legislation. Further, she groused, “The idea that Joe Manchin says that he can’t explain this back home to his people is a farce.” 

While I appreciated Harsanyi’s article and I felt it was well-written and insightful, he DID miss a key implication of AOC’s stupid (not ignorant) statement. And seeing her statement for what it implies gives us all the information we need to understand that there is no arguing with these enemies of a Free Republic. What’s the old saw about wrestling a pig…? 

You see, Manchin is approaching the topic from the perspective of representative government and that he still has an obligation to explain to West Virginians his vote. Why? Because they (purportedly and without a vote audit) sent him to Washington to represent the interests of Wild and Wonderful West Virginia.  

But if you read AOC’s caterwauling about President Brandon’s ‘broken trust’ in Manchin, she is unequivocally stating that Manchin’s loyalties should lay with the Party and not the people who sent him to Washington in the first place. She is almost explicit in her statement. She states that the interests of West Virginia must be negotiated in Washington DC and only then will the people’s fates be revealed and 'defended.’ Her statement implies the underpinning and assumptions embedded in her thinking: that government is to rule the people, not represent them. Sickening. 

Separately, just the other day AOC provided yet more grist for the pity mill when she tweeted the following,  

“If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet. Ya creepy weirdos.” She continued with, “it’s starting to get old ignoring the very obvious, strange, and deranged sexual frustrations that underpin the Republican fixation on me, women, & LGBT+ people in general.” 

Wait…what? Mad we can’t date her? Is that what she said? Are we being punked? This imbecile is a walking SNL skit…if SNL were funny. How is it AOC can embody both comedy and tragedy at the same time? Quite the trick... 

Let me just say that, as a bachelor who’s been around the block a time or two, can I just ask the obvious question? What in God’s name could possibly be at all attractive about a girl pretending to be a woman?  

What I see underlying her stupid (not ignorant) statement is that AOC still has the mentality of the young girl working behind the bar. She is so used to getting hit on by drunk Chads that she stupidly (not ignorantly) believes that real (and sober) men find her equally attractive outside the dim lights of a bar. She has no frame of reference other than her former workplace where low cut shirts and Daisy Duke cutoffs juice the tip jar.  

“But I’m a Congresswoman!” No, Miss. You are a toddler wearing your mother’s heels and pretending to be a grown-up. Just as Jordan Peterson refuses forced speech, I will similarly refuse to call you an adult.  

Follow up question: What do you suppose her eHarmony profile looks like? 

And finally, rounding out number three in the AOC stupidity Olympics, we have her showing up in Free Florida, maskless, with her boyfriend (you suppose they met at the bar?) sipping drinks while her actual constituency is left behind in NYC, masked up and fearing the next lockdown. If hypocrisy were a crime, she certainly wouldn’t get arrested since we all know that the Communists believe in a two-tiered judicial system. But maybe it’s a good thing that hypocrisy isn’t against the law? Or at least, it doesn’t matter.  

Why? Because under the old rules of the game, her visit to Free Florida would never be made public due to the completely and utterly compromised ‘free press’ that would bury such a revelation. Under the old rules, AOC’s absence from the wan spotlight of political theatre would be explained away with a simple alibi of “visiting old friends” or “getting over a mild cold.”   

But those Good Ole Days are long gone and it seems that these idiot communists simply haven’t gotten the memo (which is good for us) that we are paying attention now. These hypocrites continue acting as if the old rules are still in play when in fact, literally everyone with a phone is a citizen reporter now. Just ask Project Veritas founder, James O’Keefe how he got his start. 

And the more these fools continue to act foolishly, the more consistently the message will be delivered to the People that you must obey and that they aim to rule you. The good news is that this message will be consistently delivered precisely because these idiots can’t stop acting out their despotic and hypocritic tendencies. Fine with me, honestly; We see you now. 

Given all this then, how can we possibly engage with AOC on any substantive issue? She is a spoiled child playing pretend and demanding obedience from the people she treats not as individual citizens of a Free Republic, but as the little dollies she dresses up on the floor of her bedroom festooned with Che and Justin Beiber posters. This poor creature merits pity, not attention.  

Now, maybe when I want an Old Fashioned served up by an empty-headed nobody who did nothing more than answer a casting call for her government job….Maybe I’ll give her my drink order, but definitely not a microphone or any real responsibility. 

R. Altomare 

Founder of the BreathEasy App, coming soon 

www.breathez.org 

--

Had I known in advance the path I was going to travel, I would never have made it this far...

- Unknown

Share this post

Recently the United States Federal Court for the 5^th Circuit held that the federal agency, Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), cannot lawfully mandate vaccines on American businesses while a trial concerning the matter is pending.  The majority opinion establishes that this mandate is “staggeringly overbroad” and the “loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time…unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”

What The Court’s Opinion Means for The Rest of America?

During the Trump Administration, the Senate confirmed federal judges for the 5^th Circuit making that circuit one of the most “conservative” courts in the federal court system.  The 5^th Circuit was the perfect court, from a constitutional perspective, to hear this issue.  Other circuits, namely the 9^th Circuit, would likely find, under the same conditions, a completely different result.

The federal court system is divided into twelve circuits that divide the States into twelve legal districts.  Each federal district court holds a binding authority in federal issues over the lower federal courts of that district.  Under normal circumstances, the 5^th Circuit opinion would put a halt to OSHA enforcing the mandate in every district, so as to act in the abundance of caution; but, we are not operating under normal circumstances.  Since this presidential administration is already refusing to comply with court orders it doesn’t agree with, there should be no surprise when they treat this order with the same contempt.  Additionally, the main objective of this administration has not been to uphold the Constitution, but to force this vaccine on as many people as they can convince or bully into taking before the Supreme Court legal hammer falls. Because the 5^th Circuit opinion is only legally binding in the 5^th Circuit courts, OSHA could legally continue to enforce the mandate within the States located in the other districts.

The Supreme Court Will Have to Settle The Issue

Now that the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals has been assigned the task of resolving the other suits against OSHA, the Supreme Court will ultimately be tasked with settling any disputes or hearing any appeals. The OSHA vaccine mandate question will have to be answered by the Supreme Court to have finality and possibly the respect of this administration.  The question then becomes, “How will this particular Supreme Court decide this case?” 

The issue of an OSHA vaccine mandate will definitely test the so called “conservative” justices; this will likely be a 5-4 split opinion -- the only question being, in which direction?  In my opinion we can almost guarantee which way several of the justices will cast their vote.  If past opinions dictate future trends, we can be guaranteed that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer will cast their vote in favor of any government mandate issued by the Biden Administration.  If past opinions dictate future trends, I believe we can be equally guaranteed that Neil Gorsuch will vote against this mandate.  That leaves the justices that many believe to be “conservatives:” Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, and Alito.

If I had to make a prediction based upon experience, I would say that Roberts is more likely to side with the liberals than with Gorsuch.  Not necessarily because he is a liberal in disguise (and he is), but because Roberts is a corporate courtier; he almost always sides with the big money.  I also believe, in spite of Thomas’s occasional tendency toward the police powers of government, that Thomas will side with Gorsuch.  I believe that Thomas will feel a greater pull to his Constitutional tendencies than his “security over liberty” leanings.  Justice Alito’s tendency is to follow either Thomas or Gorsuch.  Since I am predicting that Thomas and Gorsuch will be on the same side, I will put Alito in the group that will vote against the mandate.  That leaves just Kavanaugh and Barrett.  What made be unknown to many conservatives in America, unless they were watching my podcast during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh is NOT a consistent constitutionalist.  During the confirmation hearings I warned that Kavanaugh is most aptly described as “Kennedy 2.0” and he has lived up to that title so far.  He is a moderate at best who leans conservative on some issues and liberal on others.  In this case I will, with hesitancy, predict that Kavanaugh will lean conservative.  With these predictions we now have a 4-4 court that leaves only Barrett to break the tie.

Many conservatives would be overjoyed with that conclusion, believing that Barrett is not only a conservative, but someone who would choose the Constitutional and Religious Liberty option to deny the mandate.  Unfortunately, nothing in Barrett’s term of service in the Supreme Court or her previous legal experience supports that conclusion.  During Barrett’s confirmation hearing, the American people were told that Barrett was a constitutional, religious liberty nominee.  Other than being a devout educated Catholic, nothing in Barrett’s history establishes that she is either constitutional or religious liberty minded.  Barrett is a slave to precedent.  She will mindlessly adhere to whatever the court has established in the past, right or wrong.  Since she has become a Supreme Court Justice, Barrett has sided with the liberal justices on some of the most important cases.  I am not comfortable with Barrett being the tie breaker on what could be the most important Supreme Court issue of my lifetime.  Will she side with the errantly portrayed precedent of Jacobsen?  Or will she side with the Constitution and the rights of the people?

What Is the Most Certain Solution To This OSHA Overreach?

The uncertainty and the tendency of the courts to be personally biased in their opinions is the reason why the courts are not the ultimate or final check and balance of federal gourmandizing of power.  Those who ratified our Constitution and designed our Constitutional Republic were repulsed by the notion that the federal government itself would be its only check and balance.  The designed ultimate and final check on the federal government exercise of authority is and always has been the people through their States.  Thomas Jefferson (18120 explained it this way:

…when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another…If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron…

The design of our Constitutional Republic created a most powerful check on the federal authority through the power of the State to refuse to comply with unlawful federal laws, regulations, and executive orders.  Proponents of the Constitution made multiple arguments regarding the authority of the States to be the ultimate limit upon the federal government when that government steps outside the specifically enumerated and delegated powers of the Constitution.  Hamilton’s explanation may have been one of the most influential since he was the one arguing for federal power, yet explaining that even the power he proposed was limited by the Constitution to be enforced by the States.  Alexander Hamilton expressed the basis for this check by the States in Federalist 78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.

Hamilton’s explanation is a direct reference to Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution that declares that when the federal government makes laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, “the judges of the State” are not bound to them.  When the judges of the States are not bound, no one in the State is bound; those laws, regulations, and executive orders are “null and void.”  There is no authority delegated to the federal government to exercise an Occupational Safety and Health Association within the boundaries of the States.  Without a specifically enumerated delegation of power to do so, the federal government’s assertion of power is invalid.

Florida is exercising this State authority to check and balance unconstitutional federal power as it begins to separate the State from federal OSHA authority altogether.  Florida is making moves to refuse OSHA authority and regulations and create their own State agency that will fill that gap.  There are some in the federal government who profess, like political activist lawyer Ron Coleman, that it is outside Florida’s authority to deny OSHA in their State.  For people like Coleman, that errant understanding of State authority and professed unlimited power of the federal government is the product of one hundred eighty-eight years of bad education sparked by federal supremacists and certain political activist Supreme Court Justices.  People like Coleman have decided to set aside the true design of the Constitution and the facts regarding its proper application as dictated by those who actually wrote the document, in favor of an ideology that the federal government itself is its only limit to power, and the courts can alter and expand federal power through judicial opinions contrary to Article V of the Constitution.  This progressive ideology flies in the face of every agreement made to ratify the Constitution, every limit to power designed by the Constitution, and the very principles of separation of powers instituted to ensure that the people are the governors over government and not subjects to rogue federal agencies.  Coleman’s assertion, and those who agree with him, that the “commerce clause” is some kind of boilerplate phrase that endows upon the federal government the authority to create for itself unlimited authority over every aspect of life as long as they can somehow bootstrap a “money” argument to it cannot find any justification in the Constitution or the writings of those who created that Compact.  No to mention Coleman’s argument was brilliantly defeated by James Madison in 1792 (see the Cod Fisher Debate, also see Federalist #45).

The only sure solution to ending federal vaccine mandates will be when the States decide to exercise the powers reserved to them as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.  That will mean that the people in the States must get educated and demand that our States start behaving more like the “independent sovereign governments” the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius recognized them to be and less like the subservient colonies that Coleman and his political and educational aristocrats want them to be.

If you would like to understand the principles of limited federal power and the State check and balance as the founders created them, please consider joining LibertyFirstSociety.com and learn from the founders themselves instead of activist professors.

Share this post