Tag Archive for: States Rights

Is Trump Restoring State Power?

The domestic enemy our framers were most concerned about was the federal government. They identified the state legislatures as critical guardians of the peoples liberty. When states fail to stand up to  the federal bully, law abiding citizens such as Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler in Kansas become victims.

Alternatively you can listen to “Is Trump Restoring State Power?” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

Show References –

The Kansas Chamber of Liberty, PAC http://kcoliberty4u.wixsite.com/kcolpac/petition-page

Special Edition: 2A Under Federal Attack!

The 2A is under federal attack TODAY in Kansas and that means it is under attack everywhere! James Madison explains!

“But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke;” Fed 46

Kansas Attorney General, Derek Schmidt – Website

Phone number, (785) 296-2215.

Alternatively you can listen to “2nd Amendment Under Attack by the Federal Government” by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

Federal Government Threatens States

Are we a Constitutional Republic or a Kingdom. I say we should determine who we are by our fruits. Let’s examine our governments and you be the judge.

This episode is available for streaming and your listening edification on YouTube from this link.

Constitutional Misconceptions

You become a powerful and credible proponent of liberty the more you know about the specific details of the Constitution. I’m not saying you have to be a Constitutional attorney but you have to go beyond just reading the Constitution and actually study the Constitution. To that end I’m going to dispel some of the common myths about the Constitution. For example, we do not have three co-equal branches of government. The Constitution did not create three equal branches of government. The Constitution actually intended the House of Representative to be the most powerful, followed by the Executive branch and lastly the Judicial branch. Did you know this? There’s more.

Constitutional Misconceptions can also be listened to on YouTube

Simple Obama Care Solution

Before I share with you the simple solution to Obama Care I want to share some inspiration and give you an assignment. The assignment is to use the word of the day at least three times. What’s the word? Hubris and according to Wikipedia here’s what it means.

“Extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence, accomplishments or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.”

I like this word because how accurately it describes King Barry and the Obama administration. Now what is the simple answer to Obama Care? Before I tell you first let me encourage anyone who is reading this who might go on television in support of liberty to not go on TV and complain about Obama Care without being able to offer a solution. Otherwise you’re just externalizing. So what’s the answer? Healthcare is not a power granted to the federal government. It has to be done on the state level!  Let each state do what it wants to do and if you don’t like your states plan, then move!

Time to Stand Against Tyranny- E-Rally Notice

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. Obama has made direct threats against States who FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT ruling and refuse to establish exchanges. Any question of whether this man is a tyrant or not should be answered. He is attempting to divide the states and pit citizen against citizen. WILL WE TOLERATE A BULLY? Will we allow our States to cower and submit? If we do, we must accept the consequences: Religious Liberty? Freedom of Speech? Right to Redress Your Grievances? Right to Bear Arms? Sovereignty of the States? There will be NO LIMIT to federal power. Join us in the vital action. Do your part to save the Liberty of our children and grandchildren. Support this E-Rally and SPREAD THE WORD!



To unify and simplify this movement please follow the following suggestions when communicating with your Representative. We are trying to get our point across as simply and easily as possible.

1.ALL subject lines for emails must read the same to make the appropriate impact. So please use the following subject line for all emails sent: NO STATE EXCHANGE!

2.For any letter faxed: Please add the following text before the greeting: RE: NO STATE EXCHANGE!

3.Make sure you send your communication MULTIPLE TIMES over the next 24 hours. Multiple times an hour is not too much. We don’t get to vote more than once (hmmm not supposed to anyway) but we certainly can complain more than once.

4.Please feel free to address your concerns anyway you feel comfortable. Here are ways you can contact your Representative:

a.Americans For Prosperity Action Alert: http://www.kintera.org/c.dvKQIcO0IkJ6H/b.6645695/k.8CA5/Action_Center/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=dvKQIcO0IkJ6H&b=6645695&aid=519012

b. Open Letter to Governors and States to Stand Againt Obamacare:

c.Tenth Amendment Center Nullification Act:



Twitter can be a very effective way of creating buzz, spreading the word and getting elected and media attention. Here are some good tips from Slade O’Brien:

1. REMEMBER to ALWAYS use the hashtag #NoStateXchngwhen tweeting about the State Exchange campaign. This will track all tweets and help magnify our combined efforts.

2. Whenever you have room include your representative, senator, and governor on the tweet.

3. When Tweeting you may want to Tweet the links to the CATO video, Goldwater Institute Video, one of the newspaper articles below, or the action alert.

4. We should also remind the legislature that 21 other states have stepped up and refused to implement the exchanges.

Here are some sample tweets you can copy and paste:

  1. (insert your governor/representative)you need to watch this video! 21 states have said NO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAbmzAMZnJw #NoStateXchng
  2. Please RT Goldwater Institute video against State Healthcare Exchange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOooZNOg7XU #NoStateXchng


Post and share links to newspaper articles, videos, action alerts on your facebook page and elected’s facebook pages. Again ALWAYS use the hashtag #NoStateXchng

Some other helpful links:

1.Wall Street Journal Article on why State’s should reject Exchanges. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324556304578121012109574832-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html?mod=wsj_valetbottom_email

2.CATO Video on the State Exchanges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAbmzAMZnJw

3.Goldwater Institute short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOooZNOg7XU

4.National Journal: http://news.yahoo.com/states-dont-set-insurance-exchanges-obamacare-implode-134919702–politics.html

We must continue to do EVERYTHING in our power to regain control of this rogue federal government. Our States are our last reasonable stand. We must understand that without the sovereignty of the States, without submission of the federal government to the States, the Constitution is made irrelevant and we will have a MONARCHY! (Please go to this LINK if you would like further instruction on state sovereignty)

We cannot idly sit by while the sacrifices of our founders are pushed aside and we fundamentally transform this nation into a Socialist Monarchy. PLEASE share this E-RALLY and get on board. Choose you this day. If you choose to not fight, no complaints allowed, only regret!

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” ~ Winston Churchill

Scalia Gives Life To Founders' Fears.

Justice Scalia’s opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (Arizona voter ID laws) is a misapplication of constitutional principles and the framers’ intent and results in the further dissolution of State sovereignty. Ironically, the framers actually predicted Scalia’s conclusion and feared its consequences. There are three matters that must be understood in this case:

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires a state to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. (emphasis added)

Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution (Election Clause) permits Congress to make a law or alter State voting regulations regarding the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators.”

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution (Voter Qualification Clause) establishes that the power rests within the States to identify the qualifications of voters within that State.

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

Scalia asserts that since the Election Clause permits the Congress to “override” State law in regard to the “time, place, and manner” of congressional elections, then the NVRA’s requirement to “accept and use” a uniform federal form as a mandate upon the States prevents them from making any voter qualifications in addition to the federal form. This “logic” creates a contradiction within the Constitution. Since Arizona has the constitutionally established power to define voter qualification, but according to Scalia, no power to require proof of compliance with these qualifications, they in reality, have no power at all. Scalia has functionally told the States that their power to define a voter is subject to federal regulation. This is NOT what the framers of this nation intended. James Madison speaks to this very issue:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52

There was much opposition and debate over the inclusion of the Election Clause within the Constitution. The problem the framers had, the same issue in this case, was the vagueness of the words “time, place, and manner.” The framers feared that someday the central government would use this phrase to transfer power over the election process from the States to itself. Listen to the arguments made against this provision from the North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788:

Mr. Spencer: These words are so vague and uncertain, that it must ultimately destroy the whole liberty of the United States. It strikes at the very existence of the states, and supersedes the necessity of having them at all.

Mr. Bloodworth: This Constitution, if adopted in its present mode, must end in the subversion of our liberties…We know that there is a corruption in human nature. Without circumspection and carefulness, we shall throw away our liberties. Why is this general expression used on this great occasion? Why not use expressions that were clear and unequivocal?

Mr. Maclaine: The clause enables Congress to alter such regulations as the states shall have made with respect to elections.

Ironically, Scalia’s transfer of power to the federal government was the very thing feared by those who opposed this clause.

Scalia tries to invoke Alexander Hamilton’s words from Federalist No. 59 as a means to support his position: “[E]very government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation…” What Scalia fails to do is openly convey the context in which Hamilton was making that statement. Without this context, one might assert that Hamilton believed that the central government possesses an “inherent right to self-preservation.” Hamilton did not believe that, nor did any of those recorded during the history of the Constitutional conventions.

Hamilton makes no argument that the central government is superior to the States. When Hamilton said the government should have a means to preserve itself, he was trying to ease the fears of those who asserted the Election Clause was dangerous to that end. Hamilton knew the government they created was one in which the States held most of the power and the central government had very little power. He believed he was giving the central government an aid to survive in the face of such great State power. A more complete reading of Hamilton’s reasoning in Federalist No. 59, 60 and 61 shows that Hamilton did not approve of the central government “swallowing up” the states, he just thought it would never be allowed to happen. He called the idea, the product of a wildly fanciful imagination and highly improbable. Hamilton believed that if the central government attempted to do what Scalia has granted them the power to do, there would be extreme consequences from the people.

“so improper a spirit…could never be made without causing an immediate revolt of the great body of the people,–headed and directed by the state governments…so fundamental a privilege, in a country so situated and so enlightened, should be invaded to the prejudice of the great mass of the people, by the deliberate policy of the government; without occasioning a popular revolution, is altogether inconceivable and incredible.” Federalist No. 60

Hamilton did not believe such an usurpation could be achieved without military force:

“I imagine, it will hardly be pretended, that they could ever hope to carry such an enterprise into execution, without the aid of a military force sufficient to subdue, the resistance of the great body of the people…. Would they not fear that citizens not less tenacious than conscious of their rights would flock from the remotest extremes of their respective states to the places of election, to overthrow their tyrants, and to substitute men who would be disposed to avenge the violated majesty of the people?” Federalist No. 60

Hamilton’s disbelief in the ability of the central government to assume this tyrannical power which Scalia has asserted was not unique.

“The possible abuse here complained of never can happen as long as the people of the United States are virtuous. As long as they continue to have sentiments of freedom and independence, should the Congress be wicked enough to harbor so absurd an idea as this objection supposes, the people will defeat their attempt by choosing other representatives, who will alter the law.” Mr. Nichols Virginia Ratifying Debates June 14, 1788.

“Nothing would support government, in such a case as that, but military coercion. Armies would be necessary in different parts of the United States. The expense which they would cost, and the burdens which they would render necessary to be laid upon the people, would be ruinous. I know of no way that is likely to produce the happiness of the people, but to preserve, as far as possible, the existence of the several states, so that they shall not be swallowed up.” Mr. Spencer North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788

“If the Congress make laws inconsistent with the Constitution, independent judges will not uphold them, nor will the people obey them. A universal resistance will ensue. In some countries, the arbitrary disposition of rulers may enable them to overturn the liberties of the people; but in a country like this, where every man is his own master, and where almost every man is a freeholder, and has the right of election, the violations of a constitution will not be passively permitted. Can it be supposed that in such a country the rights of suffrage will be tamely surrendered?” Mr. Steele North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788.

This is obviously a much more important case, than deciphering the meanings of words. Even the framers of the Constitution, seeing the problems with vagueness of words, knew this was not just an issue of the proper application of terms, but a matter between liberty and tyranny. Unfortunately, in the framer’s perspective, Justice Scalia has chosen tyranny. A more disturbing question arises Hamilton’s argument, “Where are the citizens Hamilton describes who would only be subdued in this manner by the power of an army?”

Regulatory Power v. State Rights

If the book Demise of the American Republic were ever written, the history of the Supreme Court would likely occupy a bulk of its pages. Two opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) serve to illustrate this point. These opinions may appear rather innocuous on the surface; however, they are anything but harmless.

The great task of SCOTUS, according to James Madison, was for it to be an “IMPENETRABLE BULWARK” in protecting State rights. Let me be blunt – It Has Failed. In two SCOTUS decisions, Pliva v. Mensing and American Electric Power v. Connecticut the Supreme Court has chosen to place Federal Regulatory Law above State rights.

Some may ask; “doesn’t the Supremacy Clause establish that to be the proper order of things?”  No, it actually does not.  Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is true that the drafters of the Constitution knew that if the Laws of the United States were not held to be supreme over the laws of the States, they, according to Alexander Hamilton, “would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY.” (Fed.#33). Without a degree of supremacy, compliance to the law would be completely voluntary and wholly unenforceable. However, there is a distinct limit to the authority of federal laws.  Alexander Hamilton goes on to say,

“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution;…” (Fed.#33).

What Hamilton was saying is that the Supremacy Clause only makes Federal Law supreme when that Federal law is consistent with and established pursuant to the Constitution. When it is not thusly established, it is an “act of usurpation”.

You see, federal law is not the “supreme law of the land,” that position belongs to the Constitution.  Anything (e.g. law-regulation-executive order-supreme Court opinion) that is not made “in pursuance to the Constitution” is null and void.  Hamilton makes this abundantly clear in Fed. #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.”

And Hamilton was not alone.  James Wilson, delegate for the State of Pennsylvania, argued that all congressional power was limited and defined by the Constitution and any transgression of that Supreme Law rendered the acts of Congress void and of no force.

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

By the consent of 3/4 of the States, this principle became law in Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, ursupation of rights, abuse of authority, and violation of the Supreme Law of the land is exactly what has happened at the hands of the SCOTUS. It has, through its opinions, supported the unconstitutional authority of a body, other than Congress, to establish law outside the authority of the Constitution and then given that body supremacy over State reserved powers.

There is no Constitutional basis for the federal EPA or FDA to impose authority over the States. First, the power exercised by these agencies are powers not expressly delegated to the federal government, they are powers reserved to the States.  Secondly, these are Executive branch agencies (see EO 13575 sec. 3); law making is reserved through the Constitution to the Legislative branch.

When the SCOTUS chooses to assert that regulations, which are established by an unconstitutional agency, are supreme over the States via the Supremacy Clause, as they did in Pliva v. Mensing and American Electric Power v. Connecticut, they are usurping the States’ reserved power.

Furthermore, James Madison stated in the Federalist Papers 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (emphasis added)

History and facts dictate that we must consider the intent of the Founders when properly interpreting the Constitution.  That is why Hamilton specifically said, “…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”  The term “tenor of the commission” is a direct reference to the intent of the drafters.

Madison establishing that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to establish a law that deals with the ordinary course of affairs, concerning the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. That is a duty reserved to the State.  Hamilton is saying, since Madison is explaining that is our intent, the federal government is therefore bound by it.

However, the executive branch through these Federal Agencies, have imposed regulation after regulation that create restrictions and levy fines on the people of the States that have nothing to do with war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce.

Our founders established separation of powers because they had seen a history of over 700 years of tyranny usurping the rights of the people. They knew what it looked like, and they knew what it would take to prevent it and defeat it. They established the Legislative branch to be separate from the Executive branch, so that one man could not impose laws upon a people based upon his will; and they established a Judicial branch to check them both.

These unconstitutional regulations along with the subsequent SCOTUS opinions are acts of tyranny with which our founders were intimately acquainted.

Our founders knew that without the proper checks and balances, the executive branch would have the power to destroy liberty. They also anticipated the attempt to circumvent these checks. James Madison stated in his Speech to Congress – June 8, 1789:

In other instances [the Constitutions lays] down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government; declaring, that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct: Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is to provide such checks, as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other…independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. (explanation and emphasis added)

This is why judicial appointments are so important.  It is not enough for our Senators to appiont “conservative” justices, we must demand appointment of justices dedicated to the principles and proper application of the Constitution.

But what do we do when the “independent tribunals of justice” have failed in their duties as guardians of the rights of people? The fantastic thing about our founders was they understood human nature. Alexander Hamilton stated that “experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal; they ought to be conclusive and sacred.” Our founders learned from their own history that people would become inattentive to their rights; that tyranny would attempt to reassert itself as it had time and time again. Knowing this, James Madison continued with his speech in 1789  explaining there is a more powerful check of federal power than the courts:

Beside this security there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty. (emphasis added)

According to James Madison, the primary job of our State Legislatures was to be guardians of the people’s liberty against federal encroachment.

This is now our greatest hope to save the sovereignty of our States. Our Legislators must understand that this is the time when they must stand against these unconstitutional agencies and their unauthorized intrusion on the rights of States, which is to say the rights of the people. We must again establish ourselves as the engaged citizen government that was demanded by our founders in order to keep this Constitutional Republic. We must reassert ourselves as the leaders of our nation and remind the legislators that they are representatives of the people, working for the people, not celebrities vying for camera time and re-election.

Shame on Justice Scalia

Any application that makes the Federal Government supreme over the states is an error in judgement and makes the Federal Government supreme over their creator. In this edition of the KrisAnne Hall show breaks down a serious misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Federalist Papers by Supreme Court Justice Scalia that in effect says that the states are submissive to the Federal Government in matters pertaining to elections.