Thursday, April 30, 2009
by Robert Hawes
“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.” - James Madison, Federalist 45
Recent debates over sweeping new federal laws have re-ignited old quarrels concerning the proper constitutional role of the federal government and the rights and reserved powers of the states. As a case-in-point, on February 1, 2007, the Montana State House of Representatives unanimously passed two bills condemning the federal REAL ID Act as an improper use of federal legislative power. Both bills were designed to exempt Montana from the Act; however, the bill introduced by Representative Diane Rice of Harrison, Montana, went a step further, stipulating that, “the legislature of the state of Montana hereby nullifies the REAL ID Act of 2005, as it would apply in this state”.
Read that again: “The legislature of the state of Montana hereby nullifies the REAL ID Act”. Nullifies. Hmmm, there’s a word we haven’t seen in awhile, and with good reason. You see, the word “nullify” like its conceptual kissing cousins “secession,” “states rights,” “delegated powers,” and sometimes even “Constitution” belongs to a special class of political four-letter words, so called for the reason that they are verboten in polite conversation amongst the political mainstream. In that parlance, they are akin to the type of words that self-conscious adults tend to spell-out in front of small children so as to avoid embarrassment, and are allowed to be spoken only in a historical context, and only when accompanied by an obviously derisive tone of voice.
For this reason it’s understandable that the use of this little three-syllable word “nullify” will make some people skittish. Like a hand-grenade, the word is small but loaded with explosive potential, enough even to cow some otherwise hardy and ruggedly individualistic Montanans. According to Missoulanews.com, Hal Harper, an advisor to Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, downplayed the significance of the word ‘nullify’ when commenting on Diane Rice’s bill, stating that it “is simply a synonym for ‘repeal’ and carries little significance beyond demanding that the federal government reverse its law.”
Technically, what Harper says is true; the word “nullify” can be used as a synonym for “repeal,” although that is not its primary meaning, and its use in this context is rather dubious. To see what I mean, try using ‘repeals’ in place of ‘nullifies’ in the sentence that I quoted from Ms. Rice’s bill. When you do this, you get: “the legislature of the state of Montana hereby repeals the REAL ID Act of 2005.” Nope, I’m sorry, Hal, but this doesn’t work.
Montana didn’t pass the REAL ID Act, so it can’t very well repeal it; and nowhere in Ms. Rice’s bill do I see any call for the federal government to “reverse its law”. The bill simply states that the REAL ID Act “is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Montana, will cause unneeded expense and inconvenience to those people, and was adopted by the U.S. congress in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution,” and that the state “nullifies” it “as it would apply in this state.”
This language seems pretty clear to me. Ms. Rice’s bill says that Montana doesn’t like
the REAL ID Act, doesn’t think it’s constitutionally sound, and won’t have anything to do with it. End of story.
But a state can’t do that…can it?
Most of us have been taught the idea that nullification, like secession, is unconstitutional; and further, that it is a discredited political doctrine. The federal government is absolutely supreme, thus the states are subordinate entities that must obey federal edicts — this is the reigning dogma in American politics, and one of the pernicious ideas that the elites are laboring to teach to school children. If you ask for proof, the supporters of this dogma (generally federal officials and those who benefit from the favor of same - surprise, surprise) will usually throw a quote from Abe Lincoln at you and tell you that ideas like nullification and secession died at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865.
Why? Well, because that’s the place where Lincoln and those who supported his authoritarian ideals finally wore down those who disagreed, and forced their surrender on the battlefield. Thus, nullification and secession are ‘discredited’ political doctrines largely for the same reason that your claim to your wallet can be ‘discredited’ by a mugger in an alley. Ask Rush Limbaugh if you don’t believe me. “Might makes right” is the most sophisticated reason an authoritarian needs to do anything, although the idea tends to sell better if he wraps it in Old Glory and calls it “patriotism,” while simultaneously demonizing his opposition as “anarchists” and/or “anti-American.”
However, others of a less philosophically rigid sort understand that physical force cannot discredit an idea, and it is for their benefit that I offer the following discussion:
What is Nullification?
From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
Nullify - (verb)
1. to render or declare legally void or inoperative: to nullify a contract. 2. to deprive (something) of value or effectiveness; make futile or of no consequence.
Thus, when a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
A Short History of Nullification
Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws. Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.
Other instances followed, most famously in 1833, when South Carolina nullified the federal Tariff of 1828, which it deemed to be unconstitutional because it was specifically a protective tariff, not a revenue tariff. This act of nullification created a conflict between South Carolina and President Andrew Jackson, and nearly led to war before a compromise tariff was adopted.
And lest it be assumed that nullification and state sovereignty were political doctrines unique to the Southern states, it should also be noted that there were times when the Northern states also asserted them (in particular, see the Hartford Convention of 1814 and the various “personal liberty laws” that Northerners enacted in defiance of federal fugitive slave laws).
And now, with that short introduction out of the way, let’s get to the meat of the issue.
Is Nullification Constitutional? Compact Theorists versus Nationalists
In his opposition to South Carolina’s decision to nullify the Tariff of 1828, Andrew Jackson denounced the idea that a state could “annul a law of the United States,” arguing that nullification was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”
Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts agreed with Jackson in 1833, as did Abraham Lincoln in 1861. These men were nationalists. They believed that the Constitution of the United States had formed a consolidated nation-state, not a confederation, and thus they held to the idea that the Union was sovereign over the states. They also believed that the Constitution had been established among the “people of the United States” in the aggregate sense, not amongst the states themselves, and thus it was not a compact (or agreement) as the Jeffersonians contended.
As you can see, there are some intricate issues involved here, and I cannot possibly use the short space available in this article to do them all proper justice; however, I will do my best to summarize the main points in contention and provide some clear answers. I will do so by addressing the main points of those who oppose nullification and what is called the Compact Theory of the Constitution in favor of the consolidated nation-state idea.
Those who are interested in a more thorough treatment of these issues (and the issues in contention during the war of 1861-1865) may wish to refer to my book, One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution, among other works such as: When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Charles Adams; Was Jefferson Davis Right? by Ronald and Walter Kennedy; and The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Is the Union a Consolidated Nation-state, or a Confederation of States?
Those who favor the consolidated nation-state school have some serious problems to overcome, problems that go all the way back to the colonial era. To begin with, in spite of certain claims made by men like Webster and Lincoln to the effect that the American Union actually began in colonial times, the thirteen British colonies that eventually became the American states were always separate political entities. Certain attempts were made to institute a common government over them, but these plans were defeated by differences arising between the colonies and, further, by interference from Great Britain.
Their strongest, pre-independence connection was their status as British subjects, and thus their mutual allegiance to the British crown. Nor did the Declaration of Independence create an American nation. Indeed, the Declaration merely established that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states.”
The colonists made no declaration establishing a Union of any type amongst themselves; they merely announced that they were united in their determination to be free of the British crown. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegate Luther Martin spoke to the truth of this when he said: “At the separation from the British Empire, the people of America preferred the
establishment of themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties, instead of incorporating themselves into one.”
Following the Declaration, the new American states began working on a plan of Union, a fact which, by itself, should establish that no such thing existed at the time. Thomas Jefferson recorded in his Autobiography that, “All men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish our struggle, and lessen its importance…”
The plan of Union that finally emerged: the Articles of Confederation, required the agreement of every state to become effective, and so did not go into formal operation until March of 1781, when Maryland became the thirteenth state to ratify the document. Thus, the true birthday of the United States of America as a country is March 1, 1781, not July 1, 1776.
The Articles of Confederation were a political compact and established a Union of States, as even Daniel Webster later admitted. They declared outright that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressely delegated to the United States.” Make note of the mention of sovereignty here, as being applied to the states; this will be important later in addressing nullification specifically.
In 1788, a convention called to repair defects with the Articles tossed its mandate aside and drafted a new Constitution, which was then presented to the states for ratification.
Unlike the Articles, which had been ratified by the legislatures of the states (Rhode Island excepted), the Constitution was to be ratified by the people of each state via conventions called in each for that purpose. Also unlike the Articles, the Constitution was to become effective when ratified by nine states, but, as per its own language, it would be active only “between the states so ratifying the same” (see Article VII). In other words, the Constitution was to be binding only upon those states that agreed to it.
As a result, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution in 1788, the Union was effectively broken up; Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified, and thus were no longer politically united with the other nine states. James Madison testified to this fact in comments he made to Congress on June 8, 1790, concerning North Carolina and Rhode Island, neither of which had ratified the Constitution by that time: “I allude in a particular manner to those two states who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the confederacy: it is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible.”
Like the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution was also a compact between the ratifying states, as the language of Article VII (specifically the words, “between the states”) demonstrates for us. Patrick Henry, speaking in Virginia’s ratification convention, argued that it was actually a consolidated national form of government because it referred to ratification by “the people of the United States”; however, James Madison countered that idea. “Who are the parties to it?” asked Madison, “the people — but not the people as composing one great body — but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.”
As evidence of this, Madison pointed to the fact that each state was ratifying the Constitution for itself, whereas, had it been a truly national endeavor, a binding ratification vote would have been taken among the American people as a whole. Those who crafted the Constitution, Madison included, had in fact considered a “national government…consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive,” but the plan had been rejected, and the word ‘national’ had been stricken from every resolution presented to the constitutional convention from that time forward.
The founders, including that rascal Alexander Hamilton, repeatedly referred to the Constitution as a “compact” to which the states had “acceded” (agreed to join) and the new Union as a “confederacy” and a “confederate republic.” The fact it was not to be a confederation along the same lines as had existed under the Articles did not diminish the fact that the new Union was still a form of confederation. As Hamilton stated during the constitutional convention:
“Different confederacies have different powers, and exercise them in different ways…great latitude, therefore, must be given to the signification of the term.”Sovereignty and State Powers within the UnionThose who reject doctrines such as nullification and secession often point to the “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI of the Constitution, where we read: “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.” Nationalists frequently use this clause to argue that the federal government is supreme over the states in every way; however, this is an error, one that can be corrected readily enough by reading the clause again without wearing authoritarian goggles. The clause states that the Constitution and all laws made pursuant to it, are supreme, not the federal government itself or any law it passes at whim.
The powers of the federal government are, as the Constitution itself clearly states, “delegated,” not inherent. In ratifying the Constitution, the states agreed to give up the exercise of certain sovereign powers (such as the power to declare war) in favor of having those powers exercised by the Union on behalf of all the states. All other rights and powers were to be retained by the states (see Amendments 9 and 10). This arrangement made the federal government a sort of agent of the states, authorizing it to act on their behalf in certain ways, while, at the same time, making it possible for the states to manage their internal affairs as they saw fit, and to peacefully interact with one another and with the nations of the world. Alexander Hamilton remarked on this state of affairs as follows in Federalists 32 and 33 respectively:
An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.And…
But it will not follow from this doctrine [the ’supremacy’ provision of Article VI] that acts of the larger 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 Unionâ€¦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. . .These concepts were echoed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798:
Kentucky Resolution: “The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States. . . that to this compact each State acceded as a State. . . that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. . .”
Virginia Resolution: “RESOLVED. . . That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States. . . That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact. . .”A Constitutional Right to Resist
It follows logically that if a government is empowered to do only certain things, and is forbidden from doing anything else, that any attempts made by that government to reach beyond the scope of its rightful powers are illegitimate. Laws enacted on that basis are, therefore, not laws at all, but are “acts of usurpation,” as Alexander Hamilton phrased it. It also follows logically that if a state has rights and powers that are reserved for its exclusive use, it must also possess the natural right to defend those rights and powers.
This is the underlying justification for nullification. It is, in essence, an act of self defense on the part of a state, whereby it seeks to protect its reserved rights and powers from being overthrown by a usurper, and is, contrary to the ravings of the nationalists, both logically, morally, and constitutionally consistent. States are required to yield to federal authority only in those instances where the Constitution clearly states that such-and-such falls within the federal realm, such as the power to declare war, make treaties, etc. In all other instances (save only if the Constitution specifically forbids them from doing something) they are free to act as they please.
In light of this, Andrew Jackson’s assertion that nullification is “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed,” is 180 degrees south of the truth.
Nullification is entirely compatible with the existence of the Union because it finds its justification on the very foundation of the Union: the related principles of delegated authority and the separation of powers. It is not contradicted by the letter of the Constitution, in either an express or implied manner; however, federal usurpation is expressly prohibited by Amendments 9 and 10, and also by Article VI, which requires that all federal and state legislators, executives and judges pledge to uphold the Constitution (including its limited grants of power) by “oath or affirmation”.
It is absolutely authorized by the Constitution’s “spirit,” which rests in respect for the law and the separation of powers, and is perfectly consistent with every principle upon which the Constitution was founded. The “great object” for which the Union was formed was, in the words of James Madison (see Federalist 14), to serve as:
Our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the old world, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments. . .
Nullification - a state exercising its natural right to self-defense in protecting its reserved rights and powers - is not destructive of any of these things that Madison mentioned, but usurpation certainly is destructive of those ends, as we have seen illustrated time and time again throughout our history. Usurper presidents (most notably Abraham Lincoln) have killed more than half a million Americans in undeclared wars and other “police actions” and “peace-keeping missions,” none of which are constitutionally authorized.
Unconstitutional acts of Congress and activist courts have severely restricted our commerce and polluted our common interests with partisan, political corruption, thus exacerbating the very “diseases of faction” that Madison and others feared. And as for those “military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the old world,” we are starting to see this now as well, as federal paramilitary raids increase against the civilian population (sometimes in defiance of state laws), and as the current government seems determined to employ military forces in future domestic “crisis” situations, with or without state cooperation and permission.
Responses to Two Common ObjectionsWhat about the Courts?
Some of you who read this article will inevitably ask: “What about the federal courts? Aren’t they supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law or a given action?” Over time, nationalists — thanks primarily to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decisions early in the country’s history — have been very successful at planting the idea in the American mindset that our federal courts are the final arbiters of any and all constitutional issues, but there is actually no constitutional justification for this notion. Indeed, it may surprise you to learn that, in Federalist 81, Alexander Hamilton remarked that there is “not a syllable in the plan under consideration [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.
I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.”
The role of the federal courts and the final determination of constitutional issues in dispute is, in my opinion, the Constitution’s greatest failing. Article III empowers the United States Supreme Court with legitimate authority over all “cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution,” and Article VI states that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Landâ€¦any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not with-standing.”
As a result, it follows that the Court should have authority to rule in situations where violations of some clear constitutional provision are alleged to have occurred. However, what if the question before the court is not how the Constitution applies to a given matter, but if the Constitution applies to it at all? Or what if a verdict of the court introduces some new doctrine, and thus somehow changes the fundamental relationship of the federal government to the states and individual Americans? Now the question has undergone a radical change.
We are no longer considering an overt — or, as Hamilton once put it, “evident” — violation of a constitutional provision or prohibition. In this case, we are dealing with the question of what are the delegated powers of the federal government and what are the reserved powers of the states and the people, of whether the federal courts, by involving themselves in a given matter, are somehow changing the Constitution and the framework of our country by fiat. In other words, the notion of federal judicial supremacy creates a ’separation of powers’ issue (in some instances) because it makes the states subservient to an arm of the federal government in the matter of their reserved rights and status.
Further, it turns the idea of delegated powers on its head by giving the federal government final authority in the matter of the scope of its own powers, thus giving it the ability to re-invent itself and evolve beyond its authorized scope.
Also, consider how the steady politicization of the federal courts has affected our society at large, given the steady expansion of judicial power. This issue came to light in a particularly noteworthy way following the 2000 General Election. When the matter of recounting votes was thrown into the courts, suddenly the media was filled with stories of how “Judge so-and-so” votes, or who appointed him, and whether he was a Republican or Democrat; but, interestingly enough, what was not being discussed was the fact that we were openly admitting that our court systems have become politicized, and that Lady Justice was no longer blind but actually on the take.
The politicization of our courts is now all but openly admitted as such, and some politicians and special interest leaders take considerable pride in their efforts to tip the scales of justice in their agenda’s favor. Consider any typical Senate hearing on the appointment of a federal judge or Supreme Court justice. Senators parade before the television cameras asking candidates how they feel on various litmus test political issues. Judicial appointments come down, not to whether the judge understands the Constitution and has a history of upholding the law, but to whether he passes the political litmus test of the dominant party!
Thus, our sacred liberties under the law have slowly been supplanted by the advancement of political agendas operating in the halls of justice. Due to the efforts of the nationalists, we have lost the concept of federalism and the separation of powers. Anything and everything is now subject to being read into the federal Constitution, and politics reigns supreme.
The Constitution never foresaw the development of political parties or the way partisan wrangling would play havoc with our system of government, particularly how it would corrupt the courts. As such, nullification is an important means by which states can defend themselves against partisan abuses of federal power. The Constitution is imperfect in this regard, and, I believe, should be updated to provide for Thomas Jefferson’s solution to the clash of federal versus state authority and constitutional ambiguities:
But the Chief Justice [Federalist John Marshall] says, ‘there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.Wouldn’t Nullification lead to Anarchy?
Ah, my favorite authoritarian bogeyman, ANARCHY. Failure to comply with authoritarian wishes will lead to chaos, blood in the streets, the rise of the undead, mattress tags being thoughtlessly torn off by the millions, and a multitude of similar horrors. Good Lord, deliver us!
The assumption here seems to be that, should nullification ever come into fashion, that states will start nullifying whatever federal laws they please and the country will fall apart. This fear hardly seems warranted though, and for a number of reasons:
First of all, it is in the best interest of the states to support the federal government in its legitimate, constitutional roles — such as providing for the common defense — and to cooperate with one another. State government officials are well aware of this fact, as are the people of the states, and neither will have any desire to unnecessarily alienate themselves from the rest of the country or bring about a crisis. As James Madison wrote in his report on the Virginia Resolution against the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1800, “It does not follow, however, that because the states as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought to be interposed in a hasty manner, or on doubtful and inferior occasions.”
As is true of the use of any of their other rightful powers, states should exercise discretion in their use of nullification.
Secondly, political overlap means that, regardless of whether politicians represent state or federal interests, members of the same political party can be expected to pull in roughly the same direction. This factor lessens the potential for confrontations between Washington and the states, except in instances where opposing political parties are involved.
Third, it is in the best interests of the country overall that partisan designs do not corrupt the law or the political process; and while this can occur at both the federal and state levels, it is arguably more dangerous a menace at the federal level. This is because the effects of a bad state law or judicial edict are usually confined to the state that passes it, whereas bad federal laws and edicts affect every state. Freedom is apt to flourish more in de-centralized rather than centralized societies.
Fourth, recognition of the fact that states are likely to nullify controversial federal laws or edicts may help restrain federal politicians from attempting such actions in the first place.
Fifth, states already ignore onerous federal laws and provisions on occasion, and handle their internal affairs differently on a variety of issues every day, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse have yet to ride. Consider that not every state has adopted mandatory seatbelt or motorcycle helmet usage, in spite of federal threats to withhold highway funds — New Hampshire is one such state. Some states (like Montana) allow individuals to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, or in Alaska’s case, for any reason at all (up to a certain quantity limit), and this is in direct contravention of federal policy (federal agencies continue to illegally raid and imprison persons living in such states).
Arizona and Hawaii do not recognize Daylight Savings Time. Nebraska has the country’s only unicameral, non-partisan legislature. And for one last example, consider that the State of Utah recently withdrew from the federal No Child Left Behind program. In spite of all these differences between the ways that states conduct their business, and others that I do not have space to mention, the country has gotten along remarkably well. The only people who are anxious about these differences are elitist authoritarians who think that it is, or should be, incumbent on everyone to act as the authoritarians believe is best.
Far from being a discredited political doctrine, nullification is, in actuality, a constitutionally consistent principle whereby sovereign states can defend their reserved rights and powers from federal acts of usurpation, most of which are motivated by partisan politics and power scheming. It is in every way consistent with the Constitution’s fundamental principles, most notably the concepts of delegated powers and the separation of powers. Indeed, it should be recognized that it is not so much a state that nullifies a federal law or act, as it is the Constitution that does so, in that the Constitution limits what the federal government may rightfully do.
Viewed in that light, nullification is really nothing more than a state saying to the federal government, “The Constitution does not authorize you to do this, therefore, we are not obligated to submit to you in this matter, and are choosing not to do so.”
The REAL ID Act of 2005 is plainly and simply unconstitutional, and therefore an act of usurpation. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power to dictate state driver licensing requirements, nor does it allow Washington to force Americans to carry ‘papers’.
If the State of Montana decides to nullify this so-called ‘law’, it will have every right to do so. I would even go so far as to argue that it would have the duty to do so, given that Montana’s elected officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, of which the REAL ID Act is a naked violation.
Consequently, to Hal Harper and others who may have their doubts, I would say, stand up for yourselves with pride and assert your rights. Far too often these days, the federal government forgets that it is a servant tasked with certain limited duties, not an omnipotent master; and it is high time that it was put in its place — while such is still possible. Benjamin Franklin once said, “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.”
Simply put, nullification is all about “keeping it”.
Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. He was born and raised in Northern Virginia, now lives in South Carolina with his family, and is pursuing a career as a freelance writer.
He maintains a blog at jeffersonian73.blogspot.com.
Friday, April 24, 2009
A letter to the President April, 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW Washington, DC 20500
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.
You seem so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America.
You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world.
Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe?
What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know 20th Century history? Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country?
Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage.
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia.
You don’t show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir!
You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey.
You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves.
I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the no historical depth, & I am both embarrassed & ashamed of our present administration.
You are offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers, yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses.
What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves?
I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven’t said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn’t!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.
I resent that you take myself and my fellow citizens as stupid and uniformed. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.
I also want you to know that I personally find much of what you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work "tirelessly" to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying our beautiful country.
Every Real American
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Exclusive: A Page from Barack Obama's Diary - My Day with My New BFF - Hugo Chávez
The last few months have been so exciting! People like to point out that I’m the first black president of the United States, but a “first” I’m even more proud of is being the first Apologist in Chief. (Some have tried to give Jimmy Carter that title, but he was really the first Whiner in Chief. Big difference.)
Going to Berlin last year to announce my Global Citizenship (I have an official card and everything) was a big thrill, but going to the G-20 in the UK to apologize for everything the United States has done since – well, since its inception, really – was more exhilarating than listening to crowds nationwide worship at my altar and applaud my sterling speeches.
But I have to tell you, all of the criticism I got for bowing to the Saudi king was a bit hurtful. I mean, what did those plebes back home expect me to do?
Merely shake his hand like that old bag Queen Elizabeth? This is KING ABDULLAH, for chrissakes! The man is an institution unto himself. I gotta get me one of those robe things to lounge around in the West Wing after hours. They look even more comfy than the Snuggie.
Maybe Michelle will buy me one for my birthday – I think I’ll start hinting now. She’s been really busy with her makeup artist and fashion advisors lately, so I want to give her time to get the message.
By the way, I’m really starting to get annoyed that my teleprompter is getting all of the credit for my awe-inspiring speeches. It’s time to give credit where it’s due – to my speechwriter. Better than giving out a raise, if you know what I mean. *wink*
But wait, it gets better! I know, I know, it’s pretty hard to top bowing to the head of the Wahhabists, but trust me on this one, ‘k? I went down to the Summit of the Americas and I GOT TO SHAKE HUGO CHÁVEZ’S HAND!
I don’t think I’ll ever wash this hand again. Just think of it: this is the man who called George W. Bush a devil right here in America!
Not only that, but he’s writing the blueprint for the socialist utopia I’m dreaming of bringing to the U.S. He’s right up there with my other personal heroes, Saul Alinsky, Rev. Wright and Ted Kennedy. (Ted’s my hero because not only did he give the girls that cute little dog, but he got me out of having to go to one of those smelly, stinky dog shelters.
At the same time, he gave My Media – that’s what I call them, My Media – a new fluff story to concentrate on rather than what I’m doing to the economy and American sovereignty. The girls named him Bo, even though I hinted he should be called Ted in my benefactor’s honor. Oh well, that’s kids for you.)
I was talking to David Axelrod before the historic meeting with my man Hugo and discussed how best to approach him. Should he approach me first? After all, he’s the greater statesman. I didn’t want to seem too aggressive.
And what about the handshake itself? David advised against the fist bump, saying it’s been done already and it’s time to give my disciples something new to appreciate. So we decided on a cool “soul brother”-type handshake, followed by a gentle touch on the shoulder – not only would it convey “hey I’m here for you,” but would also give the impression that in no way am I Hugo’s superior.
We’ve had enough of that “America’s great” crap for the past eight years. It’s time to take America in a new direction and I’m just the beta male to do it.
Here we are shaking hands. I was so nervous – I hope Hugo didn’t notice how sweaty my palm was!
Here’s my hand on his shoulder. Just the right touch, don’t you think?
The only thing I wish I had done differently was to wait for Hugo to approach me like Dave and I had planned, but my excitement got the better of me and I just went right over.
I felt like a kid meeting Superman! Good thing I decided to stay away from beverages for a few hours before or I might well have wet my pants. He was so gracious.
I said, “Como estas?” He said, in English, “I want to be your friend.”
And the gift he gave me was just the best: a book called Open Veins of Latin America – Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. It’s all about how Western nations have raped the region of its resources and oppressed its peoples. It’s in Spanish, but I don’t mind.
Haven’t I been telling Americans that it’s embarrassing how few of us know a second language?
And maybe, since two icons of the world are known to be reading this book, maybe it’ll knock that book by the loudmouth Mark Levin – something repulsive called Liberty and Tyranny – off its perch as the number one nonfiction book in America. Liberty?
He wishes. I won the election. Time to do things my way.
Anyway, I think I’ll go now and curl up with the book Hugo gave me and a good Spanish-English dictionary. I’ve instructed my staff not to disturb me as I read the words Hugo felt were so important for me to see, not even if Kim Jong Il fires off another missile or if Russia attacks Poland or one of those other ungrateful former Soviet satellite nations. It’s all about priorities.
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
How Obama actually DELAYED pirate rescue
SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement
WASHINGTON – While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his "decisive" handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.
Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement.
They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander.
The White House also turned down two rescue plans offered up by the Seal commander on the scene and the captain of the USS Bainbridge.
The SEAL team operated under rules of engagement that required them to do nothing unless the hostage's life was in "imminent' danger.
In fact, when the USS Bainbridge dispatched a rigid-hull inflatable boat to bring supplies to the Maersk Alabama, it came under fire that could not be returned even though the SEAL team had the pirates in their sights.
Many hours before the fatal shots were fired, taking out the three young (teenage) pirates, Phillips jumped into the Indian Ocean with the idea of giving the snipers a clear target.
However, the SEAL team was still under orders not to shoot.
Hours later, frustrated by the missed opportunities to resolve the standoff, the commander of the Bainbridge and the captain of the Navy SEAL team determined they had "operational authority" to evaluate the risk to the hostage, and took out the pirates at the first opportunity – finally freeing Phillips.
NOT because of Obama but DESPITE Obama's hampering, indecisive restrictions. (No commander in chief here with Pres__nt - no ID)
He Wears Skins; We Wear Veldskoens, Special to AR News; 3 comments Why Jacob Zuma is befriending Afrikaners.
Bloomington Teen Charged in Alleged Hate Crime Attacks, Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois); 8 comments “This is our neighborhood, white boy.”
Investigators Take Closer Look at Rep. Jackson in Blagojevich Case, New York Times; 2 comments Congressman too busy helping constituents to answer press questions.
Lawmakers Approve Illegal Immigrant License Ban, AP; 1 comments Maryland gives illegals six more years to drive back home legally.
University Community Reacts to Diversity Statistics From Committee, Cavalier Daily (University of Virginia); 7 comments UVA blacks accused of cheating more often but also acquitted more often.
Mexico Slams Burger King for ‘Whopper’ of Insult, AP; 2 comments They have no qualms about insulting us.
Third World Child Trafficking Increases Along with Immigration, BNP News; 1 comments Africa and the Far East still exporting slaves.
Lost Aboriginal Language Revived, BBC News; 2 comments Aboriginal student says it is “good for the black fellas.”
Supermarket Under Fire for English Only Rule, ONE News (Wellington); 1 comments Supermarket backs down, says notice was a mistake.
Singer With Most Popular German Band Faces Jail for ‘Infecting Man With HIV’, Times of London; 3 comments Did not bother to tell her paramours she was carrying deadly disease.
Religious Rift Tears at Orissa Communities, BBC News; 1 comments India’s Hindus and Christians don’t appreciate diversity . . .
Democratic Future Fades for Fiji, BBC News; 1 comments . . . neither do Fijians.
April 13, 2009
Video of an Attack on a White Man Infuriates the French, Special to AR News; 99 comments Mealy-mouthed victim only makes things worse.
Will a ‘Red’ Help Blacks Go Green?, WorldNetDaily; 15 comments White House appoints “radical communist” who sees environment as racial issue
Black Voters Waver on Support for Paterson, New York Times; 9 comments New York’s black governor too fiscally responsible for black voters.
Immigrant Blacks Are Overrepresented in Certain Colleges, Studies Say, Daily Pennsylvanian (Philadelphia); 11 comments Higher percentage of immigrant blacks attend college than whites.
State Democrats Despoil Democracy, Boston Herald; 8 comments State representative wants Massachusetts to let illegals vote.
Judge Blocks New Rules for Licenses, IDs in Texas, AP; 5 comments Texas department denied IDs and licenses to people with visas for less than a year.
Mpls. Pays Settlement to Black Officers in Bias Suit, Minneapolis Star Tribune; 9 comments $740,000 to blacks claiming racial discrimination and “hostile working environment.”
Thomas Frazier, Father of 14 Children, Jailed for Owing More Than Half-Million in Child Support, Flint (Michigan) Journal; 19 comments Man believes only three of the children are his.
Obama Brother Accused of UK Sex Assault, News of the World (London); 13 comments Samson Obama also uses a false ID.
14,000-Year-Old Hunting Kit Found in Scotland, MSNBC; 4 comments Pushes earliest occupation of Scotland back 3,000 years.
BNP ‘Threat’ to Labour in Europe, BBC News; 16 comments Labor deputy leader: BNP leaders wear suits, but they are as dangerous as ever.
April 10, 2009
Barack Obama in His Own Words (Part III of III), Special to AR News; 28 comments What is the character of the man Americans have elected President?
Illegal Obama Vote Cast as Wife’s Last Wish, AP; 7 comments Jacqueline Wroblewski voted for Obama in November even though she died in August.
Justices to Hear White Firefighters’ Bias Claims, New York Times; 12 comments Very significant case to be argued April 22.
SC College Sued for Discriminating against Whites, AP; 15 comments EEOC says black college “engaged in unlawful practices” against 3 white profs.
Diversifying Middle America, Inside Higher Ed; 30 comments Wyoming community college president desperately seeking non-whites.
‘More Work to Do’: Police Force is Still Struggling to Attract Women, Minorities, Winston-Salem Journal; 14 comments Winston-Salem police department desperately seeking non-whites.
Refusal to Accept Reality is Killing Detroit, Detroit Free Press; 38 comments Columnist: Detroit’s leaders still think it is 1950.
Lawmaker Defends Comment on Asians, Houston Chronicle; 10 comments Suggests Asians adopt names that are “easier for Americans to deal with.”
Father Accused of Selling Daughter Takes Deal, KSBW-TV (Monterey, Calif.); 9 comments Illegal who bartered his 14-year-old for cash and beer to be deported after brief jail sentence.
Water Cut Off in Mexican Capital, BBC News; 3 comments More than half the water in main pipeline leaks out before it gets to customers.
Moors Want Spain to Apologize after 400 Years, Times (London); 52 comments 1609 expulsion of Moriscos was Europe’s first “ethnic cleansing.”
When the River Ran Red, AR Classic Article; 11 comments A great Boer victory that was later undone.
April 9, 2009
Obama to Push Immigration Bill As One Priority, New York Times; 27 comments President to make good on pledge to Hispanic voters.
Did Integration Negatively Affect Discipline for Black Kids?, Digital Journal; 39 comments Because of integration, blacks adopted modern white ideas of child-rearing.
Extremist Web Sites Are Using U.S. Hosts, Washington Post; 16 comments Freedom of speech or incitement to hatred?
Illegal Immigrant Voting a Reality in Some States, MetroWest Daily News (Framingham, Massachusetts); 3 comments It’s not only a reality, but legal.
NY Judge Rules in Favor of 1970s Apartheid Victims, AP; 11 comments Apartheid “victims” to go to trial with their claims against US corporations.
Shopping While Black, Austin American-Statesman; 78 comments There must be laws against “discrimination” in retail stores.
FBI Raids in Minn. Aimed at Africa Money Transfers, AP; 11 comments Somalis remit at least half a million dollars per month to their homeland.
Great Hair Style or Exercise? Solving the Dilemma, WFLD-TV (Chicago); 7 comments Black women suffer health problems because they spend so much time on their hair.
BMI Not an Accurate Obesity Measurement, RedOrbit; 9 comments Current standard doesn’t take into account differences in sex or race.
Sharia Infiltrates German Courts, Schools, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Family Security Matters; 9 comments Muslims must “feel at home” in other people’s countries.
April 8, 2009
Did John Hope Franklin Want $100 Trillion for Blacks?, Huffington Post; 65 comments Franklin: Apologies are not enough. Give us more cash.
Out-of-Wedlock Births Hit Record High, CNN; 24 comments 72 percent of blacks born in 2007 were illegitimate.
New Admission Policy Prompts Diversity Debate, Daily Nexus (UC Santa Barbara); 23 comments New University of California policy admits more whites, fewer Asians.
Boston Students Struggle With English-Only Rule, Boston Globe; 17 comments High-school students who are having trouble learning English just drop out.
‘Tuition Equity’ Bill Fails in Senate, Denver Post; 3 comments Even some Colorado Democrats vote against in-state tuition for illegals.
CBC Members Praise Castro, Politico; 12 comments Fidel just wants to help.
Ethics Board Launches Probe Into Rep Jesse Jackson Jr., Chicago Sun Times; 2 comments Congressman, his brother, and Indian immigrants implicated in Blagojevich scandal.
Mychal Bell’s Mom Arrested, KALB-TV (Alexandria, Louisiana); 8 comments Jena 6 mom is behind in child-support payments.
HIV-Positive Man Killed With Hatred, Toronto Star; 18 comments Ugandan-born HIV-killer liked his victims white.
One in Six Rapes Committed by Foreign Attackers, Shock Police Figures Reveal, Daily Mail (London); 7 comments Illigal immigrants are especially hard to catch.
Rare Megamouth Shark Caught, Eaten in Philippines, AP; 14 comments What would Nantucket fishermen have done?
April 7, 2009
Graduate School Admissions, Race, and the White Status Game, VDARE; 21 comments Who gets the highest scores? No surprises.
Racial Split Threatens State Democrats, Greenwood Commonwealth (Greenwood, Mississippi); 18 comments Black party leaders try to kick out whites.
Estados Unidos? Almost 1 of 2 New Americans in 2008 Was Latino, AP; 12 comments Half a million Hispanics naturalized in 2008.
Crackdown on Illegals Produces Crime Decline, WorldNetDaily; 2 comments Illegals come in, crime goes up; illegals leave, it goes down.
On Idyllic Gwynn’s Island, Echoes of a Racial Divide, Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk); 35 comments Single black mom moves to place she’s not wanted; leaves and files lawsuit.
Stolen Cessna’s Pilot Captured, ABC News; 12 comments Turkish immigrant pursued by F-16 fighter jets.
Reading Between the Lines of a Player’s Mangled English, News & Record (Burlington, North Carolina); 16 comments Black basketball players graduate at less than half the white rate.
Obesity Rates Differ Among Racial/Ethnic Groups in Kids As Young As Four, Eureka Alerts; 9 comments Study author wants “obesity prevention programs” for pre-schoolers.
Roswell Hispanics Claim Police Racial Profiling, AP; 3 comments LULAC wants the feds to get involved.
Mexico Has Money Ready for Expatriate Investment, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson); 1 comments Mexican government giving money to ex-pats who start businesses in Mexico.
April 6, 2009
Surviving Jena Six: The Dreams of Mychal Bell, Global Grind; 50 comments Jena 6 thug now takes inspiration from “Dr. King.”
Supreme Court Lets Philly Officer Killer’s Conviction Stand, AP; 22 comments “Free Mumia” movement hits a pothole.
Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President, Washington Post; 14 comments “Obama’s your president, not your homie.”
Per Capita Federal Welfare Expenditures by State, Audacious Epigone; 8 comments Some populations are more expensive than others.
Research Shows White Players Lacking on Recent Final Four Basketball Teams, Orlando Sentinel; 19 comments Only two whites out of 20 starters in final four.
How Banks Were Bullied Into Making Bad Loans, WorldNetDaily; 14 comments “Banking terrorists” bragged about their strong-arm tactics.
Uighurs Ask Supreme Court for Their Freedom, AP; 16 comments Chinese Muslims want a new homeland—yours.
Why It’s Harder for African Americans to Stop Smoking, Examiner; 10 comments Menthol cigarettes said to be harder to shake.
‘Chia Obama’ Booted From Local Stores, WTVT-TV (Tampa Bay); 6 comments We think he looks good with green hair.
Asian Men in Burkhas Rob Jewellers, Herald (Glasgow); 9 comments Men pulled same caper in Germany and England.
Paris Liberation Made ‘Whites Only’, BBC News; 19 comments France has not been grateful to the Senegalese who fought for it in World War 2.
April 3, 2009
Barack Obama in His Own Words (Part II of III), Special to AR News; 44 comments What is the character of the man Americans have elected President?
One Oath Leads to Another, New York Times; 37 comments US military now recruiting temporary residents.
10 Silverado Students Arrested Following Fight, Daily Press (Victorville, California); 15 comments California high school fails to find strength in diversity.
It’s Back: Immigration Heats Up, Yahoo! News; 13 comments Obama will have a hard time getting immigration reform passed this year.
BP Explorers Collect Trash Left by Illegal Immigrants in the Huachucas, Sierra Vista (Arizona) Herald; 5 comments Aspiring agents discover border enforcement is a messy business.
UNC Students Stand Up for University Access for Illegals, News & Observer (Raleigh); 21 comments Allowing illegals to attend taxpayer-supported colleges “just basic human rights.”
NYC’s ‘Obama Fried Chicken’ Restaurants Ruffle Feathers, Sarah R. Kaufman, Benjamin Peim, and Carrie Melago, New York Daily News, April 3, 2009; 17 comments Business is brisk at Harlem eatery.
Now Fire Service Introduces Hijab Headscarves for Muslim Workers, Daily Mail (London); 17 comments British fire service accommodating the special needs of ethnic fire fighters.
Polish Migrant Workers Leave Britain in Droves, Voice of America News; 23 comments Britain attractive to foreigners only when the economy is doing well.
Church Leader Sparks Georgian Baby Boom, BBC News; 7 comments Nation’s birth rate up 20 percent in 2008.
What Can I Do?, AR Classic Article; 19 comments Advice for activists.
April 2, 2009
Citing Census, Hispanics Urge Immigration Reform, AP; 25 comments Hispanic group: “We are the future of the United States.”
La.’s Black-Majority Seat Could Become Less Black, Louisiana Weekly; 2 comments Depopulation following Katrina means less political clout for New Orleans.
The Rev. Al Sharpton Is the New Sheriff Politics Needs, New York Daily News; 9 comments Sharpton “a national powerbroker with A-list access to the Oval Office.”
DoD Grants $17.4 Million To Minority Academic Institutions, U.S. Department of Defense; 15 comments Programs at black colleges “critical” to national security.
Osceola County Moves to Diversify Its Business Partners, Orlando Sentinel; 2 comments Hispanic county commissioner wants county to get federal “diversity” money.
McCain Seeks Pardon for First Black Champ, AP; 24 comments Erasing an “act of racism” by pardoning Mann Act violator Jack Johnson.
Bias Suits Settled With Gold’n Plump, Job Agency, , March 31, 2009; 8 comments Muslim workers receive $1.35 million for “religious discrimination.”
Dunkin’ Franchise Ends Over Refusal to Sell Pork, AP; 15 comments Unanimous jury rules that Dunkin’ Donuts was not guilty of discrimination.
Mexican Asylum Seekers on Rise in Vancouver, Vancouver Sun; 11 comments Record numbers of Mexican nationals are fleeing to Canada to escape drug cartels.
Racism Revealed in Swedish Anti-Immigrant Party, No Apology, SR International-Radio Sweden (Stockholm); 11 comments News agency seeks to thwart Sweden’s anti-immigrant party.
Most Migrants in Vienna Schools, Wiener Zeitung; 10 comments Foreigners make up 50 percent of the student body in half of Vienna’s schools.
April 1, 2009
Yamato Workers Freed As Immigration Probe Continues Into Bellingham Company, Bellingham (Washington) Herald; 6 comments Obama administration gives them work permits, too.
Article Has Cop Dissing Blacks, Philadelphia Daily News; 77 comments White cop’s unguarded comments likely to cost him his job.
Obama’s Aunt Can Stay in U.S. Another Year, Boston Herald; 14 comments Federal judge reschedules case of immigration scofflaw “Auntie Zeituni.”
Queen Latifah Wants Stronger Parts, AP; 42 comments Complains that the paparazzi ignore black actresses.
Illegal Immigrant Tuition Passes Hurdle in Colo., AP; 3 comments More promises that accommodating illegals will not cost anything.
Dallas ISD, Area Firms Sought Hundreds of Worker Visas Amid Job Losses, Dallas Morning News; 3 comments Dallas school district lays off 1,000; makes 380 requests for H-1B visas.
Surveillance Towers Planned for Detroit, Buffalo, AP; 22 comments Further securing the northern border.
U.S. Supreme Court Reverses State Court on Ceded Lands, Honolulu Advertiser; 1 comments US government apology for annexing Hawaii didn’t mean much, legally.
Norway Anti-Immigration Opposition Party Wins Support, Bloomberg; 19 comments In small European countries, issues of identity are more important than the economy.
Madonna’s African Adoptions Part of Growing Trend, AP; 47 comments More Americans adopting children from Africa.
South Africa’s Hi-Tech Healer, BBC News; 3 comments Bringing spiritualism into the 21st century.
Courtesy Jeff Giacomel
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
by Mark S. McGrew
The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”.
So who or what is a Grand Jury?
Most Americans, including most Judges, most prosecutors and most lawyers think a Grand Jury is a function of the government, at the whim of the government, under the control and direction of the government. However, this is constitutionally false and always has been.
Americans are educated to believe that America has three branches of government: The Judicial, The Legislative and the Executive and that is they who decide our lives. This also is false.
There is a Constitutional force which has power, authority and dominance over those three branches.
That is the The Grand Jury of We The People. The Grand Jury was intended to give the people of the United States of America total control over a potentially corrupt government and to enable prosecution of corrupt or criminal government officials, agents and employees, whether they were elected, hired or appointed.
The Constitution of The United States of America was created and designed to give the individual or collective people of America the power to tell the government what to do.
The government, including the President of the country has no Rights to make Americans do anything that is not permitted by or is contrary to our Constitution.
The US Constitution especially has no provision for an illegal alien to be our President and pass laws that we do not permit or condone.
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution.
It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”
To be crystal clear: The Grand Jury is a Constitutional fixture in its own right.
The Grand Jury is not a tool of government to use against its citizens.
Justice Scalia determined further, to reinforce that there is no question as to the purpose of the Grand Jury:
“In fact, the whole theory of it’s foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people.
Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it’s institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length.
Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office”.
Besides providing for society to charge individual people for crimes, the Grand Jury is a tool for the citizens to use against a criminal government or our government acting against the designs of our Constitution.
And it was specifically designed to prosecute the criminal actions of government employees and their lawyers.
Any judge who tells a jury to “disregard that remark or disregard that evidence” is violating the US Constitution and can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury.
Any Congressperson, Senator, Governor or police officer who violates the constitution can and should be indicted by a Common Law Grand Jury, without the advice, consent, permission or interference of any government employee.
This is why America has always been promoted as a land where no man is above the law, including the President.
However, in 1946, certain people hijacked the role of our Grand Jury and the courtroom jury and henceforth, embarked on a mission of misinformation, distortions and blatant lies to convince the American people and the entire legal community, that it is the government that determines what is right and what is wrong in the actions of the government or of any elected government officials, employees or agents.
In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence.
These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase “runaway grand jury” to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury.
Roger Roots continues, “A runaway grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure.
Today’s ‘runaway’ grand jury is in fact, the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model for American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact runaways, according to the definition of modern times.
They operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
In 1946, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted. In those procedures, they made a rule to punish runaway grand juries.
Rule 6(g): “At any time for cause shown, the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.”
Now judges could throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its own discretion and not doing what the court or prosecutor tells them to do.
All laws in America, whether federal, state, county or city must conform to the framework of the United States Constitution. Laws can be illegal, and many laws are illegal. Rules are not even laws and have no authority if attached to a source that is not in line with the US Constitution.
Laws, rules, orders, methods of the government that do not conform to the US Constitution are considered “Fruit from the poison tree” and if challenged as such, and proven not to be Constitutional in nature, must be unenforceable.
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has an added “Note 4” which directly conflicts with, ignores and willfully violates the fifth amendment of the US Constitution which states clearly: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”.
Note 4 of Rule 7 states: “Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts”.
They rewrote the US Constitution to suit their own purposes.
There are only two ways that the US Constitution can be changed:
A minimum of two thirds of the US House of Representatives AND a minimum of two thirds of the US Senate must agree on a proposed change to the Constitution, AND then a minimum of three quarters (38 of the current 50) of the state legislatures OR state conventions must agree to every word, comma, and period of the proposed change to the Constitution.
Passage in the state legislatures is by simple majority in the state House AND in the state Senate. Passage in the state conventions is also by simple majority.
Typically, a time limit of seven years is imposed for ratification, after which the proposal expires, worthless. This is the only method that has been used to date. The requirement for a state convention has been specified only once.
A minimum of two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of the current 50), House AND Senate, must call for a Constitutional Convention.
The convention proposes one or more amendments, which must then be approved by simple majority by a minimum of three quarters of the state legislatures (House AND Senate) OR by a minimum of three quarters of the state conventions.
This method has never been used.
Most certainly a bunch of crooked lawyers writing their own rules to corrupt the jury system can not override the US Constitution.
But they did.
And, as Susan Brenner wrote in The Voice of the Community:
A Case for Jury Independence, “Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent.”
If a grand jury and a courtroom jury have to do only what the judge and prosecutor say, and a prosecutor can refuse to indict and charge a politician or another lawyer, what is the reason to have any jury?
Only to perpetuate a myth that Americans live under a system where no man is above the law. There is no other reason.
As the American Judicial system now operates, judges and prosecutors can pick and choose who they send to prison. And they guarantee that they and their friends can go on with their criminal behavior unmolested.
The American Juror published a commentary regarding Note 4 of Rule 7: [Retaining the Constitutional Right of grand juries to determine evidence and witnesses] might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States Attorney(Prosecutor)”
So, the American government employees took the bold step to violate the US Constitution on a continuing, repeated basis and gave defendants a “jury of their peers” that would and could, only nod to the prosecutor and judge and say only, “Yes sir. No sir. You’re right sir. Whatever you say sir.”
This kind of behavior was outlawed in the year 1215 by the English Magna Carta, which the founders of the United States of American adopted as their basis for how Americans were going to live and be treated by the government that they would employ.
The authors of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the true criminals and should have been dragged out of their homes and hanged from the nearest tree.
Now, 63 years later, the American people are fed up with the treasonous acts of their government employees and their rigged courts. And they have found a way to rid this country of the “domestic enemies” that our Constitution warned us to be prepared for.
http://americangrandjury.org/ explains the process and how to form a constitutionally acceptable Common Law Grand Jury and bring presentments or indictments in any location in America and begin prosecuting corrupt government employees, at any level of government.
No longer should they be referred to as Officials or agents. They are our employees and if they don’t want to respect that, they need to find a friendly 3rd world country to live in.
Mr. Carl Swensson of the State of Georgia successfully organized a Common Law Grand Jury and that Grand Jury reviewed evidence against Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama and is recommending an indictment.
The US Attorney, who was presented with that recommendation has refused to discuss it by saying, “We only deal with lawyers”.
The Attorney General’s office of the State of Georgia has also been presented with that recommendation and has also refused, saying, “We don’t represent citizens”.
Everyone should call US Federal Attorney, David Nahmias at 404-581-6000 or fax him at 404-581-6181 and tell him to do his job.
Every person should also call the State of Georgia Attorney General’s office and ask Lilly Thomas why she thinks the Attorney General does not represent citizens and who do they represent?
Her number is 404-656-3300.
On Mr. Swensson”s website at www.RiseUpForAmerica.com you can see the process he went through to organize a Common Law Grand Jury.
You will also find that Common Law Grand Juries in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio also have seen the evidence and are making a presentment to charge the illegal alien Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama. More Common Law Grand Juries across American are being scheduled as of this writing.
A 2 hour Internet radio broadcast on April 9, 2009 had Carl Swensson of www.RiseUpForAmerica.com, Bob Campbell of http://americangrandjury.org and the spokesman for American Grand Jury, Sam Sewell explaining the Grand Jury actions against Obama, how Grand Juries can be used to rid local communities of corrupt government employees and how citizens can form their own Common Law Grand Jury groups.
That broadcast can be listened to or downloaded at this site: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio/2009/04/10/The-Mark-S-McGrew-Show
Please allow a few minutes for this show to start playing
American people are uniting, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean in the form of “Tea Parties” named after the Boston Tea Party demands of “No Taxation Without Representation” in the year 1773, which helped start the American Revolutionary War with England in 1775.
Tea parties are being held for people to object to unconstitutional government acts, taxes and loss of freedoms.
In less than 30 days, demonstrations have been organized and are scheduled in 2,000 communities, starting April 15, 2009. Anyone can find information on where Tea Parties are being held or how to form your own Tea Party at http://www.freedomworks.org/
Something World leaders had better understand and understand well: Obama and his mentally deranged friends are not going to destroy America any more than countless other socialist fascist fanatics have tried in the past.
If World leaders want to keep their jobs and keep their nation’s economies intact, they would be smart to drop Obama like a hot potato. Obama and his backers are pulling a giant scam on the rest of the World, just as they have on American voters.
Americans have wised up. It is only the major media that keeps pounding the drums of the Obama lie.
Ask yourselves a question: Why are many of America’s major newspapers that have been in business for over 100 years, filing for bankruptcy and closing every week?
If you believe, as major news tell us, that the reason is lowered advertising revenue and more people getting their news from the Internet, you’re hallucinating.
The real reason is because Americans are thoroughly fed up with the lies, the slanders, the politically correct brain vomit that major news pours out and their astounding absolute refusal to portray any semblance of the truth.
Nothing Obama does will continue. Everything he does will be retracted by a very near future administration.
One thing that is certain, of all that can be observed about the current Obama administration, corporate executive friends of Obama and the American Judicial system:
Whether in the boardroom, the courtroom or the bathroom, scum sticks together.
When the scum is annoying enough, it is scrubbed, cleaned and thrown in the trash. That’s why people have cleansers and society has prisons.
World leaders are making a very dangerous mistake to think that we, the people of America are not making preparations for cleaning house.
This house belongs to us, not a gang of decrepit senile old men, pursuing a useless fantasy of a New World Order that has a 2,000 year history of abject failure.
Here’s your first clue: The very first line of the US Constitution says, “We the people……..establish this Constitution”.
Mark S. McGrew may be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com