Agenda 21 (40 Mb pdf)

100 videos on climate change science and economics (click on 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd Conference Link)

800 Scientists reject man made climate change (1.2 Mb pdf)

Now the people of your respective states find themselves under severe attack economically and socially, by that same organization, the USA, or federal government. We, the People of this country know that by ourselves, individually, we have but a small voice to try and effect any significant change. But, the people together, as states, have a voice Washington listens to. In fact, the states are the one voice that puts real concern into the minds of those elected federal officials. They know that the states created the Union, and they know that the states have the power, as representitives of the people, to replace them if they deemed it necessary.

I believe that the government in Washington has become so enamored with themselves and the power and money available that they need to be replaced and the Constitution restored, as written, as the law of the land. But, I also know that that is a drastic measure and is not likely to be taken seriously at this time.

The salvation of our way of life from destruction at the hands of the USA, viz. Obama, and his gang, rests solely with the legislatures of the fifty sovereign states. The resolutions passed by a few of the state legislatures, as associated in the Patrick Henry Caucus, would have a great and profound effect to bring about a realization of the people’s anger if a majority of the states passed similar, supporting legislation.

The speed at which the administration is acting to spend all the wages of future generations, pass laws that deny the people of their individual rights, dismantle the market economy, and gather unto themselves power and rights never meant to be theirs, demands that we, the people, act with similar speed and with the required authority of the state legislatures if the American way of life is to be preserved. There is no abundance of time, no margin for extended thought and consideration of lesser measures. The priorities of the government are setting the schedule.

The Patrick Henry Caucus, a forum of state law makers meeting to discuss actions they can take to alleviate the problems caused by the federal government, is the only such action being taken that I know of. It can, if supported by a majority of state legislatures, stop the demolition of this great nation and restore the Constitution to its rightful authority as the law. I urge all fifty state legislatures to contact the Utah state legislature for further information on the Patrick Henry Caucus, and to join with them to save America before it’s too late.

If it becomes necessary to take actions such as Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence, and replace our elected government officials; a resolution would be required to nullify the agreement between the states and federal government. A majority of the fifty states would have authority to accomplish that task.

If you have any reservations as to where the US Armed Forces stand on the Constitution, I suggest you visit http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

I have taken the liberty of drafting a template, simple as it is, that could be the starting point for such a resolution. I do not flatter myself by believing it to be required as yet, nor do I believe it to be totally sufficient for such work, but intend to offer it only for your consideration if needed for such a purpose.

We, the People, now find ourselves in danger of having our liberties and wealth destroyed as independent and free people of these seperate states, by that very association which we entered into for the purpose of protecting our common interests from just such a tyranny as has become the United States of America.

By engaging in these actions without even once considering the will of the people, the officers of the Federal Government have committed gross acts of sedition against the true power of We, the People, have violated that solemn oath taken by them to protect and defend our Constitution, and have violated the word and intent of most every article, clause, and section of that document of union. This is not only bad governance, it is criminal activity.

Therefore, the following has been ratified by the majority of the legislatures of the several states and is, thus, made the applicable law by resolve, rendering the Constitution, as pertains to that Federal Governing body now existing, temporarily null and void of authority and causing it to be, no more, the law of the land.

To the furtherance of this cause it is:

Our federal government has taken upon itself powers never authorized, and with that have subjected the people of the nation to great harm, destroying the economy and the very nature of our society, and severely diminishing the wealth and general welfare of the people.

It has become necessary and of immediate need, to insure the survival of these sovereign states, to render the alliance to the Federal government non-existant and to, thereby, dissolve that created by the people of the states known as the United States of America.

It is only with these state legislatures that that authority rests as the creators of that Government. Therefore, if and when that central organization is no longer required, it becomes destructive in its nature, the people decide it to be ineffective and needs to be revised or replaced, only these state legislatures, having been the initiator and creator of that government for its own purposes and that government having no validity without the pleasure of these states and their people, have the authority to break those bonds voluntarily entered into. They can assert this authority over the Federal Government

regardless of objection or resistance from any source within the USA as the Constitution stipulates causing it no longer to be the law of the land as far as the present officers of the USA are concerned.

These legislatures of the several states, constituting a majority thereof, hereby declare all elected and appointed officers of all three branches of the Federal Government of the United States of America, excluding those continual employees not a party to the administration, Congress, or judiciary, to be in violation of the terms of their service, as sworn to by them, and are, hereby, terminated and removed from office as provided for in the Constitution of the United States. This ends the alliance of states with that government.

Resolved: We, the People of the states of America, retain the right of authorship, ownership, and any and all privileges of the titles, "The United States of America", and the, "The Constitution of the United States of America", for whatever future usage or purpose we see a need of or deem worthy. No officer, present or former, shall have any claim or right to these titles or to any resulting trademark.

Taking into account the blatant corruption and elitist attitude of all members of Congress regardless of party; when it is understood that their refusal to obey the Constitution is intentional and without regard for We, the People; when voters realize that a total replacement of Congress is necessary; the primary elections of 2010 become far more important than the 2010 general election.

With the people of the nation facing the loss of their freedoms as Americans, and dis-satisfaction with government’s leadership growing rampantly, next year’s congressional primaries represent the first chance for voters to fire those who have failed to protect our constitution by electing new officials from both parties who might actually work to save America from the ruin it is racing toward.

American voters of every party have become angry and disgusted with the willful rebuke handed them by their representitives and senators. Whether it was action causing the shortage and high prices of gasoline, increased taxation, more entitlements to special interests, expensive and illegal earmarks, partisan opposition to what is the people’s best interests, calls for responsible government, dictatorial rule changes by committee and party leaders, blatant waste and outright theft of the people’s taxes, the outrageous and illegal expansion of government authority and size, responsibility for the economic crisis, outrageous and destructive laws in favor of petty environmental excuses, or myriads of other stupid, selfish, illegal, and harmful acts against American voters, we have all become victims of the greed, arrogance, and lack of any responsibility for their actions or to the people by congressional incumbents on both sides of the aisle.

The people have come to the realization that drastic measures are called for, and that they alone are willing or able to what is required to end the tyrannical march toward oppression and change the course of America back toward freedom, greatness, and a future of happiness for our grandchildren. We, the People, have the duty and, for a decreasing time, the ability to pull this country out of the consuming flames fanned by a corrupted congress of professional politicians and radical socialist influences.

We, the American voters of both parties, can win any election we want to if we all vote for the same basic goal. Democrat and Republican voters, if banded together for America, could numerically dominate any election in a big, BIG way. Agreeing with each other on the immediacy of major changes in Congress and realizing there is no need to change affiliation or vote for the opposite party, we Americans can and must unite in a Voter’s Revolt to replace all the evil liars on Capitol Hill and insure none of them ever have the chance to fleece us again.

The 2010 congressional primary election is where this unity must take place. We must not allow the incumbent members of Congress from either party to advance to the general election. If they win the primary and become a candidate in the general election again, they can outspend a rival of the opposite party and call on those flunkies who owe them favors to insure they are re-elected again. We, the voters of both parties, must all make the commitment to change the names on the ballot for the general election to new, fresh names. The incumbent members of Congress need to wake up the morning after the primary votes have been cast and counted and find themselves out of the race completely.

We can’t fail to act if we are to remain free. We can’t wait until the general election if we want a new congress. To unite as democrats and republicans and be successful, it is the primary where we must act.

It isn’t hard to do, we just need to agree that it is necessary if we are to continue as free people. Make the decision to unite with all Americans and vote in the 2010 primary. Make the commitment not to re-elect any incumbent as your party’s candidate for office. It is, most probably, the last chance for us, the voters, to save our American way of life.

Glenn Flowers

The Ninth and Tenth ammendments to the Constitution have always been considered by the People as being a guarantee against an abuse of power by the federal government. They read as follows:

They seem to be fairly straight forward and unambiguous in what they say. As I read them, the federal government can not exercise any power not given to it by the Constitution, and if it is not given there the states or the people retain those rights for themselves. The government has only the powers spelled out, and no more. That is the way I believe most people would interpret them.

But, as is the case with most questions of points of law, there have been court decisions that have supported a simple interpretation, and rulings that take a more creative and complex approach in interpreting meaning. The acceptance and application of one or the other of these methods by a current court is not consistent but wavers to and fro over time and is the cause of much or all ignorance and confusion on the subject.

There exists precedent that allows the feds to assume powers not granted to them, as well as precedent preventing any use of power not specifically granted. On one hand, the last paragraph of Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power to, "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

That paragraph has been used by the courts to give Congress powers not specifically enumerated. On the other hand courts have made decisions based on a simple and strict reading of these ammendments such my opinion above. The people have no way of knowing these opposing precedents exist, but even if they did, they could not be confident in any court ruling a certain way because there is legal standing for the courts to rule this way or that.

The existence of precedents supporting opposing rulings renders these two ammendments meaningless. This is the case with all the limitations and grants of powers to the federal government written into the Constitution. The courts have an open buffet of past decisions on every question, custom made for whatever situation arises.

If I had the opportunity to propose a single ammendment to the Constitution, I would propose that there be a grand jury type civilian review of all SCOTUS decisions. This jury would be selected randomly and neither the SCOTUS nor the jury would know, before hand, the duty they were being dealt, and this duty would not be divulged until they had completed their work. If, in the future, the decision of that jury was found to be in contention with the Constitution, the previous decision would be superceded rather than be allowed to coexist.

The coexistence of opposing rulings as precedent renders the entire Constitution useless.

Glenn Flowers

To study this subject, an annotated copy of the Constitution is essential. After each article, section, or clause, there is an explanation of that section and those cases and decisions that have had an effect on that section and its everyday meaning.

These annotations are, sometimes, extensive and in some cases ridiculously so. Example: After quoting just the first sentence from Article One, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Satates, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representitives," there is over 80 pages dealing with decisions by federal courts, classes of decisions, the effects of these decisions, challenges, and the meaning for everyday citizens. EIGHTY PAGES for one sentence. This should have been an indication of things to come. The annotoations for Article One required 374 pages.

It is evident that no single blog post will be sufficient, nor would anything short of something similar to the extensive annotations. It is with this in mind that I decided to give a summary of how the Constitution has been rendered meaningless.

Much of what made the Constitution unique and our government as eduring as it has been is the seperation of powers of the three branches of government. The idea behind this seperation was simple: No one branch would have total or near total authority. The checks and balances built into the government were supposed to prevent the creation, enforcement, and ejudication of the law from being done by one branch, thus preventing conflicts of interest and the creation, essentially, of a dictatorial single branch.

The annotations for Article One begin with this sentence, "The Constitution nowhere contains a express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances."

It goes on citing a series of articles by James Madison where he proclaimed that, "the doctrine (of seperation of powers) did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or control over, the acts of each other," but that, "liberty was endangered where the whole power of one is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another." Neither sharply drawn demarcations of boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient. Instead, the security against concentration of powers "consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others." Ambition was to counteract ambition.

It was this slight chink in the armor of seperation of powers that has given the federal courts the excuse to render decisions that have, in their entirety, given each branch the power of the other branches where and whenever the court or that branch decides it must weild that power. The doctrine of non-delegation of powers, judicial enforcement of seperation of powers, the expressed limitation on the powers of Congress, State’s Rights, and all other sections of the Constitution have been made either less powerful than intended or outright meaningless by this one corruption of the seperation of powers.

Two of the many court decisions endorsing this corrupted view of seperation of powers are:

McCullough v Maryland 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 407

17 U.S. at 411

17 U.s. at 421

Justice Marshall declared "the power declared by the ‘necessary and proper’ clause embraces all legislative means unless forbidden by the letter and spirit of the Constitution." This refers to the Constitution stating that Congress has the power to make any law "necessary and proper" to carry out its expressed duties. This decision states that any means necessary to pass a law is covered by that "necessary and proper" statement.

American Insurance v Canter 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828)

26 U.S. at 542

26 U.S. at 543

The same Justice Marshall wrote that, "the Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war, and treaties; consequently that government possesses the power to acquire territory and from it, the inevitable consequence of the right to govern it." This decision had the effect of granting to the federal government a power it had not been granted by the Constitution, opening the door for more "resultant and inherent powers" to become law.

To summarize, the courts in these decisions have repeatedly ascribed to the federal government powers that do not accord with the doctrines of seperation of powers, expressed limits on Congress, and State’s Rights as are plainly contained within the Constitution.

It seems to me that the Judicial branch, and subsequently the Executive and Legislative branches, lost no time in seeking to gain for itself, and the federal government as a whole, absolute power and sovereignty over the states and the people at every opportunity, going as far as to include in their reasoning corrupted mis-interpretations of the Constitution’s content meant to prohibit just such a gain and growth in the power of the federal government.

Imagine, that if just this single sentence from the Constitution has been so dis-emboweled, what lies in store for the balance of the limits on federal power included in the Constitution. It then becomes no mystery as to how and why our rights, as per the Constitution, seem to be of no accord to Congress, the President, or the courts.

Glenn Flowers

I am enthralled with the thought of the states coming to the rescue of our nation. Logic would entitle the creator of a contract or association to have power over its execution and if not content therewith over its destruction. The states, for specific purposes, created a central government, all the time being wary of it possibly gaining too much authority. The delegates wrote into the pact many specific obstructions to such gain of power and believed, as they should have, that they had crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is.

Not long after the ink had dried on the contract the three branches sought to expand their power and control over those founding states. The first bullet fired was a decision by the Supreme Court that, although there were definite boundaries between the duties and powers of each branch, there was no specific language preventing the crossing of those boundaries. Thus, the seperation of power, which effectively prevented all power from being under the control of a single branch, was sidestepped allowing exactly the kind of conflicting interests present in our government that was originally forbidden.

The second and lethal bullet was fired by Congress. Originally the two houses of Congress were different in their form and their function. The House of Representitives was just that, representitves of the common voting populace elected by the people, being apportioned according to population. The Senate, however, was to be elected by the legislatures of the states and were to be representitives of the state government to the Congress. This allowed for professional legislators to be watchdogs over the federal processes and sound the alarm if Congress attempted to create new powers or rights. They, having experience at the black art of politics, would be better able to recognize such goings on. But, in 1913, Congress passed the 17^th ammendment that gave the people the duty of electing senators and, essentially, ridding themselves of any cognizant oversight.

These two actions are, according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, illegal at their inception and perpetually invalid. I offer as support of this Jefferson’s two resolutions written on behalf of angered state legislatures for reasons such as I have just described.

Write your state officials or send them this blog. Insist they participate in the Patrick Henry Caucus of state legislatures.

Brought about by a perception of over taxation, among other things, President Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson and his former vice president John C. Calhoun of South Carolina came toe to toe in 1832 over the state’s rights issue.

Calhoun had been replaced as vice president with Martin Van Buren for Jackson’s second run for office. Calhoun susequently set about writing the "Exposition and Protest" over the Tariff Act of 1828. When another protective tarif was passed in 1832, the State of South Carolina decided to nullify the tariff.

They called a special convention and Calhoun wrote the "Ordinance of Nullification" claiming that not only was the tariff constitutionally un-enforceable in South Carolina, but that any attempt to enforce it by any state or federal officials would not be permitted within South Carolina. Jackson, being the People’s President, came down hard, verbally, on the state and Calhoun.

I will leave it to you to read both the ordinance and President Jackson’s own retort in support of his duty to preserve the union. Just take notice of Jackson’s purposeful mention of a single state’s rights as opposed to my belief in the rights of a majority of states passing such a resolution.

The Ordinance is short and sweet as written. But Jackson’s reply is thirteen pages. I took only minor liberties though, it is all there for your perusal while only the most pithy sections are in bold.

And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and purposes which the Constitution of the United States authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the Constitution.

We, therefore, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and, more especially, an act entitled "An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight and also an act entitled "An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its

officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and void.

And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State; but it shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States within the limits of this State, from and after the first day of February next, and the duties of all other constituted authorities, and of all persons residing or being within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required and enjoined to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and such acts and measures of the legislature as may be passed or adopted in obedience thereto.

And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for the purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be taken, the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and enforce their judgments according to the laws and usages of the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt with as for a contempt of the court.

And it is further ordained, that all persons now holding any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military, under this State (members of the legislature excepted), shall, within such time, and in such manner as the legislature shall prescribe, take an oath well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed in pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of the same, and on the neglect or omission of any such person or persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall be forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on the execution of his office, or be he any respect competent to discharge the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner, have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be impaneled in any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall be in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature passed in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will well and truly obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed to carry the same into operation and effect, according to the true intent and meaning thereof.

And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government, to reduce this State to obedience, but that we will consider the passage, by Congress, of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government, to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States; and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do.

Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the Declaration of the Independence of the United States of America.

Look for a moment to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port; and no revenue could be collected anywhere, for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the state itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.

If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and nonintercourse law in the Eastern states, the carriage tax in Virginia were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those states discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the states who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice.

If the doctrine of a state veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our government. .

Under the Confederation, then, no state could legally annul a decision of the Congress or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. The government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue.

But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed but formed in vain if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are announced in the Preamble, made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed and whose conventions approved it. The most important among these objects-that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest-is "to form a more perfect union."

Now, is it possible that even if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the states, can it be conceived that an instrument made for the purpose of "forming a more perfect union" than that of the Confederation could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that Confederation a form of government dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a state or of a prevailing faction in a state? Even man of plain, unsophisticated understanding who hears the question will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. . . .

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, 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.

After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is made in the ordinance.

The Preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes as a fact that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the operation of these laws is unequal; that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the government; and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country and a threat of seceding from the Union if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a power expressly given by the Constitution to lay and collect imposts; but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who passed it. However apparent this purpose may he in the present case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power shall make that law void.

For how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is to make the scrutiny? How often may bad purposes be falsely imputed, in how many cases are they concealed by false professions, in how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine and you give to the states an uncontrolled right to decide; and every law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admitted that a state may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case.

The next objection is that the laws in question operate unequally. This objection may be made with truth to every law that has been or can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional, and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any state for that cause, then indeed is the federal Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its presentation.

We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our Union; we have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation; we have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe; we have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties; and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution of our country? . . .

Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws and another to resist them. The sages whose memory will always be reverenced have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The father of his country did not affix his revered name to so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the states, when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them or that they could exercise it by implication. Search the debates in all their conventions, examine the speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority, look at the amendments that were proposed; they are, all silent-not a syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made to correct the explicit supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the states, or to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it.

No; we have not erred. The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity; and the sacrifices of local interests, of state prejudices, of personal animosities that were made to bring it into existence will again be patriotically offered for its support.

The two remaining objections made by the ordinance to these laws are that the sums intended to be raised by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. . . .

The ordinance, with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the objection would with more propriety be reserved for the law so applying the proceeds, but surely cannot be urged against the laws levying the duty.

These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow citizens; judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their correctness; and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reckless, destructive course which you am directed to pursue. Review these objections and the conclusions drawn from them once more. What are they? Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South Carolina ordinance, may be rightfully annulled unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue and each state has a right to oppose their execution-two rights directly opposed to each other; and yet is this absurdity supposed to be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding collisions between the states and the general government by an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a similar purpose.

In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution, that those laws and that Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land, and that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding"; in vain have the people of the several states solemnly sanctioned these provisions, made them their paramount law, and individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any office. Vain provisions! Ineffectual restrictions! Vile profanation of oaths! Miserable mockery of legislation!-if a bare majority of the voters in any one state may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation; say, here it gives too little; there, too much, and operates unequally; here it suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed; there it taxes those that ought to be free; in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not approve; in that, the amount raised is more than is wanted.

Congress, it is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound discretion. Congress is composed of the representatives of all the states and of all the people of all the states. But we, part of the people of one state, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject, from whom it has expressly taken it away; we, who have solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law; we, most of whom have sworn to support it-we now abrogate this law and swear, and force others to swear, that it shall not be obeyed; and we do this not because Congress have no right to pass such laws-this we do not allege-but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the motives of those who passed them, which we can never with certainty know; from their unequal operation, although it is impossible, from the nature of things, that they should be equal; and from the disposition which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality.

But it does not stop there. It repeals in express terms an important part of the Constitution itself and of laws passed to give it effect which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and that such laws, the Constitution, and treaties shall be paramount to the state constitutions and laws. The judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of the United States by appeal when a state tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares there shall be no appeal-makes the state law paramount to the Constitution and laws of the United States, forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions, and even makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States or of that state to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits.

Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single state. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority.

On such expositions and reasonings the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it complains but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union if any attempt is made to execute them.

This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which, they say, is a compact between sovereign states who have preserved their whole sovereignty and therefore are subject to no superior; that because they made the compact they can break it when in their opinion it has been departed from by the other states. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists state pride and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical error on which it rests. . . .

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league; and whether it be formed by compact between the states or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the states; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each state, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other states, a single nation, cannot, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact but it is an offense against the whole Union.

To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States are not a nation, because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.

Because the Union was formed by a compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations generally has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and in our case it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a government is an offense, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such government has the right by the law of self-defense to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws.

It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that Union which connects us, but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the states than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacrifices or official exertions to defend them from violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent, on their part, an improper interference with or resumption of the rights they have vested in the nation. The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution; but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt.

Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the states and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated.

The states severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers were all of them functions of sovereign power. The states, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the United States; they became American citizens and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested in Congress. . . .

This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one state in the Union have elected delegates to a state convention; that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that state has recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the state. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended. And it is the intent of this instrument to proclaim, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed" shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law, or of such others as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and intrust to me for that purpose, but to warn the citizens of South Carolina who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention; to exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country; and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that state have been led, and that the course they am urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very state whose rights they affect to support. . . .

Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy state will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims. Its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty. . . .

Fellow citizens of the United States, the threat of unhallowed disunion, the names of those once respected by whom it is uttered, the array of military force to support it, denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action; and as the claim was asserted of a right by a state to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created seemed to be proper.

Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been expressed, I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws, to preserve the Union by all constitutional means, to arrest, if possible, by moderate and firm measures the necessity of a recourse to force; and if it be the will of Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States.

Fellow citizens, the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves-whether your sacred Union will be preserved and the blessing it secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated.

I wrote this back in November but never wanted to make it public. Now, I don’t care anymore. If someone wants to arrest me for what’s in here, I’d get better medical services in prison.

Anyway, I was inspired to this by the Magna Carta. King Edward decided to get on the people’s good side by giving them the right to take posession of his property if he ever failed to act on their complaints. Yeah, he told them to confiscate his horses, castles, land, anything. As long as his wife and kids had food you had the right to keep his stuff until you were satisfied.

Where is ole’ Edward these days?Can you even daydream about Barack acting in such a manner?

The title, The United States of America, has been the name of our union for 230 plus years. It became so by way of the Constitution. It has always been the title of the federal government by which the states became a united confederation. Now, these states find themselves under severe attack economically and socially by that same organization, the USA, or federal government. To replace or abolish that government, we need to void the Constitution as that is the document that gives the federal government the right to exist.

As long as the states recognize the Constitution as legal, the USA still has power.

We must abandon, for a while, that document and immediately create another partnership among the states without any power for the defunct USA.

Sounds drastic, huh. Think about it. The feds get their right to exist from that paper. That’s why it was created. If we had not formed the union, it would not have been created.

The salvation of our way of life from destruction at the hands of the USA, Obama, and his gang, rests solely with the legislatures of the fifty sovereign states. As the creators of the Constitution, and thereby the USA, they are the only entity with the authority and right to abolish or replace the federal government known as United States of America.

I will send this to the Patrick Henry Caucus as my offerring for a course of action.

The legislatures of the States of America,

To the former federal government aka: the USA

Therefore, the following document has been ratified by the majority of the several state legislatures and is, thus, made law by resolve, rendering the Constitution null and void of authority and causing it to be, no more.

Our federal government has taken upon itself powers it was never authorized to have, and with that power have subjected the people of the nation to great harm, destroying the economy and the very nature of our society, causing severe diminishment of the wealth and general welfare of the people.

It has become necessary and of immediate need, to insure the survival of these sovereign states, to render the federal government non-existant and to arrest as criminals all elected and appointed members thereof.

It is only with these state legislatures that that authority rests as the creators of that government. The Constitution of the United States was the instrument that created the form and function of that new central body. Therefore, when that central organization is no longer required, or it becomes destructive, innefective, or needs to be revised or replaced, only these state legislatures have that authority. They can accomplish this in spite of any and all objection or resistance from any source, as the Constitution is no longer the law of the land.

These legislatures of the several states, constituting a majority thereof, hereby declare all elected and appointed members of all branches of the Federal Government of the United States of America, to be in violation of the terms of their service, as sworn to by them, and are, hereby, terminated and removed from office as provided for in the Constitution of the United States.

With the Obama administration shredding the Constitution and stealing the wealth of the people for the next decade Americans are looking for an effective method to put a stop to the crimes before our nation is destroyed. The only entity in the US that has standing to file charges, has enough influence to pass resolutions with teeth, and whom Congress actually fears are the state legislatures. Why do the states have that power? What do they have that they aren’t using yet? It is the fact that the states are the original creators of the federal government. It was a convention of state delegates that produced the Constitution, the document that created the federal government, and in article ten the states left no doubt as to who held the ultimate power in America.

If a majority of the state legislatures were to pass identical resolutions listing specific violations of the Constitution by Congress, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS, promising to withhold all revenue due the federal government until the violations cease and their effects reversed, and promising if they persist in these violations they will pass a resolution dissolving the federal government and rendering it of no authority, being null and void, and issuing indictments in every state for the violations and warrants for the arrest of all officials, I believe that might get their attention.

Someone needs to do something SOON. There is already enough documentation of crimes serious enough to warrant such an action, any more procrastination can only allow more damage to be done, and cause the recovery period to grow by years, and the theft of the people’s wealth to grow to the tens of trillions of dollars.

Write or e-mail your state legislators and encourage them to contact the Patrick Henry Causcus, a group of state legislators started by Utah State Representitive Carl Wimmer, who are planning to bring sanctions against the government in Washington.

They have their own, and several associate web sites, all are very inspiring.

I wish to have your opinions on a subject both dear and feared to all of us. I believe the malady that afflicted voters last November is the same as what has infected the America haters, the "give me" crowd, and, especially Obama, his wife, and all of his associates, embraced or abandoned. It is as fundamental as the inalienable rights of man and that which has made America the nation she is, or was, and can still be.

America was founded on what major principal? The Declaration of Independence tells the reasons Americans set themselves apart from a king. It was in every pamphlet, editorial, letter to of from, and was the main subject when the contract for the federal government was written. In one, all encompassing word, America’s claim to fame, the fertilizer for the tree of liberty, was, and still is individualism. The inalienable rights of the individual, especially, most importantly, their right to own property and to control that property, were and are the bedrock of America’s greatness. It is the American, the head of the family, the business owner, the mom and dad worker bees, that are each individually responsible for the America of today.

But we, having been raised, mainly, as a religious people, see ourselves as faulty, no, depraved. And down through the decades we, as forthright and honest people, have had a tough time mentally squaring those two in our minds. The depraved, but exceptional and hard working individuals, having the nerve to claim theirs is a nation of values and morals, is just to much at odds to each other to seem real. It would seem that these honest, sincere folks have a point, and that it eats at them, and Obama, all their lives, promoting a putrification of the inner self resulting, eventually, in the bitterness we see, and the aching of their hearts that is so obvious.

The reasoning behind their quandary is simple. Since before all of our births, for over one hundred years and more, America has been known as the nation that acts as savior of the world, the hero of the oppressed wherever they be, the first in the space race and technology, feeding the world. When disaster hits anywhere, it’s America that floats her city on a boat up to their shores and gives all they have to those who need it. America has invented, built, exported, and given away so much, and has never even run slightly short for her own needs. Yes, America is exceptional. The shining city on the hill.

So what’s wrong with that? It isn’t wrong, in and of itself, because America is a country of Americans. But that idea, America, has come to mean sitting back and watching her rise to ever more lofty heights, and not having too much to do with it, thanks to our elected officials in Washington. America is great, but some of the people don’t feel so great. Why? Because they know that they have not been responsible for it. They can’t sit back and just watch our greatness grow and have any pride in it.

Except for those of us who were raised by the previous, patriotic generation, who have taken advantage of our opportunities, worked hard all our lives paying a mortgage, raising a family, and coming to an inner truce with God and our sinful nature. We can feel the pride in being a self provider, and feel it we do. And we make no apologies for being proud. Those who have lived on the doll, or have taken all that America is for granted, or who know nothing greater than themselves that they can put their faith in, can not perceive the reason the rest of us have for being so cocky. They are Americans, but they know nothing of indivdualism and, therefore, they are of the same mind as the proletariats of the former USSR, and can’t fathom our greatness as anything but false.

These people have lost their sense of individualism, if they ever had any, because they have failed to do anything about their own interests. It has become so easy to wait for America to do it all and not have to worry about it. This reign of inner loathing has been cheered on by the degradation of our value system, the decline of our public schools, no parental authority or even concern, and it becomes its own firestorm, creating an ever self-perpetuating downward spiral of individual achievement, and a welling up of disgust and enmity for themselves and those who have any pride in themselves or the fruited plain, or faith in anything godlike.

There are many false concepts that people have regarding the Constitution, its creation, and its effect on the United States and the people. I intend to address four of the more popular myths. Legal and historic authoritative references available by request.

The Constitution was created in a constitutional convention convened to revise the Articles of Confederation. It is said that the delegates exceeded their powers and scrapped the Art. Of Conf., created the Constitution, and forced it on the states to ratify, which was not what they were authorized to do.

The thirteen colonies decided, in a meeting of delegates in Philadelphia, 1774, that there were reasons to form an alliance between themselves that would set up rules and policies by which the states would interact with one another. Benjamin Franklin was tasked with authoring the rules, and in May of 1775, he presented his work, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to delegates of the several colonies of New Hampshire, and the other colonies, in general Congress in Philadelphia.

There were thirteen articles of about four pages total, that addressed such subjects as the name of the new confederation, what states were included and for what purpose, how the articles would be carried out, the duties and power that the articles created for the confederation, who would pay for the cost of implementing the articles, certain restrictions that applied to all the states, how the articles were to be revised or ammended, etc.

The Articles were voted on and were unanimously adopted by those states that were represented. The name of the new confederation was "The United Colonies of North America."

Two years later, at the request of the delegates of several of the colonies, the Articles were revised to a) change the name of the confederation to "The United States of America", b) provide more detail to the thirteen articles as they saw necessary, and c) provide for the establishment of a navy and army. The extra details were considerable in their content and increased the document by more than twice its size, to nine or ten pages, depending on the formatting. Mr. Franklin, again, produced an effective, well written revision and the new articles were, again, passed unanimously by all states.

These articles, the conventions and delegates it required, and the work it accomplished with a navy, army, post office, etc., was the extent of the central government for the next nine years. During that time, new flaws and inadequacies were discovered in the articles and documented, not being due to any defficiency by Dr. Franklin in their creation. The shortcomings were in the nature of duties required by the articles, (army, navy, etc.) were billed to the states for payment, but there was no requirement for the states to pay. Also, some of the duties required, weights and measures, embassies, treaties with Indian nations, etc., required more authority for their implementation than was given to the Confederation by the Articles.

In early 1786, in congress assembled, the confederation delegates resolved that a new committee of delegates from the states would meet in Annapolis in September of that year to determine what revisions were needed to remedy the defects in the articles.

On September 11, delegates from only five states met in Annapolis. They elected a chairman, presented their credentials to each other, and then discussed the duties that would be proper under their circumstances. A committee was selected to prepare a letter of report to be made to the legislatures of those states having delegates in attendance.

In summary, the delegates refused to undertake the duties they had been sent to perform because the representation was so inadequate that no decision made could be approved as only five of the thirteen states sent delegates.

They did offer the opinion of those delegates who attended that a) this was a very important cause and the other states should be convinced to send delegates, b) that the revisions needed were to be extensive if they were to cure the defects, and c) that the full Congress should also receive a copy of this letter so they would know the extreme gravity of the situation.

In May, 1787, the Congress convened in Philadelphia to take up this matter. It was decided by the Congress that a full constitutional convention, separate from Congress, should be called and the matter of the remedy of defects in the Confederation be their sole purpose. The convention president was to be George Washington, and was convened immediately. In September of that year they produced their proposal for the remedies sought. It took the form of the Constitution of the United States, a new document, that was sent to all the states where a convention of delegates chosen by the legislatures would consider the ratification of the new document, and when nine of the thirteen states had approved it, it would be effective.

In June, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution making it the law of the land. In March, 1789, the first Congress under the new Constitution convened in New York. In April, George Washington became the first President of the United States.

There was no exceeding of authority by the Annapolis committee, or the convention that produced the Constitution. The Arts. Of Conf. had been created by the states, and the states had the right to revise or replace them as they saw necessary. Also, before the Constitution became law, the states had to vote on it and nine of the thirteen were needed to adopt it. They did, and it was. All legal, within the rights and authority of the creators, and no exeeding of authority was committed.

The most notable promoter of Myth No. One is the John Birch Society who opposes the call for an Art. Five Convention for proposing ammendments by delegates from the states. Only Congress has ever ammended the Constitution, but Art Five states that delegates from the states are allowed to ammend in a convention called by Congress when enough states apply for it. Congress has ignored all applications, over 600, ever submitted by the states.

That the Constitution was created for the purpose of defining and guaranteeing the rights of the People of the USA.

The Constitution is the document that created the federal government. It replaced the inadequate Articles of Confederation and established a complete central government.

The Constitution was written by a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen states, (Rhode Island never attended) and was a listing of powers granted to the fed. government by the states, a listing of specific prohibitions of power not granted, the rules of how the new government would be formed, how they would conduct their business as specified, the powers of authority where it would over rule state laws and where states would retain their authority, and a statement as to why the document was being created and by whom.

It was not written as a document to the people of the USA, did not ever specifically address the people directly, but was, instead, written BY the people for the purpose of forming a more perfect union of states than the Arts. Of Conf. had been.

So, the purpose was to form the federal government. In doing that, it specifically listed the seventeen jobs the new gov’t. was to do, what powers it was given to do those jobs, stated that any power not specifically granted by the states to the fed. gov’t. were to remain the power of the states, and that the states, being the creators of the new gov’t., were the ultimate authorities in the USA and the fed gov’t. was the servant of the states and the people.

In the listing of powers granted and those which were restricted under any circumstance, the rights of the people were defined and their violation or even revision by the fed. gov’t. was strictly prohibited. The new federal government was not allowed to have any authority over the rights of the people. PERIOD!! The fed govt’s relationship was with the state governments, in service to the people, and the states were to remain the ultimate authority, except where designated in the Constitution.

That the Constitution demands there be no interaction between churches and the government, in other words, a seperation of church and state.

The words, "seperation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution or in any legal document of the United States. The very idea of that phrase is not ever defined or implied. What is written about churches in the Cosnstitution is the prohibition of Congress to make ANY laws regarding religion or the establishment of religion.

It is illegal for the USA to have any law that has anything to do with religion. PERIOD. NO LAWS OF ANY KIND ABOUT RELIGION.

This prohibition is found in the first ammendment to the Constitution, and is just one of five rights in the first ammendment that Congress was prohibited from dealing with in any way. In other words, "Congress, you have your orders for your jobs and they do not include anything at all about these five rights. You have no authority where these matters are concerned."

In England, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and demanded all British subjects be members thereof, and of no other church, including the Catholic Church. This was one reason some colonists left England, and they made it impossible for the new federal government to do the same in America.

But, nowhwere was there any law or suggestion that churches and religion could not influence or be officials of the federal government. In fact, John Adams said that the new government needed the wisdom and religious conviction of church members and even their ministers to influence the government in a good and Godly manner.

Religion MUST have a part in government. Government must NOT have any part in religion.

The people have a Constitutional right to privacy.

Nowhere in the Constitution or US legal documents is there a right to privacy. The only things in the Constitution that comes close are a) the Third Ammendment prohibition of the government to house soldiers in private homes and b) the Fourth Ammendment prohibition against search and seizure of homes or property without a warrant issued with probable cause by a judge.

Nowhere is there a specific, individually declared right of citizens to privacy. The right for people to be secure in their homes is implied, but against illegal searches or seizures of property. The government leaves it to the individual to provide for his own privacy, but does not guarantee him the right to that privacy. They, also, do not forbid privacy, so, they leave that subject alone, as they should all subjects except their expressed duties.

Glenn Flowers