By KrisAnne Hall, JD

The “vetted” history textbooks in our education systems of both K-12 and post-secondary are replete with vital omissions and intentional deceptions regarding the formation of America, our battle for independence and the creation of our Constitution.  These errors have become so widespread and are taught with such “authority” that the majority of Americans, those who consider themselves conservative and liberal alike, have very little immediate access to information that speaks truth.  Even former president Barack Obama used this errant teaching of history to justify the government’s dismantling of Americans’ 4th Amendment requirements. In a speech delivered regarding National Security Agency data collection programs, the Obama gave this twisted distortion of American history:

“At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee, born out of the Sons of Liberty, was established in Boston. And the group’s members included Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots. Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms.”

It is hard to believe that some speechwriter could so shamelessly coopt the fight for liberty to justify the modern surveillance state. On the other hand, given the progressive education that the majority of our citizens have been brainwashed to believe maybe he thought nobody would notice or even believed his own words to be truth. What do you say we shed the light of TRUTH on this mind-manipulating rewrite of American history?

The Revolutionary War Was Not A Battle Between The British And Americans

It was a battle between British Colonists and their government. It was a battle to win independence from government intrusion, denial of liberty, and government control. It was a civil war, not a foreign war.

The Sons Of Liberty Were Birthed By Colonists Who Were Fed Up With The Government’s Intrusion Upon Their Privacy, Property And Denial Of Their Rights

It all began in February 1761 when James Otis, Jr., a former government attorney, brought a lawsuit against the government for its blatant violations of the colonists’ rights to privacy and security of property from warrantless searches and seizures. Otis blew the cover off the British tool called “Writs of Assistance.” These Writs were authority given to government agents, by law, that permitted these agents to arbitrarily demand access to colonists’ homes and businesses to search and seized anything the government agents determined to be suspicious.

Otis had been in charge of the execution of these warrantless searches and prosecutions that resulted from the seizures. He began to realize just how tyrannical these Writs were.   He called them, “The worst instruments of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English Liberty ever found in an English law book.” When Otis was approached by some colonists who were victims of this arbitrary power, he decided to resign his post and take up a legal battle to secure the Liberty of the Colonists.

The Colonists had a long established right to the security of their property and to due process rights. Otis was there to defend them.

Otis argued for five hours, fighting the government in their courtroom. He lost the legal fight but birthed a spirit of independence in the hearts and minds of the colonists. This is what John Adams said about that day in court.

“But Otis was a flame of fire! With a promptitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glare of his eyes into (the future), and a rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before him…American Independence was then and there born. The seeds of Patriots and Heroes – to defend the vigorous youth, were then and there sown. Every man of an immense, crowded audience, appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take up arms against Writs of Assistance. Then, and there, was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain – then and there, the child of Independence was born. In fifteen years, namely in 1776, he grew up to man hood, and declared himself free.” (John Adams to William Tudor 29 March 1817);

Also in that courtroom that day were Samuel Adams and many of the other men who would become the founders of our Constitutional Republic. Sam Adams left that courtroom inspired to form the Committees of Correspondence, a citizen coalition group whose purpose was to connect the Liberty minded Colonists and help educate each other on the TRUTH in the face of government media propaganda.

The Sons of Liberty were the action group birthed out of the inspired members of the Committees of Correspondence.

The Sons Of Liberty Were Not A Government Surveillance Program

As a matter of fact, they were quite the opposite. The Sons of Liberty held rallies and protests against the government’s denial of their rights to privacy and due process. The protests took the form of mock hangings and mock funeral processions of government agents.   They were engaged in ANTI-GOVERNMENT surveillance defending Liberty from a government who was refusing to abide by their Constitutional Charters.

Our Battle For Independence was NOT About a Tax on Tea

Perhaps one of the greatest manipulations of the people through errant education of our history is the fallacy that we went to civil war with our own government, neighbors, brothers, and sisters in 1776 because of a tax on tea.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact is that the tea had become a symbol of a much greater and larger despotism.  On January 1, 1774, founding mother Hannah Winthrop wrote to Mercy Otis Warren:

“Yonder, the destruction of the detestable weed, made so by cruel exaction, engages our attention. The virtuous and noble resolution of America’s sons, in defiance of threatened desolation and misery from arbitrary despots, demands our highest regard.”

Arbitrary despotism was the problem, not a tax on tea!  Since the early 1700s, under the rule of George II, the American Colonists were experiencing a gradual and ever increasing infringement of their rights; legislation without representation, complete government control of commerce, private businesses, the market place, warrantless searches and seizures, denials of due process, and imposition of foreign law just to name a few.  These blatant violations of the Rights of the colonists did not happen all at once, but so gradually that only a few noticed (Benjamin Franklin started writing about them in 1722).  By the time the tea was cast into the harbor, the people were being subjected to complete and despotic martial law, not because of threat of foreign war, but because the PEOPLE were standing up and speaking out against the government’s violation of their Rights; Rights that had been codified in English Law since 1100 AD.

Yet our textbooks still teach that the battle for independence was about a 3% consumption tax.  Perhaps if the people can be convinced that it was “high taxes” that caused us to fight for independence, then all the government needs to do to keep people pacified, complacent, and compliant is to make sure the taxes don’t get “too high.”  Meanwhile an unsuspecting people, disarmed of the wisdom of history, happily cling to their paper currency while once again their liberties are eroded by government despotism without notice.  If you are still skeptical about this truth, look at the Declaration of Independence; you will notice that taxation is the seventeenth grievance.  If the taxation had been the cause, surely it would’ve made it to the top five.  

Patrick Henry didn’t say, “Give me lower taxes or give me death.”  Our founders were not trying to create a stronger economy.  They were fighting for their lives to secure Liberty.  John Adams said it very plainly in 1765:

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”

Those Who Do Not Know Their History Are Doomed To Repeat Its Mistakes

If those in power can rewrite our history to the point where Patriots fighting for Liberty become the very government oppressors they battled, we will become enslaved and never even know it. I am reminded of what Thomas Paine said about THEIR King in his dissertation called, “Common Sense”:

“He may accomplish by craft and subtlety in the long run, what he cannot do by force or violence in the short one.”

This blatant and ubiquitous distortion of reality has only one purpose – To convince the masses to submit to a level of government control that can only be equated to tyrannical Kings and Kingdoms. Our founders did not accept such tyrannical abuse of their God-given rights and we should not accept it now.

“I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all the instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writs of Assistance is.”  James Otis, Jr.

What is the difference between this history and the history taught in today’s institutions of “education?” This one is based in fact and there’s is purely fiction.

This is a guest article by our dear friend Victor Sperandeo. Mr. Sperandeo was a 2008 inductee into the Trader Hall of Fame by Trader Magazine and has been included on Ziad Adelnour’s list of top 100 Wall Streeters. Mr. Sperandeo was featured in the best-selling, The New Market Wizards: Conversations with America’s Top Traders, by

Jack D. Schwager and Super Traders: Secrets and Successes of Wall Street’s Best and Brightest, by Alan Rubenfeld, has been profiled twice in Barron’s, The Wall Street Journal and Stocks & Commodities, and has appeared on CNBC, CNN, Fox and other networks.

I hope you enjoy this article as much as I did. ~ KrisAnne Hall

It’s Impossible to Outlaw “Crazy” — the Government Has a Better Chance of Implementing Laws to Reduce Being Struck by Lightning

by Victor Sperandeo

The outcry that takes place whenever a “Mass Shooting” occurs, especially in a “school”, is certainly deserved. However, politicians thinking that “laws” will curb these events is mindless and statistically impossible. Certainly, lessening these occurrences in schools is possible, and should be done. Visit any government building for effective tactics to accomplish this, as they have virtually zero incidence of shootings.

Moreover, some historical facts should be considered. The largest number of deaths both at a school and away from a school, were from a bomb, not a semi-automatic gun. Most of us remember Timothy McVeigh killing 168 (wounding 680) people in Oklahoma in 1995, but almost no one remembers the “Bath Michigan School” bombing of 1927. It killed 44 (38 elementary school children) and injured 58 other people. This was the largest mass murder of school children in US history! The bomber, Andrew Kehoe, did this because he was fired, lost an election, and had his taxes raised. He also killed himself, and his wife. Most (72%) of these mass killings end in suicides. Wouldn’t we all classify him as “crazy”?

The “free press” doesn’t use statistics to tell a historical story, but to promote an agenda such as gun confiscation. Using statistics in a misleading manner is pure propaganda. Manipulating statistics to seize free people’s guns has NOTHING to do with stopping gun violence. See the article by the Daily Caller as an example “EXPOSED: Obama Advisors’ Emails In Immediate Sandy Hook Aftermath Reveal Anti-Gun Agenda: ‘Tap Peoples Emotions’ – “Go for a vote this week asap before it fades. Tap peoples [sic] emotion. Make it simple – assault weapons.”

Furthermore, CNN published a story by Saeed Ahmed and Christina Walker on 5/18/18 called “There has been on average one school shooting every week this year.” To fabricate these “school SHOOTINGS” statistics, the writers counted a BB Gun shooting, and an accidental discharge of a gun during a safety class. These incidents and other far-reaching examples attempt to mislead the reader to think it’s a “mass shooting.”

Let’s review the real stats on “Mass Shootings” over a long period. Mother Jones has an excellent data base of mass shootings from 1982 to date: “US Mass Shootings, 1982-2018: Data from Mother Jones Investigation.” A “mass shooting” is an incident in which a random shooter targets people in general and where three or more people die by firearm related violence. According to this progressive leftwing organization, from 1982 to May 18, 2018 (or 35.75 years), the total of such incidences is 99. This comes to 2.77 mass shootings per year on average.

With this understanding, what are the odds of this event? Today’s population (according to the US Census Bureau) is reported to be 326,766,748. Let’s adjust this number for people between ages 15- 64, who are most likely to be involved in a mass shooting, or 207 million people. The conservative “average population” that might commit a mass shooting from 1982-2018 is approximately 160 million per year in age group 15-64. The occurrences number 0.0000006% or six one-hundred thousands of one-percent, (99 incidences divided by 160 million). The only conclusion is that these 99 people can be deemed as having suffered from a psychosis manifested in a wild or aggressive way. Synonyms for psychosis are: mad, insane, out of one’s mind, deranged, demented, not in one’s right mind, crazed, lunatic, non-compos mentis, unhinged, i.e. crazy. Indeed, it is reported 72% of them committed or wanted/tried to commit suicide. In a population of people this large, certainly some very small fraction of people, suffer from psychosis, or crazy, while some are altruistic geniuses.

This statistic shows that the number is so small, you can’t legislate against it to eliminate crazy people. When you have a large population, the very few who want to do harm, “gun control laws” are impossible, as these people will always find a way to accomplish what is driving them, whether it is with guns, knives, trucks, bombs, etc.

It would be more effective to create a law against lightning deaths, as the odds of getting struck by and dying from lightning are much higher! So, in this case (20 years) 1,020 deaths divided by an average of 250,000,000 people is only seven ten-thousands of one percent. In the last 20 years, the average deaths annually from lightning numbers 51 according to The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). More people of all ages can go outside and can be stuck by lightning, than are likely to be a mass shooter.

Therefore, if those in government made a law that no one can be outside while it was raining, punishable by a fine or jail, far more people would be happy to comply, and the number of lightning deaths would decline. But not for mass shootings. Fines or jail don’t bother people who generally intend to commit murder, and who then are highly likely to kill themselves or die in jail.

With a population of 327 million people, no law can stop 3-11 crazy people from doing evil each year. Also note, as the population grows, mass shootings will slightly increase. This point is known by the Statists, who desire to rule over other people. Historically, as one can see, this is the true point of gun control; to rule by force without the people’s ability to fight back, and ultimately not preventing what is impossible to prevent.

If one wishes to see the proof, read Mao’s, and other dictators’ views on gun confiscation: “Every Communist must grasp the truth – Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (Mao). This is a slogan popular among Marxist-Leninist-Maoists.

Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms.”

Joseph Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”

Benito Mussolini: “First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.”

Vladimir Lenin: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

Fidel Castro: moved against private gun ownership the second day he was in power. He sent his thugs throughout the island using the gun registry lists – compiled by the preceding Batista regime – to confiscate the people’s firearms. Different tactics, same objective. A defenseless people don’t give the all-wise leader any lip.

Hugo Chavez’ government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians. Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition. 6/1/12 But Karl Marx, who actually wanted a revolution, said, “the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

However, in contrast, George Washington believed: “A free people ought to be armed.” Indeed, the words in the 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated “militia”, (which means ALL THE PEOPLE, as permanent standing armies were not allowed See Article1, Section 8, Subclause 12 – 16: To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions) being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the RIGHT (NOT PRIVILEGE) of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (Emphasis added).

With the fact that 3 people (or perhaps as a high 11) in a year, who would be certainly deemed crazy, out of 250,000 million adults today, does it seem reasonable to effectively attempt to overturn the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, or a Natural, (most would say God-given) Right? These are events that are unpredictable, but statistically inevitable. As for laws against “crazy” i.e. a psychopath – see the quote of Adolf Eichmann and see if a law would have changed his mind: “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction.” This is the mindset the Government is using to take a Free People’s guns to stop a mass murderer!

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

CNN & Nullification Misinformation

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

During a September 2013 campaign speech, Interim US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker made some very bold comments that have the federal supremacists in defensive battle mode.  Whitaker said,

“Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?”

“The federal government’s done a very good job about tying goodies to our compliance with federal programs, whether it’s the Department of Education, whether it’s Obamacare with its generous Medicare and Medicaid dollars and the like,” he added. “But do I believe in nullification? I think our founding fathers believed in nullification. There’s no doubt about that.”

A federal supremacist at University of Texas, law professor and CNN contributor Stephen Vladeck, according to an article on CNN by Andrew Kaczynski, calls Whitaker’s statements “irreconcilable not only with the structure of the Constitution.”  Interestingly this federal supremacist attitude was not supported by the chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court even when he declared the mandate to be a tax.  John Roberts, writing for the majority in the first Affordable Care Act opinion, NFIB v Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) confirms Whitaker’s understanding of the State’s authority to nullify Obamacare.  As a matter of fact, Roberts gives the States a directive to nullify Obamacare if they did not want to “embrace” these policies as their own, citing Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923), as his agreeing precedent.

“In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923) . The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

This is the same reasoning SCOTUS used in 1997 in Mack, Printz v US when it decided against the federal government and certain Brady Bill provisions. The court reasoned that………………….

Federal supremacist Stephen Vladeck continues his criticism of the principle of Nullification by saying that Nullification is contrary to the text of the Constitution itself, citing the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which he claims “not only makes federal law supreme, but expressly binds state courts to apply it.”  Since Mr. Vladeck is a professor one would have to assume that he can read.  It then leads this author to the inevitable conclusion that Vladeck must be intentionally deceiving his readers by not accurately quoting the text of Article VI clause 2.  To clear up the confusion laid before us by Vladeck, and in full disclosure let’s just look at this clause in its entirety:

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 notwithstanding.

A simple, elementary reading of this clause indicates Vladeck’s deception.  This clause does not make federal law supreme.  Quite to the contrary, it makes the Constitution supreme and places all other laws beneath it.  According to the Supremacy Clause not all federal laws are supreme, only those laws that are made “in pursuance to the Constitution.”  When federal laws are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, those laws are not supreme, and as this language of the Constitution asserts, the Judges in every State are NOT bound by them.  Time and again, the drafters of this clause make this principle abundantly clear:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.

No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

“…the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.”  James Wilson Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787

Andrew Kaczynski, comments in apparent shock that Whitaker would refer to the courts as the “inferior branch of the federal government.”  Apparently he has never taken the time to read how the courts were formed and the purpose and limit to judicial power as described by the people who created this branch of government.  One statement made by Alexander Hamilton should help us to see that once again Whitaker is right, and the federal supremacists are wrong:

“This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…” Federalist #78

Hamilton’s comments were one of concern that the judiciary being the weakest branch would need to be supported by the people to ensure that it was not abused by the other two branches.  Whitaker’s statement about the judiciary being the inferior branch of the federal government should not be shocking to the American people, it should be, as Hamilton identified it, “incontestable.”

These federal supremacists, when attacking the Constitution’s foundational principles will always revert to a common fallacy of logic to appeal to the emotion of the people by name-calling and labeling.  In this particular context, the popular fallacy implied by both Vladeck and Kaczynski is that people who support Nullification are racists and that the principle of Nullification was a racist tool used in the Civil War to protect the institution of slavery and in the Civil Rights movement to oppress blacks.  Calhoun’s defense of nullification and Mississippi’s resistance to Brown is selectively highlighted to drive home their point.  Yet they also have to selectively OMIT the use of nullification by abolitionist States to defy federal laws of the fugitive slave act and to ignore the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dred Scott that men were property.  Without Nullification by these abolitionist States, the federal government, with the full support of the Supreme Court would have protected the institution of slavery and defied the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” We are supposed to accept that the misuse of a principle makes the principle itself invalid (Sounds a great deal like the anti gun argument.)  They also selectively omit the use of nullification to defy federal marijuana laws, and federal laws banning gay marriage. AND they don’t seem to want to talk about the MISUSE of nullification by California to defy the Uniform Code of Immigration and Naturalization because THAT misuse of nullification is SUPPORTED by these leftists who want anti-constitutional sanctuary cities dotting the land.

CNN’s legal analyst, Michael Zeldin attempts to deny these facts by claiming that the principle of Nullification is “purely political.”  That is an interesting comment considering that every claim this article levels against Nullification is purely political and not legal.  The drafters of the Constitution asserted time and time again that unconstitutional federal laws were “null and void,” and that they were “no law at all.”  Who can claim, with any semblance of legal reasoning that a law that is null and void, that carries the weight of no law at all, should bind anyone, anywhere?   Therefore the justification for anti-nullifiers is purely political.  The purely political nature of these supremacist, anti-nullifiers is supported by the reality of their hypocrisy mentioned above.  Whitaker makes the statement that States can and should nullify “Obamacare” and these supremacists lose their ability to reason.  However, when States assert that they do not have to follow the federal Uniform Rules of Naturalization, or do not have to recognize federal marijuana laws, these political activists disguising themselves as “legal analysts” or “professors of the Constitution” all fall silent.  Yes, federal supremacy has to be purely political because it has no factual or historical foundation in America or the Constitution.

Finally, CNN’s federal supremacists, as do most federal supremacists, assert a final defense to their indefensible argument of complete federal supremacy by raising aloft the standard of judicial idolatry, namely a distortion of Supreme Court Opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).  Sadly, we have are so far removed from this opinion written in 1803, by Chief Justice John Marshall, I wonder if any modern law professor, pundit, or analyst has actually read the case.  I believe the overwhelming majority have simply read and accepted the summary and definition provided to them by some modern law book.  Once again, actually reading the case affirms the supremacy of the Constitution and the invalidity of laws made by Congress that are inconsistent with that document.  Here is a small sampling:

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

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

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

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis mine).

Marbury v. Madison does not deny nullification.  It does not deny the State’s authority to be an essential check and balance to unconstitutional federal power.  Considering both the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 and the Virginia Resolution of 1800, the fact that this court is actually glaringly silent on this issue, says to the people that nullification was not contradicted by this court.  Marbury did, however, incontestably establish the Constitution as supreme over federal laws.  It did not establish the court’s power to be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution.  It did reaffirm the court’s duty, as established by the creators of the Constitution, to be a check on the legislative branch using the Constitution as the standard.

When supremacists like Vladeck, Zeldin, and their ideological kinfolk in the law schools & think tanks say “all federal laws are supreme,” when they declare the federal government through their courts to be “the ultimate arbiters” of the Constitution, they are not only operating contrary to the language of the Constitution itself, but contrary to Marbury v Madison which they have reshaped into their own image.  They are asserting a gross and absurd reality that denies not only the words of the Constitution, the tenor in which it was written, but they are also declaring the people of America are not free, but mere subjects to an oligarchy of their choosing; today the legislature, tomorrow the judiciary.  Who rules, to them, is merely dependent upon which political tribe happens to hold power.  Their assertion of arbitrary power is so radical and so contrary to the principles of Liberty, they have to resort to label-lynching and fallacies of logic.  They have no basis in fact or history, so they want to scare and intimidate every American from learning the truth.

This political bullying will only stop when the people learn truth and those who know truth are no longer afraid to speak it out loud, just like Mr. Whitaker.  I applaud Matthew Whitaker for his statements.  I just hope he has the courage to live up to his convictions and not be bullied by the tired accusation of being racist simply because political loyalist are afraid his action may support the big orange boogeyman that they all love to hate.

To learn more about Nullification and the duty of the States get KrisAnne’s book Sovereign Duty or enroll at www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see, federal law is not the “supreme law of the land,” that position belongs to the Constitution.  Anything (e.g. law-regulation-executive order-supreme Court opinion) that is not made “in pursuance to the Constitution” is null and void.  Hamilton makes this abundantly clear in Fed. #78:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, James Madison stated in the Federalist Papers 45:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Constitution Ended Slavery – Politicians Prolonged It

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 While defending the Constitution I am met often with two questions:  1) If the founders were so great and the Constitution such a great document, why did it preserve slavery?  2) Why did the Constitution treat black people as 3/5^th a person?  To understand the truth, we start with some basics…

Slavery was an imposition placed upon the colonists by Great Britain.  Col. George Mason describes this source and its problem during the Federal Convention (22 Aug. 1787):

“This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British Merchants.  The British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it.”

This created an addiction to this labor in many States.  Judge Pendleton observed during the Debate in South Carolina House of Representatives (1788) “that only three States, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, allowed the importation of negroes.  Virginia had a clause in her Constitution for this purpose, and Maryland, he believed, even before the war, prohibited them.”

However, James Madison also pointed out during the Debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention (15 June 1788) that there were even “a few slaves in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut: these states would, probably, oppose any attempts to annihilate” slavery.

How could the States overcome their differences on this subject and agree on enough to form a Union? The drafters of the Constitution had an advantage, they knew a few things to be absolutely true and these things would provide the solution to their dilemma.

The drafters of the Constitution knew their history, they had studied governments and how people interact in society throughout history and they knew the principles of Liberty.  They KNEW that they could not plow new fields overnight; they understood that they could not reform society with one move.  But they KNEW they were forming a REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy.

A democracy is mob rule; it is tyranny in public form.  Jefferson said, “173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.”  With a democracy, the majority of the people would always oppress the minority.  Liberty would never prosper and grow.  The force of the majority would always keep the minority in servitude.  By creating a republican government, they were able to provide minorities with a society-changing voice.  This voice would ensure not only the survival of Liberty but also its expansion.

In order for a Republic to function properly, there must be proper representation.  If there is a way to manipulate the number of representatives allotted to a State, then that would be another avenue for one party to seize the power of another.  Representation was to be established through population and controlled through the popular vote.  Incorporating the slave population in order to determine the number of representatives was causing some states to cry foul.

The slave owners wanted to classify slaves as “property” to avoid the application of rights to them as “persons,” but wanted to also classify them as “persons” for establishing representative power in Congress.  The objection was, the States with greater slave populations would get greater representation, but since only “freemen” could vote, greater representation would be consolidated into fewer people. The large slave owners would almost assuredly control the vote in the State and have greater representation and control in Congress. This skewed representation could delay the desired end to slavery significantly.

The drafters’ solution to this dilemma was the 3/5^th Compromise which, along with article 1 section 9, would help to further the of end slavery.  The 3/5^th Compromise did not, as popular education teaches, count each slave as 3/5^th of a person, it deprived Slave States 2/5^th of their representation in Congress!  This created a powerful incentive to end of slavery legislatively.  Slave States would have a reduced representative power in Congress and the Free States would have an increased representative power.  This would not only ensure that the Slave States could not over power the Free States in Congress, but also would act as an incentive for the people of the Slave States to demand their government free the slaves to obtain the full potential of their representative power.  The 3/5^th Compromise did not make “black men 3/5^th of person,” but ensured that the true power to end slavery would come through the will of the people over their government.  Former slave and famous abolitionist Frederick Douglass made this very point in 1860 in a speech in Glasgow, Scotland:

“I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.”

The second constitutional mechanism to end slavery was the sunset provision incorporated into the Constitution, Article 1 Section 9, a provision that would provide the means to end slavery in 1808 by putting an end to the importation of slaves once and for all.

“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think fit to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person;”

The framers understood that the end of the slave trade would bring about the end of slavery.  Stop the flow of slaves and the trade that George Mason called “diabolical” and “disgraceful” and Patrick Henry called “a lamentable evil” would be extirpated.  They believed the abolition of the slave trade equaled the abolition of slavery as a whole.

“Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time.” – Frederick Doglass

The final guarantee to the end of slavery our drafters secured came through the ratification of the Constitution. If these Slave States refused to join the Union, the trade of slaves on the American Continent, and by the very neighbors of the Union could go on forever.  However, if the Slave States wanted to be part of the Union, if they wanted to participate in the benefits of the Union, they would have to agree to all the provisions that would disadvantage the use of slaves and ultimately destroy the trade altogether.

Justice James Iredell stated during the Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention (26 July 1788):

“It was the wish of a great majority of the Convention to put an end [to slavery] immediately; but the states of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider, then, what would be the difference between our present situation in this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will be if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the evil? No, sir, we do not. For if the Constitution be not adopted, it will be in the power of every state to continue it forever. They may or may not abolish it, at their discretion. But if we adopt the Constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if Congress declare so, whether particular states please so or not; surely, then, we can gain by it. This was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily wish more could have been done. But as it is, this government is nobly distinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there another country in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore, sir, set an example of humanity, by providing for the abolition of this inhuman traffic, though at a distant period.”

The framers knew that by creating the union they would ensure the survival of Liberty, without the Union establishing a government on the principles that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right” would likely fail.  James Madison spoke of this fear during the 1788 Ratifying Convention:

“Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would be worse.  If those States should disunite from the other States for not indulging them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.”

The drafters of the Constitution also understood through the establishment of the Republic they would guarantee the minority populations a society changing voice. They believed through compromise they had done everything that they could have possibly done end the institution of slavery and the power of slave owners and still create a union.  They were also persuaded through a study of their own history that if Liberty is given the proper fertile ground, it always prospers and grows.  They were convinced that Liberty was contagious!

Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut to the Federal Convention (22 Aug. 1787) observed

“that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S. & that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat (sic) it.” 

Oliver Elsworth, also a representative from Connecticut very confidently stated, “Slavery in time will not be a speck on our country.  Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it.   And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts.”

An additional insurance for the cultivation of Liberty was established through the Amendment process. The framers believed that as society matured in Liberty, the people would be more capable of self-governance and need less government.  They wanted to ensure that as Liberty grew, it could also be protected through peaceful modification of the Constitution.  By offering the Amendment process, the expansions of Liberty could become permanent.  The Amendment process prevents the Constitution’s interpretation to be based upon the whim of the current culture.  Without the process of permanently amending the Constitution, the people of this nation would be subject to temporary interpretations.  The prevailing party or culture would beget a conservative interpretation today, a liberal interpretation tomorrow, a socialist interpretation the next… subjecting the people to an ever-vacillating standard and leaving the people never really knowing the security of their rights.

It is unquestionable that slavery was detested by many at the formation of our Constitution; only revisionists are served by denying this truth.  But the formation of the union was essential to the preservation of Liberty and the end of slavery.   Without the union these independent, sovereign States would be able to continue the practice of slavery without any national consequence.  The Constitution did not preserve slavery, it was crafted to be a weapon wielded for slavery’s demise.

It is to be hoped, that by expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a country filled with slaves.  James Madison, Import Duty on Slaves, House of Representatives  13 May 1789

It is true that members of Congress, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices have all failed to meet the standards established by the drafters of the Constitution.  But the failings of America are because of the failings of people, and not because the standard set by the Constitution failed America. As Frederick Douglass asked in his defense of the Constitution, “Shall we condemn the righteous law because wicked men twist it to the support of wickedness? 

Frederick Douglass gives a most conclusive summary to the argument. Only by twisting the document’s words and ignoring the truth can we assign a pro-slavery character to the Constitution and miss its role in setting the stage for the abolition of slavery.

 “This, I undertake to say, as the conclusion of the whole matter, that the constitutionality of slavery can be made out only by disregarding the plain and common-sense reading of the Constitution itself; by discrediting and casting away as worthless the most beneficent rules of legal interpretation; by ruling the Negro outside of these beneficent rules; by claiming that the Constitution does not mean what it says, and that it says what it does not mean; by disregarding the written Constitution, and interpreting it in the light of a secret understanding. It is in this mean, contemptible, and underhand method that the American Constitution is pressed into the service of slavery. They go everywhere else for proof that the Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; it secures to every man the right of trial by jury, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus — the great writ that put an end to slavery and slave-hunting in England — and it secures to every State a republican form of government. Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America.”