6 Little Known Facts About The Bill of Rights

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 Here are 6 little known facts about the Bill of Rights to help you defend Liberty.

1.  The Bill of Rights is not an afterthought of the founders to “correct” the Constitution. It was actually a negotiated condition for ratifying the Constitution.

The delegates of of 5 States were refusing to ratify the Constitution, Virginia was one of those States. Virginia delegates agreed to ratify the Constitution only if there would be a guarantee of debate on provisions to add a Bill of Rights.

On 7 Mar. 1788 the Virginia Baptist General Committee discussed the Constitution:

“Whether the new Federal Constitution which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.”

Without Virginia’s consent there would be no Union, no Constitution, & no federal government. In order to form the Union, the other 8 States agreed to adding a Bill of Rights.

2.  The Bill of Right was not established to “control” the federal government. It was written to “remind” the people to never let government control their inherent rights. 

In the debate of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the argument was made proving the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights.  Not a document to control government, but a document to remind the people.  In The Letter From A Federal Farmer To The Republican #6 this truth is articulated:

“…Fortunate it is for the body of a people, if they can continue attentive to their liberties, long enough to erect for them a temple, and constitutional barriers for their permanent security: when they are well fixed between the powers of the rulers and the rights of the people, they become visible boundaries, constantly seen by all, and any transgression of them is immediately discovered: they serve as centinels for the people at all times, and especially in those unavoidable intervals of inattention.”

The Bill of Rights was permanently placed within the Constitution to be a “constant reminder” to the people to control the limited power of their government.  The Constitution is not a restraint on government, as it is simply a paper with ink.  Our founders said the Constitution was simply a “parchment barrier” without the “true republican jealousy and vigilance [of the people], the strongest guard against the abuses of power.” 

***Therefore, the Bill of Rights did not “establish” or “grant” rigths to the people.  It recognized the rights of the people that already exist!***

3.  “You have the right to remain silent and everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to an attorney and have him present during questioning.  If you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided to you for your defense” is not from a Supreme Court case, it is a summary of a few of the principles in the 5th & 6th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The 5th Amendment reminds us: No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

The 6th Amendment reminds us: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

These are not rights “bestowed” by judges in a courtroom.  These are rights that are essential to the protection of the inherent rights of all citizens.

4.  There is only one exception to the rights of the people to be secure in their property & privacy and it is clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Today’s courts have devised a laundry list of reasons why those in government and their agents can search and seize all forms of property from the people without a warrant or proper due process.  These are all inventions by those in government to increase the power of those in government contrary to the explicit language of the 4th Amendment.

The 4th Amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,”

The 4th Amendment then continues to outline the only exception to that right that “shall not be violated” and that one exception contains five elements that must be present, at the same time, for a search a seizure to respect the rights of the people.  Every search and seizure must contain:

  1. A Warrant
  2. Based upon probable cause
  3. Sworn by a supported by Oath or affirmation
  4. That warrant must particularly describing the place to be searched
  5. And that warrant must particularly describe the persons or things to be seized

Without those five elements the search and seizure is a violation of the rights, regardless of the excuse anyone in government can imagine.

5.  The 9th & 10th Amendments are the most important parts of the entire Constitution as they establish the rules for the application of every article, section, & clause of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The 9th & 10th Amendments look different from all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights and that is because they serve a different purpose.  They are not reminders of rights like the first eight, they are recitations of powers. 

In legal terms they are referred to as “rules of construction.”  The 9th and 10th Amendments provide the rules for the application of every term and delegation of power in the Constitution & Bill of Rights.  Rule #1 is the 9th Amendment which tells us that all the Rights in the universe belong to the people.  It doesn’t matter if they are enumerated or not; all the right belong to the people.  Rule #2 is the 10th Amendment that tells us all the powers of government belong to the State and the People unless they are specifically listed in the Constitution.  That means if the power is not specifically delegated to the federal government, then it is specifically reserved to the States and the people.  Rule #2 does not allow “plenary powers” or “interpreted powers” to exist in the federal government.  If it is not in writing, it does not exist at the federal level.

6.  The “Supremacy Clause” does not make all federal laws and regulations supreme to the States or the people. 

Article 6 clause 2 is what we refer to as the Supremacy Clause.  The Supremacy Clause is titled so because it declares the Constitution to be the “supreme law of the land.”  It does NOT make all federal laws, federal regulations, or Supreme Court opinions supreme laws of the land.  The Supremacy Clause very clearly declares that only laws made by Congress that are made pursuant to the limited terms of the Constitution are supreme over State laws.  If Congress makes a law, if the executive makes a regulation, if the Supreme Court issues an opinion an these acts are not made consistent with the limited enumerations of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause actually declares these acts to be not binding on the States, they are legally “null and void.”  And the drafters of the Constitution, made this principle more than clear in their statements:

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

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law. ~ James Wilson, Madison’s Notes on the Convention

I will propose to you, that if these were widely known facts about the Bill of Rights, rather than little known facts, America would be a very different place today.  Kindle the spirit of Liberty with this education and watch as it spreads to ignite, unite, and activate Americans to Make America Liberty Again!

America- We Are Now A Guilty Until Proven Innocent

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Congress, the FBI, IRS, ATF, EPA and other executive agencies of the federal government  violate American property and due process rights every single day.  Now through the draconian use of the “guilty until proven innocent” standard through federal civil asset forfeitures, Gun and accessory bans, and land grabs, members our federal government are not only turning their backs on the Constitution, but are also denying the States’ authority to protect the rights of their own citizens.  For example, a federal ban on gun accessories like “bump stocks” is not simply a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but also violates every protection of due process.  It is in the very least, an unreasonable search and seizure of privately owned property.

 The Fourth Amendment should bring to every federal government entity and the American people as whole to the proper perspective on the limits of government power over the superior authority of the rights of the people over their property.  The Fourth Amendment is a very plainly written and self-defining text.  The meaning and application of the fourth amendment should be easily understood and applied.  Yet decades of academic deception combined with an ever expanding federal power base has driven the American people to doubt the plainness of the text and adopt the error thrust upon them by those who profit from government power.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment is plainly written to force the government to recognize the inherent right of the people to be secure in their property and creates only one exception to that inherent right; a reasonable search and seizure.  It is self-defining because it explains the exact parameters of a reasonable search an seizure.  By the text, the only exception to an American’s right to be secure from federal searches and seizures is when the government can completely fulfill the following requirements:

  1. A warrant
  2. Based upon probable cause
  3. Supported by oath or affirmation (due process)
  4. Particularly describing the place to be searched
  5. Particularly describing the things to be seized

We know that all five elements are required to be present at the same time for a search and seizure to be lawful because within the list of the text, the elements are connected by the word “and” not “or.”  Therefore, any search or seizure that does not meet all five elements simultaneously is NOT a reasonable search and seizure and is precisely the “unreasonable” search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment puts the government on notice they are prohibited from exercising.

Civil asset forfeiture, along with the seizure of persons and property authorized by Congress under the Patriot Act, are complete violations of the required elements of the Fourth Amendment and clear attack on the rights and Liberties of the people.  The Fourth Amendment was ratified as a part of the Bill of Rights to remind the people to never allow their government to exercise an arbitrary power over the property of the people.  But that is exactly what our federal government has been doing for decades. 

Federal bans of certain classifications of property are no less insidious, covert searches and seizures under the color of law.  A ban on guns or accessories is a warrantless seizure of property, not only for those who already own these items, but for those who would own them in the future, and those who manufacture and sell those items.  There is no standard for due process in these bans, the government simply creates a law or regulation and demands everyone complies.  No warrant, no trial by jury, guilty of no crime – the quintessential arbitrary search and seizure of personal property.

James Madison, father of our Constitution warned us about kind of government that exercises this arbitrary power:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures…” Essay on Property, 1792

Madison calls this exercise of arbitrary power, “the most compleat despotism.”

**For More on Madison’s Essay on Property, read my article Property, Liberty, & Due Process**

What we must recognize is that every “exception” to the federal government’s search and seizure restrictions established by the Fourth Amendment are exceptions created BY the federal government to increase the power OF the federal government OVER the inherent rights of the people.  There has been no amendment to the Constitution to expand federal search and seizure power because of the “necessities” of national security, drug prosecution, IRS debt collection, gun control, or environmental protections.  All exceptions come through either congressional act, executive order, or supreme Court Opinion.  However, without an amendment to authorize this expansion of power, these political mechanism are contrary to the Constitution and therefore invalid.

“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…act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78

And, our current government’s pledge to engage in this arbitrary deprivation of the rights of the people classifies themselves under the category of “most complete despotism” and their unlawful searches and seizures are declared by the Constitution and those who wrote it to be invalid.

There are ways to fight terrorism and criminals without trampling the rights of the people.  Constitution demands the government operate within those parameters.  I am reminded of the words of William Pitt, in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

If we allow the claim of necessity to justify these proven infringements upon the rights of the people, that would classify our government as tyrants and Americans as slaves.  Our States must guard the people’s rights and refuse jurisdiction to the federal agencies attempting to enforce these unlawful and unconstitutional searches and seizures.

America: A President Or A King?

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Great study and deliberation was conducted in designing the office of the president.  What was the designers of our Constitutional Republic chief concern? That the president would become a king.

“The safety of the people in a republic depends on the share or proportion they have in the government; but experience ought to teach you, that when a man is at the head of an elective government invested with great powers, and interested in his re-election, in what circle appointments will be made; by which means an imperfect aristocracy bordering on monarchy may be established.” Anti-Federalist #67

When creating the office of the president our founders had many things to consider.  The first consideration was, would this executive purpose be best fulfilled with a committee, a tribunal, or one person.  In the current climate, it was concluded that the power of the executive should be vested in one person, as an ambassador behalf of the States, to other nations.  But having just thrown off the bonds of kingly rule, how could the designers of our Constitution ensure that this one person, over time, would not accumulate power and become the king they never wanted?  The answer, limited and concurrent authority.

Article 2 of the Constitution enumerates the limited authority delegated to the executive.  The student of the Constitution will have to admit that the power delegated to the executive is considerably less than the power delegated to congress.  As a matter of fact, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison describe the power of the president of being less than the power of most Governors of the States.

The president is intended to have very few powers and practically no autonomous power.  The primary purpose of the executive is the be an ambassador on behalf of the States to foreign affairs.   Therefore, the majority of the power exercised by the president must be approved by the Senate (the representative body of the States) before it becomes binding.  In that limited capacity, the president is authorized to negotiate treaties with foreign governments.  However, the president cannot make any treaties autonomously.  Before a treaty becomes law, it must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and be found to be consistent with the delegation of the authority in the Constitution.

“The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description.” Federalist #69

The president is the commander in chief of the military, but only under a declaration of war by congress.  The president is denied the power to declare war specifically because of this desire to prevent him from becoming a king and so America could avoid the kingly consequence of frequent wars.  James Madison explained;

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl.” James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 2 Apr. 1798

The president is authorized to nominate members of the supreme Court and cabinet, but the official appointments are a power reserved to the Senate.

“The President is to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices …The one (the President) would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other (the King) is the sole author of all appointments.” Federalist #69

The president is tasked with making suggestions to the Congress, he is not empowered to make demands or circumvent the legislative authority.  The president is able to veto a law, but his veto can be overturned by Congress. The president is not authorized to write laws, make laws, or overturn laws that are constitutionally valid.

“The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature, for reconsideration; and the bill so returned is to become a law, if, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses. The king of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament.” Federalist #69

Executive orders of a president are not equivalent to law, nor can they change or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress.  Executive orders were created so the president, as the leader of the executive branch, could send orders and instructions to agencies and agents within the executive branch.  Any executive order that attempts to alter or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress; any executive order that attempts to exercise authority over a person or a State outside the executive agency, is an unlawful executive order, contrary to the Constitution, and is therefore invalid.

The president cannot create a tax, eliminate a tax, or even raise or lower a tax, that power is reserved to the House of Representatives alone.

“The one (President) can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other (a King) is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin.” Federalist #69

The president is only authorized to spend the money Congress apportions to the executive branch, therefore any debt incurred by the federal government is not the product of the president, but due to the spending of Congress.

Even the autonomous powers of the president are limited.  The president is authorized to issue pardons but only for federal offenses and not in the case impeachment.

“…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Article 2 section 2 clause 1

Finally, as Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist #69, the president is not authorized to make citizens out of aliens and he is not authorized to confer the benefits of citizenship on any person.  These, again, are powers reserved to Congress.

“The one (the President) can confer no privileges whatever; the other (the King) can make denizens (citizens) of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.” Federalist #69

The American colonists didn’t simply separate themselves from Great Britain, they declared independence from kings forever.  Their purpose was to ensure the Blessings of Liberty not just to themselves, but to all future generations.  They knew the only way to do that would be to keep the president very limited in power. Their purpose was that America would never again have a king.

General Welfare Clause – James Madison’s Warning: Its not about Money

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution reads:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people.  Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

In 1792, while serving as a representative to the people of Virginia, Madison made the true meaning of this often abused “general welfare clause,” during a debate on The Cod Fishery Bill.  Madison begins by reminding the representatives of what he explained in Federalist #45:

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.”

Madison knew during the ratification of this Constitution, much discussion was heard on the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, as some delegates were concerned that this clause would offer too much power to the federal government.  During the Virginia Ratification Debates, Edmund Randolph explained to Patrick Henry, that the “general welfare clause” did not equate to general powers:

“But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.” [emphasis mine]

As Madison also reminds the House, this very specific and limited meaning of the “general welfare clause” was the accepted meaning by those who ratified the Constitution.  Then Madison continues in 1792, to explain that the “General Welfare clause” was added to instruct the federal government in the purpose of the limited powers being delegated; so the central government would use those delegated powers for the union as a whole, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate makes it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

This definition was so settled in the minds of those who ratified the Constitution, James Madison wrote a letter to James Robertson, Jr. repeating the application of the “general welfare clause” those who ratified the Constitution espoused:

“With respect to the words “General welfare” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators.”[emphasis mine]

Even Thomas Jefferson in his letter of 1817 to Albert Gallatin remarks at how absurd it would be to propose that the “general welfare clause” conveys a general and relatively unlimited power to Congress:

“provide for the general welfare,” was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” [emphasis mine]

The drafters of our Constitution knew the dangers inherent in a federal government unlimited by only its own design.  In Cod Fishery Bill debate Madison gives a stern warning to the House of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States.  There is no provision in the Constitution for federal power over parks, schools, preserves, police, hospitals, healthcare, or the myriad of other “programs” funding using the “general welfare clause” as a justification for the increase of their power.  And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, parks, preserves, police, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have an absurdly out of control federal government.

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute”  into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”

Open Letter re: “Gun Legislation”



Our government is traveling down a very dangerous road. We have neglected our duties as responsible employers and we are about to pay a dear price. We must arm ourselves with the truth to educate our employees and assist them in doing the right thing. The following is an open letter to our Senators and Representatives to educate them in this “gun debate” and allow them to make the right decisions. By giving this information, we not only educate them, but we identify which employees are willing to do the right and which are not. If we do not educate, they can claim ignorance. If we provide them with the proper tools and they refuse to use them and continue to destroy our Constitution, we must mark them as enemies and eliminate their ability to do further destruction.

Please assist me in educating our Representatives. Please share this letter your Representative AND Senator. Sign your name and send it to them multiple times, once is not enough.  Be sure they KNOW you are serious.

Thank you.

In Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall

Read more

Disenfranchising the Voters

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

The State of Oregon House passed legislation (HB 2927) that would make Oregon award its Electoral College votes only to presidential candidates who win the national popular vote. According to National Popular Vote, this kind of legislation has already been passed by 11 States, (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).  Now, we have federal House Representatives proposing legislation to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College system alltogether.

To be clear, Oregon and these other 11 States are not abolishing the Electoral College but altering it. Article 2 section 2 clauses 2 and 3 and the Twelfth Amendment of the US Constitution require States to establish electors that will choose the president and vice president of the United States.  These States are not eliminating their electoral college, they are eliminating the voice of their citizens and eliminating the legitimacy and relevance of their State’s involvement in the political process.  However, now members of Congress are creating bills to actually dissolve the Electoral Colllege.  Either way, altering or abolishing, these changes will result in the disenfranchising the vote of every State.  This infectious disease of ignorance must be stopped.  The only cure is knowledge so here are some facts that we must not only consider, but educate others.

The process of the electoral college was established for a specific reason.  Because we have failed, for generations, to teach an accurate application of the Constitution, many people like Oregon Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer believe that the electoral college is “flawed and outdated.”  Rep. Keny-Guyer told Oregon Live, “The Electoral College does not fit the ‘We The People’ and ‘One person, one vote’ style of government.  Rep. Keny-Guyer and those who believe as she does simply do not understand why the electoral college was established and how that process protects her individual liberty and the sovereignty of her State.  She also doesn’t understand that neither Oregon nor America are democracies, but instead are Constitutional Republics. The incessant push toward being ruled by majority opinion is supposed to be antithetical to the American character, unfortunately the dearth of real education in America has created an equal scarcity of understanding about America’s fundamental principles.

The process of the electoral college was established to ensure that the person elected to be president of these United States would accurately represent the union as a whole, not favoring certain States while ignoring others.  The office of president, contrary to popular belief, was never designed to be a representative of individual citizens, but rather a representative of the collective interests of the States.  A survey of the powers delegated to the president via Article 2 of the Constitution makes the role of the president quite clear.  He is not the “leader of America,” he is the leader of the military upon declaration of war by Congress.  He is part of the treaty process that makes contractual agreements with foreign governments and the States.  Most everything that the president is to do, he does only with the consent of the Senate (the voice of the States).   Together, the President and the Senate ensure that each State’s interests are represented equally in matters of war, peace, and foreign commerce.  The office of the president was established to be the voice to foreign countries on behalf of the collective States.  Because he is the representative of the States, the electors of the State are to choose their president based upon the person they believe will best represent the principles and interests of their State.

There is no power delegated by the Constitution to the president that authorizes him to directly affect the lives of the people.  The only power held by the president to touch lives individually would be that of the power to grant reprieves or pardons for federal crimes and that was established to be a check and balance upon the judiciary, not a system of personal favors to individuals.  Because the president’s role in government is to be an ambassador on behalf of the States, the States must choose their representative.  The popular vote for president that takes place within the State ensures that the principles and the interests of the people of that State guide and direct the electors in their choice of president.  These subtle distinctions are hard for Americans to grasp since we perceive our nation to be a unitary whole where the states provide support to the central government that directs them. We have forgotten that our republic is a collection of independent sovereign States who created D.C. to represent their interests.

However, the national popular vote movement takes us even farther away from our Constitutional structure by further removing the independence of the States, and eliminating the voice of the people within those states.  This legislation proposes that once a popular vote is complete across the nation, each elector of the State must choose the person elected by popular vote regardless of the collective choice of his fellow State citizens.  This legislation mandates that each State submit to the popular choice, regardless of whether that candidate best represents the interests and principles of the people of that State.  Through popular vote, the individual States would become completely irrelevant in the processes of the federal government.  The president would no longer be required to ensure all States’ interests were represented in matters of foreign affairs.  The president’s only concern, throughout the entire four years of his terms, would be to make sure the select few States, with the greatest voting population, were happy and pleased with the execution of his power.  It would be like Georgia surrendering all its voice to New York and legislating themselves out of the political process or like Connecticut asking Texas to decide what is in the best interest of Connecticut.

Future presidents could then ignore all but a few states. All treaties could be focused upon the prosperity and growth of a select few States, at best ignoring the rest, at worst requiring the lesser populated States to enrich the other States via treaties and regulations.  All wars could be conducted in the interest of a few States and all peace could be negotiated to benefit the few over the whole.  Cabinet members and supreme Court justices could be chosen from persons of those few States because there would be no reason to make an equitable search.  Every State that did not hold the majority voting population could be relegated to being a spectator in the entire political process.

Charles Cotesworth Pickney, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, summed up what was not only the popular belief of the delegates, but would also become the controlling belief in establishing Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution.  He classified a national popular vote of the president to be “liable to the most obvious & striking objections.”  He said if the people were to elect the president by popular vote, “They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”

Not only will the States be silenced in their political affairs nationally and in foreign negotiations, the national popular vote would ensure that the people themselves would be silenced.  What would be the point in voting if you didn’t live in New York, Texas, California, or Florida, where the majority of the voting population resides?  Every presidential election would be chosen by these few States and these few States would grow and maintain their voting power, because the national popular vote system would ensure the enrichment of these States over every other State.  A national popular vote, is in fact an oxymoron, as it would only reflect the voice of the majority, denying every person in their State a voice in the presidential election.

Those who cry for a national popular vote, do so out of ignorance, yet maddening on to their own destruction.  Oregon and States like her will not achieve a greater voice with the elimination of the Constitutional process of the electoral college, they will ensure their political irrelevance from this day forward.

The Constitutionality of a Presidential State of Emergency

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

My inbox is being inundated with the question du jeur: “If President Trump declares a ‘State of Emergency’ to build the wall on the border of Mexico, is that Constitutional?” 

I am certain that is not the right question or perhaps not the right way to ask it, but to ask it and answer it correctly, let’s briefly remind ourselves of America’s Constitutional structure and function.

A Reminder

The Constitution of the United States defines the powers for the three branches of federal government.  Each of these branches are delegated specific enumerated powers that are not only limited and defined by the Constitution but also separate and distinct in their delegations.  The branches of government do not share powers unless that specific cooperation is ascribed by the Constitution.  For example, the power to create treaties (today referred to with the obfuscatory label – “deals”) is not an autonomous power belonging to the president but one that requires specific concurrence by the Senate. 

Recall that the Tenth Amendment declares that any power not delegated through the Constitution remains in the hands of the States. This is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “stewardship” doctrine that says the feds can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Federal Supremacists love this perspective. That was NOT the discussion or conclusion of the ratification debates. There are no unnamed powers floating in the ether waiting to be snatched up by the central government. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War William Taft rightly conveyed the framers’ positions, “a specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which (the federal government) can exercise because it seems…to be in the public interest…”

The specific delegations of power, as well as NON-delegations, were created thoughtfully, deliberately, with knowledge of history and human nature.  The limitations of those powers involved considerable debate and study into past history and ancient governments.

Patrick Henry said in his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”  Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #20: “Experience is the oracle of truth…”

However, it is not uncommon in the evolution of the American Republic to see the government AND the citizenry cast off the wisdom and experience enshrined in the founding documents to address some “urgent necessity.” Instead of taking the intentionally cumbersome path to do it right, Americans willingly run roughshod over Constitutional barriers because – “we have to get this done ,” or “there is no other way to do it!” These instances have slowly transmuted the Republic into the nearly limitless federal behemoth we know today.  We would be well-served to paste a banner over our televisions and computers reminding us of what William Pitt said in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The Question

So when people ask questions like “Can the president do…?” “Can the House, Senate, or Supreme Court do…?” the first sources that must be consulted are the Constitution and the people who drafted it.  If the Constitution provides no authority for the activity, then the power does not Constitutionally reside in the hands the federal government. So more to the root of the question being asked, “Does the Constitution enumerate a power to the President to declare a state of emergency?” The short answer is No.

Every state of emergency refers to the National Emergencies Acts as the source of its authority. So the real question is “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to alter (expand or contract) executive power by legislative act?”  The constitutional answer to this question is obviously no.  Congress cannot add powers that the Constitution has not delegated to the president nor can they take away powers that have been delegated.  For Congress to have the authority to add power to the executive branch, they would have to possess the authority to actually amend the Constitution by congressional act, and they do not.  Additionally, for Congress to delegate a power to the executive branch that has been constitutionally delegated to Congress, is a per se violation of the Constitution by crushing the principle of Separation of Powers.  James Madison, quoting political philosopher Montesquieu, was very direct with his words regarding separation of powers:

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” Federalist #47

Spending, war, appropriations, national defense, and naturalization are all powers specifically delegated to Congress.  For Congress to abdicate its power to the executive branch is not only not authorized by the Constitution, it is necessarily forbidden by the principle of Separation of Powers to ensure the security of the Liberty of the people.

Shockingly, this debate over states of emergency has raged for decades and nobody seems to offer the obvious correct answer – if we want the President to have such powers we must amend the Constitution.

Yet if you consider how far we have strayed and how long we have been off the path, President Trump is doing nothing out of the ordinary, he is following a long history of extra-Constitutional (aka unconstitutional) action.  We have just accepted a broken government as the norm since at least 1861 when it comes to “national emergencies.”

How did we get here?

If you tell a lie long enough, people believe it to be truth and the lie of expanded executive power has a long history.  I think this principle is even more powerful when that lie comes from someone you like, or applies to a situation you happen to agree with.  But that lie can only operate as truth with very dire consequences, the most obvious consequence would be that the lie operates as truth not only for the people you like but also the people you don’t like.

Some claim expansion of executive power began with the George Washington administration’s response to the whiskey rebellion. Yet in this instance, Congress authorized Washington to quell an “insurrection” which falls within the constitutional authority of both Congress and President. It was Congress that then began creating “stand-by laws” to give the President powers beyond the grant of the Constitution in time of “national emergency.” They should have proposed a Constitutional amendment, not passed a law. (Interestingly, Washington later pardoned everyone who was arrested during the rebelling, if they were not already acquitted.)

The first unilateral act of a president arose when Lincoln blockaded American ports and expanded military forces without Congress.  The Congress and the courts eventually went along and this became the confirmation and justification of the President’s emergency power.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced similar emergency power controversies and  were not thwarted by Congress.  In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson started the “Presidential Proclamation” that triggered the availability of all so-called stand-by laws for these declarations of emergency.  The process came to a head when, after Truman proclaimed an emergency in response to Korean hostilities, the same order was used to wage war in Vietnam 22 years later.  Congress, led by Senator Church, launched an investigation. One of numerous Congressional studies in 1973 showed that the Congress had already passed over 470 statutes granting the President “EXTRAORDINARY POWERS” during time of emergency.  In an attempt to restrain and proceduralize the use of emergency powers, perhaps restrain the monster they allowed to grow, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act on in September of 1976.

In light of the fact that Congress is not authorized through Congressional act to expand delegated authority, consider these two points from two constitutional delegates:

“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.” Federalist #78- Alexander Hamilton

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

Constitution as well, is not silent on this issue.  Article 6 clause 2 codifies the principles laid down by the above drafters of the Constitution when it says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …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.”

Every law must be made, every federal action must be taken, “in pursuance” to the Constitution.  If that act is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, then the “Judges in every State” are NOT bound thereby.  What that means is the “National Emergencies Act,” “War Powers Act,” 8 US 1182- empowering the president to determine the admissibility of aliens, and many, many others are all unconstitutional delegations of power by Congress to the president.  Which makes them, by the terms of the Constitution AND the drafters of that document, null and void.

Where do we go from here?

So the question is NOT: “If the President declares a national emergency and builds the wall, is that Constitutional?” That’s an easy question to answer, No. The question is “Will we keep pretending to live in a Constitutional Republic, while making it up as we go along?”  Other than electing a Congress that actually cares for the security, safety and integrity of the nation, there are two simple options: Amend the Constitution and have the states give the president this authority or stop pretending, get rid of the Constitution and go back to monarchy.

Federal Census- Overly Intrusive

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

There have been many questions about the legitimacy of the extremely intrusive questions on the current and most recent government census.  I have recently been instructed that the census given to those in the agricultural industry is even more intrusive than those given to the average home owner; asking questions like how many bales of hay and how many pieces of equipment of 40 horsepower or more.  In response to these questions I have prepared a brief summary of the purpose of the census, not according to my opinion, but those that drafted, debated, and ratified Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution. I hope this will help us to understand how unconstitutional these census questions really are.

Understanding the purpose of the census is fundamental to understanding its limitations. The purpose of the census was two-fold;

  1. Determine the number of federal representatives in the house
  2. Set the portion of federal expenses to be apportioned to each State based upon population.

 Neither of these things is to be determined by property, but by numbers of persons alone.  The reason for the census was to keep the federal government from arbitrarily laying taxes and apportioning unequal suffrage to the states and to keep the States from lying about their population to get greater representation in the House or to share an unequal portion of the national expenses.  It is a count of the number of citizens in each State.  That is why citizens along and not non-citizens are subject to the Census via the Constitution.  An alien (legal or illegal) has no share in the payment of the national debt and no representation in Congress.  Aliens of all types, constitutionally speaking, ought to be legally prohibited from participating in the census.   It was set up to be a double check and balance for the ultimate protection of the rights and property of the people.  Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #36:

“Let it be recollected, that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national Legislature: but is to be determined by the numbers of each State as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule; a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that all duties, imposts and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.”

James Madison makes it clear in Federalist Paper 54 that it is the “fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States, is to be determined by a federal rule founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants… who will be included in the census by which the Federal Constitution apportions the representatives.   We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property.

Therefore the purpose and mechanism of the census is to numbers of people alone and not property…at all.

The Irony of the hypocrisy of the federal government is the current expansion of federal power through the census compared to the fact that current practice of Congress and the 16th Amendment have most literally negated the entire purpose the Census was created in the first place.  In 1929, through the Reapportionment Act, Congress decided they would no longer assign district representatives according to the census population but cap the number of representatives at 435.  If the number of House Reps is not going to be determined by the number of people anymore, then half of the purpose of the Census is gone.  The 16th Amendment destroyed the second reason for the census.  States are no longer assigned a portion of the national expenses because now the federal government reaches into our individual pockets through direct taxation, a principle the designers of our Constitution found despotic at best.

Not only is the created purpose of the census currently negated, our current census does a whole lot more than count numbers of people, it counts property as well.  If the framers of the nation said that property is NOT the subject of the census, on what authority can the government include this in the current census?  The logical answer is that they cannot.  They only mechanism that allows them to do this is what our framers called a “forced construction” of the Constitution.

If you go to the government’s website on the census they will assure you that the current census is lawful because the courts say so.  However, that is not the standard our founders laid as the test to legitimacy.  Our founders said the Constitution, not the will of the government, is the only true judge of the government’s power.  Let’s look at the government’s reasoning as it compares to the drafters’ limitations on government.

Government: In 1954, Congress codified earlier census acts and all other statutes authorizing the decennial census as Title 13, U.S. Code. Title 13, U.S. Code, does not specify which subjects or questions are to be included in the decennial census. However, it does require the Census Bureau to notify Congress of general census subjects to be addressed 3 years before the decennial census and the actual questions to be asked 2 years before the decennial census.

Founders: Let it be recollected, that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national Legislature: but is to be determined by the numbers of each State as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule; Alexander Hamilton, Fed. Papers #36

Government: The Legal Tender Cases, Tex.1870; 12 Wall., U.S., 457, 536, 20 L.Ed. 287. In 1901, a District Court said the Constitution’s census clause (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3) is not limited to a headcount of the population and “does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics.”

Founders: “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the [states]… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution… James Madison, Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78

Government: The census does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801, 820 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In concluding that there was no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional, the District Court in Morales ruled that the 2000 Census and the 2000 Census questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional provisions as alleged by plaintiffs. (The Morales court said responses to census questions are not a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy or speech.)

Founders: When told the government had the right to search the colonists property to ensure compliance with the taxes through the mechanism of writs of assistance, James Otis Jr told the court that this power “appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.”

The federal government does not have the authority to assume a power simply because it is not forbidden.  To argue that the “Constitution doesn’t say we can’t do it” is the height of Constitutional heresy! The powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated.  If a power is not part of that enumeration it is not a power that belongs to the federal government but to the States!  To claim otherwise is theft of State power.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment)

A Republican Federalist in paper No. 5 stated that “the provision in the system for a representation of the people, which is the corner stone of a free government.” If creating a census was a mechanism to protect the “corner stone of a free government” surely our framers would not have authorized the federal government to engage in principles contrary to that cause though the use of that very mechanism.

The government’s attempt to place property into the national census appears to me to be a mechanism to collect information regarding our personal property with the purpose to tax it in the future.  I also believe the federal government is trying to bring under its control “unauthorized” agricultural activity.

Here is the description of one of the USDA propaganda videos promoting the census:

How many baseballs could come from the cows American farmers produce? How much college tuition could be paid by U.S. farm income? How many acres of farmland are in conservation programs? These are some of the many things we can learn when U.S. farmers and ranchers respond to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s agricultural surveys. See some of these fun facts brought to life. Learn how important agriculture is to America and the many ways farmers, ranchers and their rural communities benefit from accurate survey responses.”

Sounds like the Feds are licking their chops at another revenue stream.  You farmers alone can pay college tuition for “every student for 3 years.”  Conservation programs? Seems like I’ve heard that one 21 times before?

Since the Federal government and the courts are aligned against these principles, there is no protection that can be expected from such a tyrannical government. The only true limitation and check on governmental power is the people. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence)  We have the right and authority to say we will not allow the transgressing of our rights.  We have the power and the right to say, NO! We will not comply.  Our State and local governments should be protecting their citizens from this unconstitutional and unlawful intrustion into our privacy and property.

Would you like some practical (not legal) advice?   Do what my husband did when they came to our house with this illegal nonsense.  He answered the questions that were Constitutionally sound.  When the surveyor asked questions that were not legally sound, his answer was “None of your business.”  After a few questions answered in this manner, the woman asked my husband, “Is it safe to assume that you will not be answering any of the rest of my questions?”  My husband simply replied, “Ma’am, I have answered all of your questions.  My answer to the rest will likely be ‘None of your business’ because the Constitution does not require me to answer these questions, therefore these questions are illegal.  Just because your computer does not give you to the option to choose “None of your business” as an answer, does not mean that it is not an answer.”  This interaction let into a lesson on the Census and the Constitution and the surveyor left enlightened, and surprisingly happy to have been so.

The Inalienable Right To Life

by KrisAnne Hall, JD 

It seems to be growing increasingly popular to use the 10th Amendment to justify carte blanche legislative authority within the States. Even some Presidential candidates have implied that because of the 10th Amendment, States can “pass whatever laws they want.” Recently, others have said that if a State wants to legalize abortion, the 10th Amendment gives the State the power to do so. I would like to assert that some issues cannot be legislated by the States and in particular abortion is NOT a State’s rights issue, and here’s why:

We cannot fully understand the 10th Amendment until we understand of the 9th Amendment as well. The 9th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.- 9th Amendment

And to understand the 9th Amendment we must understand the debate that produced it. The debate was over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton was not in favor of incorporating the Bill of Rights. As he States in Federalist 84,

I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. (emphasis added)

It was Hamilton’s belief that the Constitution was very clear as to the limitation of powers for the Federal Government. His greatest fear was that by incorporating a “list” of rights, it would provide those in power the opportunity to spread tyranny and liberty through interpretation and regulation.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights. (emphasis added)

In other words he is saying that those in power would see the enumerated list of rights as areas that the branches of government must define and regulate – else why would they be listed?

In the end James Madison felt he had the solution to this problem.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. (Emphasis added)

Madison, when speaking of the “last clause of the fourth resolution,” was referring to what we now know as the 9th Amendment. He was telling all of those who were not comfortable in ratifying Bills of Rights, that the 9th Amendment would solve all those problems. Madison believed that specifically stating that the Bills of Rights do not in any way give the government more power than was already given and reaffirming that these rights belong to the PEOPLE and not the government, would create a barrier of protection against encroachment of these important rights belonging to the people.

The key to the 10th Amendment is understanding that our Founders went out of their way to make sure it was abundantly clear that the Rights enumerated belong to the PEOPLE and not to the Government – neither State nor federal. So when the 10th Amendment says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, our founders were NOT creating three separate seats of power in the United States: the Feds, the States, and the People. They were saying, in conjunction with the 9thAmendment, hey United States, hey States, these rights belong to the PEOPLE through the States. The founders never intended for the States to disparage these rights, any more than they intended the Federal government of the United States to disparage them.  As a matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence makes this point as a primary focus for the creation of all government, principally applied to the States from the beginning.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

The entire purpose for creating the States was to SECURE THESE RIGHTS that belong to the people, among them; LIFE, LIBERTY, & the Pursuit of Happiness.  For example, our Founders never intended to invest in the States the power to remove someone’s right to bear arms, for instance, otherwise the Second Amendment would not say,

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If a State could have power to eliminate the right of its citizens to bear arms, the objective of maintaining a free State would be defeated and that State would become a tyrant over its people and the “Right to Life and Liberty” are destroyed.  Our founders never intended for the States to have the ability to violate someone’s free speech, right to religious liberty, or takes someone’s person, property or life without due process, else the States again, would be the tyrant over its people. While there are many things, in fact most things, that the States should legislate, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot under our Constitution be legislated away.

Life is not something that should be legislated away. Life is an inalienable right the State was established to SECURE that Right.  The truth that this right begins at conception is a biological fact. This fact was not “overturned” by science in Roe v. Wade, but by manipulation of facts through law. If real science had been used and not legal manipulation, denying life in the womb at conception would have failed. The argument of viability, as established by Roe, is based upon the argument that if you remove the fetus from the womb at a certain point, that fetus (or if you prefer those cells) would die and therefore was not alive and not a person. Logically speaking, by admitting that this life will die implies that it was alive at some point. Using this same logic to determine that life never existed does not hold up in science either. There are many single celled organisms that will only survive on a particular growth medium. You will be hard pressed to find a microbiologist tell you that these organisms were never alive, because they failed to live outside their nutrient rich medium. Additionally, by the very definition of abortion, you must admit life exists at the time of abortion. You cannot abort an action that has never begun. Therefore, Roe is not only unconstitutional, but logically and scientifically unsound. Even the judge in Roe admitted if it would be established in court that life began at an earlier stage, this life would have rights. This error is not a matter of science, but a matter of incompetent legal argument.

Finally, to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of life is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both very clear as to the founder’s understanding of the right to Life. If we do not have life, we have neither Liberty, nor an opportunity to pursue happiness. In fact, our founders repeatedly declared that they were pledging life, fortune and sacred honor for “ages and millions yet unborn.”  It is clear, by their own words, the founders of our America believed the rights of the unborn were worth dying for.  Abortion is not a State issue as assigned by the 10th Amendment, nor is it a “social” issue not to be discussed; it is that very matter of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness upon which our Constitution is based. A State cannot adopt laws to eliminate free speech and cannot pass laws to legalize murder and the 10th Amendment cannot be used to justify abortion. To claim to be a Constitutionalist and say the 10th Amendment permits a State to legalize abortion is to misunderstand the Constitution and the 10th Amendment itself.

Some would use the same Constitutional argument against the death penalty. Just like abortion, one may be morally opposed to the death penalty, but there is a difference in these two issues from a Constitutional perspective. You have the ability to forfeit your Liberty, through the application of due process, by committing a capital offense. Abortion, however, is sentencing someone to death who has committed no crime, without due process.

We must remember that Liberty is not only freedom, but freedom fettered by morality. Some “social” issues that touch on morality are a matter of Constitutional relevance, and are essential to maintaining Liberty. Sadly, we live in a society that increasingly believes, as Suhas Sreedhar, 26, an engineer working in a computer company in Manhattan who States in a USA Today article, “God? Purpose? You don’t need an opinion on those things to function.” You do, however, need to have an opinion of these things to maintain Liberty.  A State that does not SECURE it’s citizens’ RIGHT to LIFE is failing to fulfil the entire purpose for its creation.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson.

This Is What America Needs

A look at Washington Gun Control Laws & Those Who Will Defend Your Rights

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 In 2018 the people of the State of Washington voted to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.  We know that essential rights like these do not come from government, they are inherent to the right of all people pursuant to the Laws of Nature and the duty of self-preservation.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” Samuel Adams, The Rights Of The Colonists, 1772 

Washington’s Initiative 1639, is a not only a clear violation of these principles, but also a violation of the the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1 section 24 of the Washington Constitution.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

These documents are relevant to the application and enforcement of Initiative 1639 because every Sheriff & Deputy in the State of Washington, along with every Police Chief and officer take an oath of office to “support” the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington.  Since Initiative 1639 is contrary to both the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Washington, those who take this Oath are left with a very serious choice to make: do they enforce the law and violate their Oath, the US Constitution, and the Constitution of Washington or do they maintain their oath, protect the rights of the people and the principle within the documents they swore to support and refuse to enforce.  There are those in Washington with the integrity and courage to do the latter.  Two of those men are Sheriff JD Raymond of Franklin County Washington and Police Chief Republic Police Chief Loren Culp.

This is what America Needs; this is what Americans must take time to encourage, not only in their own communities, but anywhere people of principle manifest themselves.  We are told, Benjamin Franklin told his countrymen, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”   Thomas Paine expressed the very same sentiment when he wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense, 1776, “It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies;”  Americans have become so divided by false profiteers of hate and racism that we no longer feel the unity in Liberty that cause a people to stand together in defense of the rights of all humankind.  This void is something that we must work to fill.  We must once again come together in support and condemnation for persons and events, whether they happen in our backyards or in the capitols of our fellow countrymen.  What one governor, legislature, sheriff, judge, or mayor may feel emboldened to do in the destruction of our rights will inevitably embolden others to do the same.  If you see in happen in Washington but you live in Nebraska, those who created our America would tell you that you have an obligation to your neighbor and yourself to stand together in defense of Liberty.  

We can stand together as a formidable force against the usurpers of our rights.  But we must also stand together WITH those who have the integrity and courage to defend them.  We must develop this as a habit in our daily lives to not only encourage the proper understanding of Liberty and Principles, but to also encourage within ourselves the courage to stand when the challenge comes our way.  You may ask, “how can these people defend my rights when I don’t live in their community?”  Because whether Franklin actually said that or not, the principle remains true throughout all of time and the history of experience; whe must stand together or we will perish alone.

That is why I have written this article, to inform and encourage you to stand with these men of courage and give them the support they need as they defend YOUR rights.

These men are not alone.  I am simply giving you their examples and hoping you will take the initiative to seek out others who deserve like encouragement.  Please write them, call them, and give them your support in every way you can.  I thank those of you who are reading this and will act…for your passion for Liberty and the time you take every day to ensure that my children and grandchildren remain free.  One final encouragement from Winston Churchill:

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

 Please contact Sheriff Raymond and Chief Culp and encourage them.  Let them know, wherever you may live, you appreciate their integrity and courage to protect your rights and the rights of those yet to come. Call them, send them a letter or postcard, tag them in your tweet or social media post.  Then contact YOUR sheriff and police chief and introduce them to the example they need to follow.

Sheriff JD Raymond
Main Office / Records  (509) 545-3501

1016 N. 4th Ave, D201 Pasco, WA 99301

Memorandum from Sheriff Raymond to his deputies: 

Republic Police Chief Loren Culp  LINK to article about Chief Culp

Hours: 8-4 Monday-Friday

Address: 157 N. Clark Ave., Republic, WA 99166

Phone Number: (509) 775-3216

Fax: 509-775-2812

Republic Police Chief  Loren Culp   @republicpolice  https://www.facebook.com/republicpolice/
Franklin County Sheriff JD Raymond http://www.co.franklin.wa.us/sheriff/
Klikitat County Sheriff Bob Songer https://klickitatcounty.org/373/Sheriff  
Yakima County Sheriff Bob Udell https://www.yakimacounty.us/220/Sheriffs-Office 
Lewis County Sheriff Robert R. Snaza https://lewiscountywa.gov/sheriff
Adams County Sheriff Dale Wagner http://www.adamscountysheriffwashington.org/