Correcting Unconstitional Impeachment

 by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 Current events always bring about the most powerful teaching moments.  Today’s question can be generally formed as:

“What is the remedy when articles of impeachment are established that do not comply with the terms of the Constitution?” 

Those who ratified our Constitution knew that those in government would always be tempted, for reasons they would attempt to justify, to try to work outside the boundaries of the Constitution.  James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and our fourth President even called our Constitution a “parchment barrier,” knowing that the document itself would have no force to keep the politically ambitious within the Constitution’s limited and defined boundaries.  It was always considered, and will always be the duty of the citizens to control those they place in government.

The Constitution lays out very specific terms for impeachment in Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution.  According to the Constitution impeachment can only be brought for four specific crimes: Bribery, Treason, High Crimes, or Misdemeanors.  Any article of impeachment that is outside those four crimes is completely unconstitutional.  So what can the people do, Constitutionally, when articles of impeachment are brought by the House outside those four authorized terms?

Understanding the constitutional solution to this political problem requires understanding that the structure of government created by the Constitution is not the structure of government we currently have operating outside the Constitution.  When those holding the trust of public office leave behind the standard of the Constitution, the people have a duty to correct their course.  When the power to impeach is exercised to satisfy political lusts rather than comply with Constitutional standards, what is the solution that exists within the established constitutional framework?

The first thing we must remind ourselves is, the people didn’t elect the president.  The office of the president was not created to be a representative of the people; the president was created to be an ambassador for the States in foreign affairs.  For that reason, the States elect the president through the electoral college.  This is not a bad thing.  As a matter of fact, the electoral college was established for specific reasons; first and foremost to protect the liberty and authority of the people.  (If this principle seems strange to you, please read what those who drafted the Constitution said about the Electoral College:

With that first principle in mind, here is the solution to the question: what is the check and balance upon unconstitutional articles of impeachment:

  1. Because the president is a representative of the States, elected by the States, an improper impeachment is a disenfranchisement of the States.
  2. Since it is the States’ vote that is being overturned, the remedy exists in the States.  It is the obligation of every State Governor and Legislator to bring a lawsuit against the enforcement of the articles of impeachment and the members of Congress violating the specific terms of impeachment.
  3. Because the purpose of the Senate is to represent the States in federal government, it is also imperative that those Senators representing States who chose the President, absent proper ground for impeachment, must not only oppose the House articles of impeachment, they must vote against conviction. 

As a final note if truth, the Senators are representatives of their State as a whole, not the people of their State and not themselves.  So if the State selected the president and if true grounds for impeachment are absent, a Senator MUST oppose the impeachment regardless of personal opinions and the opinions of a portion of the people of the State.

The designers of our Constitution crafted that document to be simply written so that the average person in 1788 could read and understand how their government was required to operate.  The designed the solutions to be simply but necessarily applied by the people

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” Federalist #33

However, because the American education system no longer teaches the essential principles driving the proper application of our Constitution, the remedies often evade our view and the people slip into overwhelming frustrations due to a perceived lack of options.  As Thomas Jefferson remarked in a letter to Charles Yancy in 1816:

“…if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was & never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information.”

Those who designed and ratified our Constitution gave us very powerful options, we simply need to apply those options to make the necessary course corrections.  Application must begin with proper education.  With this understanding, now we can demand our Governors and State Legislators exercise their duty in authority to be a necessary check and balance upon an unauthorized and unconstitutional behavior of those in the federal government.

Defending Life, Liberty, and Natural Rights

A Short Message

On The Right To Keep & Bear Arms

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Watch KrisAnne give this message on YouTube


The Right to keep and bear arms is an essential protection for Life and Liberty.

Samuel Adams wrote in 1792:

“Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First Life, secondly Liberty, third property, together with the right to defend them in the best manner possible.” 

Adams continued his point by noting that these rights are a direct product of the First law of Nature, the Duty of self-preservation.

Those who would stand for the Right to keep and bear arms do so with the interest of preserving Life and Liberty – not destroying it.  Those who support the Right to keep and bear arms support the Natural Right and duty of self-preservation, they support the ability to defend Life and Liberty not only for themselves but for their neighbors.  They support freedom and just government, they support ensuring that our future generations will able to be a government of the people, not subject to a government over the people.  The keep and bear arms, they train in the skill of defense BECAUSE they love their children, their families, and their neighbors and want to defend the most precious gifts of Life, at their own expense, if necessary.

Those who oppose the Right to keep and bear arms, whether intentionally or not, support the opposite of Life and Liberty – they support slavery, they support oppression, they support despotic government rule over the people. 

Those who ignorantly support disarming the people do so because they have been convinced of one eternal error – that those in power respect the lives and liberties of the people and will protect them.  There is absolutely NOTHING in the history of man that ought to give someone that false delusion of hope.  History is ripe with one oracle of truth – when the people are disarmed they are inevitably enslaved by the more powerful, more able, or more populated groups.  Disarming the people never ever frees the minority, to the contrary, in a disarmed society the minority becomes the first to be converted to chattel.  Slavery is not possible in a society where the people are well armed and well trained in the skill of defense and the knowledge of the value of Life and Liberty worth defending.

Those who knowingly support disarming the people do so because they are power hungry, lack respect for Life, and wish to control and dominate Life, Liberty, and Property.  The know just how to motivate the ignorant through the greatest human deception, contrived necessity.  They know how to control the powerless, corral the weak, and convince a morally depleted population to organize and come against their own neighbors.  They are those among us who endeavor to rob the innocent of their God given rights to enrich and empower themselves and endanger most precious gifts of Life and at the fatal cost of a free future.  They care only about themselves; they are the ones who pass by a neighbor in need and demand the right to take Life out of a feigned excuse derived from the most selfish center of humankind.  They seek to rob, kill, and destroy Life, Liberty and Property and they are the very spirit that has caused the institutions of slavery and despotism to rise throughout history.

William Pitt, The Younger summed it up best when he said,

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

There is a day where every American reflects on who they are, who they want to be, and takes the time to classify themselves.  Are you a slave?  Are you a tyrant? Or are you a freeman?

If you have determined that you love your neighbor as yourself, if you love your children and your children’s children, if you wish to remain a freeman and not encourage slavery at the hand of the despot, then what comes next is your only choice…John Adams wrote,

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

So, first, You Stand UP FOR the weak and ignorant.  You Stand up to say, we will not let you be enslaved.  We will defend you as well as our own because that is the call of Liberty that Makes America Great

Second, you Stand up TO tyrant.  You declare your Natural Rights just as we did on July 4, 1776 – That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.  That these rights, being derived from Nature, a gift to all mankind, precede all government and all law; that all laws must be made to conform to our Natural Rights, or they are no law at all.  You tell the tyrant that you hold no ill will, that you love him and pray peace, and because you love him you will not allow him to enslave your neighbor and you will not allow him to deny us and our future a Right guaranteed by our Creator.

Mercy Otis Warren made this plea:

“America stands armed with resolution and virtue; but she still recoils at the idea of drawing the sword against the nation from whence she derived her origin. Yet Britain, like an unnatural parent, is ready to plunge her dagger into the bosom of her affectionate offspring. But may we not yet hope for more lenient measures!”

You see, it won’t be those who defend Liberty who pray violence.  Those fighting for the Right to keep and bear arms are armed, yes, with resolution and virtue to preserve Life, not end it, to secure Liberty, not destroy it.  It will be those who have no respect for Life, that hold no love for their brother, who love self more than Liberty and Life – the tyrants and slaves – who will bring violence for violent ends.

THESE are the times that try men’s souls.  These are the days when choices must be made.  Today we choose peace.  Today we choose Life.  Today we choose Liberty.  And because we’ve made these choices, today we choose to defend our right to secure Life, Liberty, and Property from those who would come to rob, steal, and destroy.  Today we stand in defense of our Natural Right to keep and bear arms.

And if you find yourself in opposition to this essential Right.  If you find yourself thinking it’s necessary to deny us this Right or that someone must control and disarm the people, you have classified yourself… as either the tyrant or the slave.

You see if we are historically honest there is only one question necessary in the gun control discussion –

Do you trust that the people in power will never use the force of government to take your Life, Liberty, or Property?

If the answer to that question is NO.  The discussion is over and you now, finally know, why we stand before you today and every day, armed with virtue and resolution to declare

244 years ago we took a stand and said, NO MORE KINGS, and we’re not about to change our minds now.

A Message To The Church: COVID19 Restrictions and Freedom of Religion

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

A bloody path was trod to bring religious freedom to modern America. Christian martyrs and patriots secured our God-given right to Freedom of Religion with their suffering and even with their lives.  Religious freedom in America is not simply a fundamental right but a foundational one.  The settlements of the first American colonies were established in the flight from oppressive religious persecution and the struggle continued even on these shores.  From the beating of Obadiah Holmes, the lynching of Quakers and the imprisonment of 50 Baptist preachers who were defended by a fiery attorney named Patrick Henry, religious liberty in America has been something Christians have always been willing to stand for or even to die for.  This history and more gave us our First Amendment to the Constitution and its underlying principle of religious conscience which has been part of the bedrock of our Republic for more than two centuries.

The “Father of the Constitution” and fourth President James Madison wrote in 1792,

“Conscience is the most sacred of all property…the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle…”

Indeed prohibitions upon the government’s authority to infringe, limit, or dictate the operation of the church have been codified in western law long before the settlement of American colonies.  Many American Christians have heard of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them that America would never return to a time where the government sought to dictate the operations of the church.  But long before 1802, Jefferson’s “wall of separation of church and state” that kept government outside the sacred walls of the church was one alluded to by King Henry I in the 1100 Charter of Liberties. Henry declared the body of the church to be free from government intrusions. Two-hundred years later, one of the tipping points in the fight that brought us Magna Carta was the crown’s attempt to interfere in the free operation of the church. This charter history of our founding documents continued its development through the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 under which our founders arrived in this New World.  Each of these installments, which would later culminate in our founding documents; all happened amid the fight for religious liberty.

However even with the clear language of our First Amendment and the history that should inform our actions, the struggle to maintain this essential right from the control of government continues to this day. Modern lawmakers like to carve out excuses and causes for government intrusions into our inherent rights when some imagined need arises.  William Pitt, The Younger warned in 1783, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.  It is the creed of slaves.”  Necessity seems to always be the most powerful tool to persuade the masses into accepting these infringements.  Today because of the coronavirus scare, religious liberty is facing a huge “necessity plea” in the form of limits upon assembly. At least one church has been descended upon by police and threatened with the National Guard for having more than 250 people attend.

According to the courts, a law that infringes upon a fundamental right, like Freedom of Religion, must overcome certain challenges:  The law must not be arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable.  The law must be equally applied to secular businesses and it must satisfy a qualification of being the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. The restrictions imposed by Governors and municipalities upon the number of people who can assemble in a private church gathering appears to fail these tests. 

First, these numerical restrictions are completely arbitrary in nature.  There has been no tested nor proven scientific or medical data to show us what “number” of people that congregate together are a danger to society.  The number has varied from place to place and moment by moment. Somewhere it’s 50, other places its 10 and there are still other variations.  When politicians assign an “acceptable” number of people allowed in a private church, they are reducing our right to Freedom of Religion to a first come, first served privilege.  Our first foundational document reads:

“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…”

The government deciding who can attend a service by way of a numerical limit does not demonstrate an equality of rights and ought to be seen as a per se violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Secondly, in the current scare, these orders are not being applied equally upon secular businesses and other institutions.  When arbitrary number limits are applied to a church and not to a library, post office, grocery store, or hotel gym, there is not equal application.  These orders try to justify unequal application based upon the definition of “essential” services.  By what authority does the government declare the church non-essential? The Church is a place where people turn for help and for comfort in a climate of fear and uncertainty. In a time of crisis, people are fearful and in need of comfort and community, more than ever before. Even people who do not attend church regularly, or perhaps never go to church, need to know that there is somewhere for them to go when they need help.  Since Roman persecution of the church ended, the church has been viewed by Western civilization as an essential part of society, a refuge in time of trouble or need, a place of peace and a sanctuary for the weary, even a place of healing and provision.  More salient for believers is that the Bible pointedly addresses the issue of assembling during troubled times:

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Heb 10:25

Many in the church take this as a solemn command. To deny a Christian his obligation to gather with his local called out body is to put him at odds with a fundamental tenet of the faith.  For a believer in Christ there are few things as essential as the gathering of the body of Christ in the study of God’s Word and worship of His Glory.  As a matter of fact, the Bible teaches that since we are eternal beings in this temporary world, God’s word is more essential than food.

“But Jesus replied, “It is written and forever remains written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God.’” Matthew 4:4

When those in government can assign a label of non-essential to the practice of religion, then government is taking a very serious and dangerous role of defining religion, which is expressly forbidden in our Bill of Rights and in a majority of our State Constitutions. 

Finally, these restrictions are not reasonable and not the least restrictive means necessary.  The case law used to define reasonableness in these laws are easily distinguishable.  In Moore v. Draper, the Florida Supreme Court held that Moore could be quarantined and prevented from attending church because he had Tuberculosis.  The court also said that once he was healthy he could no longer be reasonably or legally quarantined and prevented from attending church.  The current laws restricting the number of attendees of a church are not restrictions on one unhealthy individual.  They are restrictions upon a group of healthy people from attending church. The court said that such a restriction would be unreasonable.  Additionally, the court did not order the entire church to be shut down to keep Moore healthy, which is exactly what these orders are trying to suggest is a reasonable and Constitutional solution. 

Limiting an entire congregation of people for the safety of those who may be at risk of infection does not meet the standard of Moore, nor can it be seen as the least restrictive means necessary.   The Florida case of Varholy v. Sweat is distinguishable for the same reasons as Moore.  Finally, in Employment Division vs. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a “neutral, generally applicable law” restricting use of a hallucinogenic plant was not an unreasonable interference upon freedom of religion. Because the current restrictions upon church assemblies are not generally applicable to every other place where people will congregate, Smith is not controlling and proponents of church meeting bans find it no support.

Although it is argued the “protection of the public health is one of the prime duties resting upon the State” we cannot escape the reality that the FIRST prime duty of every state is codified in the Declaration of Independence:

“…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…”

There is nothing in the law or precedent to establish a blanket and arbitrary assertion of “state of emergency” as an unquestionable authority.  There is nothing in law or precedent to support a restriction on the number of people who can assemble in a church, for health reasons or otherwise, as a criterion for denying the essential Right of Freedom of Religion.  There is everything in history and experience that says such actions by government are unreasonable and oppressive restrictions upon the essential and inherent Right of Freedom of Religion.  Rev. Jonathan Witherspoon, founder of Princeton University gave this warning:

“There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire.” 

When Peter and the apostles were told by law not to gather, preach, lay hands on the sick for God to grant them healing or else be thrown into prison, they chose to continue to practice their faith.  After they escaped from prison and were told by God to go back and assemble with the people and preach and heal, they did exactly that.  And when they were questioned by the government as to why they continued to break this law, the apostles did not hesitate or make excuse, they simply said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29)  True to the history that makes America great, our pastors and church members should not so easily surrender a fundamental rights so faithfully contended for by those who have gone before. Who will stand and not let the landmarks be moved?

One Congress To Rule Them All

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

We may see something in November that we have never seen before and it’s all connected to the 12th amendment.

Before the ratification of the 12th Amendment, the presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of electoral votes was elected president and the presidential candidate receiving the second most votes was elected vice president.  However, in the presidential election of 1800, there was a tie between the top two candidates.  To provide a solution if that should ever happen again, in 1804 the States ratified the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The 12th Amendment of the Constitution establishes that there must be two separate ballots in every presidential election: one for the president and one for the vice president.  The Electors, casting two votes, choose the president and the vice president in two distinct ballots.  If there is a tie on the presidential ballot, that tie would be broken by a vote of the House of Representatives under very specific instructions laid out in the 12th Amendment.  In those instructions, the House is to select the President after January 6 but before March 4 of the same year. (Note- the new House Members will be sworn in on January 3rd, meaning the NEW HOUSE would select the President).  Because separate elections for the President and Vice President are required by the Constitution, the newly elected Vice President would serve as President if the House does not settle the tie before the March 4th deadline.

In 1832, with no fanfare and no constitutional amendments, political parties began choosing presidential and vice-presidential candidates to run together on a single ballot.  In the election of 1844 this practice became solidified across party lines and political parties submitted a single Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket for that ballot; a vote for one is a vote for both.  Finally, in 1940 after winning two previous elections, FDR had a political temper tantrum claiming he would not run for a third term unless HE got to choose his own running mate.  This began the tradition of presidential candidates “choosing” their own running mates.

In the 2020 presidential election, some claim something could happen in our election that hasn’t happened since 1800: a tie in the electoral college vote for President.  The 12th Amendment was written to provide the constitutional procedure for such an occurrence.  The 12th Amendment reads:

“The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President…if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President…before the fourth day of March next following then the Vice-President shall act as President…”

However, since Americans have allowed political parties to ignore the Constitution for one hundred eighty-eight years, there is no separate ballot for President and Vice President as the Constitution demands.  As a result, there is no Vice President to act as President if the House cannot submit a tie breaking vote on March 4th.   Here is where it gets interesting.

The 12th Amendment provides that in the event of a tie for the office of the President the House gives the tie breaking vote.  If there is a tie in 2020, the House will pick the President, but the House is NOT authorized by the Constitution to pick the Vice President.  The 12th Amendment establishes that in the event of a tie for vice-president, the Senate gives the tie breaking vote:

“The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President…if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President…”

With the creation of single ticket running mates, there would be a tie in both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.  This means if there is a tie in 2020, the President would be chosen by the House and the Vice-President would be chosen by the Senate. For the first time in the history of America, the President and Vice President would be chosen entirely by the Legislative Branch rather than by the electoral college or vote of the people.  Our long slow march away from our Constitutional foundations will blur the lines of separation of powers beyond recognition. The separation of powers doctrine ensures that one branch of government does not assume total control over another branch.  James Madison remarked in Federalist #47, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.”  The power to appoint is the power to control.  Because we have allowed our federal government to ignore our Constitution and operate our elections based upon the needs of parties and not the rule of law, our present Constitutional Republic is being transformed, as James Madison warned in 1798, “into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” Having traded the rule of law for the law of rulers, we are a nation far adrift from its Constitutional moorings.  If we want to avoid the crash against the rocks we best reconnect with our anchor.

Who Will Be President January 2021

Who Will Be President January 2021
By KrisAnne Hall, JD
  • No President has ever been elected in November.
  • The Popular Vote does not elect a President, the vote of the Electoral College elects a President.
  • The date to count the Electoral College vote is set by law as January 6 and cannot be delayed without passing a new law.
  • It is legally and constitutionally impermissible to have a delay in announcing the winner in the Presidential race.
  • Nancy Pelosi cannot legally or constitutionally be “acting” President due to a delay caused by counting votes.

Fake News Alert!  It is a deliberate false narrative that the Speaker of the House would be appointed as acting president if the popular votes are not all counted by Jan. 20, 2021.  This narrative is derived from a false conflating of the Twentieth and Twenty Fifth Amendments.  The fact checkers ought to be telling Americans that by law, there is no way a delay in counting the popular vote can create a delay in electing the president and no way Nancy Pelosi can legally be appointed as “acting” president until a popular vote count dispute is resolved.

The false narrative that invokes the Twenty Fifth Amendment’s “line of succession” ignores the language that indicates that the line of succession applies to vacancies in the presidency from the president’s death, disability, resignation or removal from office; it does not apply to a delay in counting popular votes nor from a normal expiration of a term of office.

The first thing that an honest fact checker would point out is that no president has ever been elected in November as a result of a popular vote count.  As a matter of law, US presidents are elected on January 6 of every year (unless this date is changed prior to January 6 by passing of law), when the Senate President counts the electoral votes not the popular vote (3 U.S.C. §15).  Popular vote is not used to directly elect a President, therefore having an accurate and complete popular vote count is not a factor in delaying the January election.

The next thing your fact checker would have to tell you is that the deadline for counting elector votes is set by law, therefore a delay is not legally permissible.  On the contrary, federal laws were established to avoid a repetition of the extraordinary delay incident to the electoral vote controversy surrounding the 1876 presidential election.[1] 

Here is how it works according to the Constitution and according to the law:

After the electors have voted in each state, they make and sign six certificates, seal those certificates, and certify that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President.  Those certificates are then sent to the President of the Senate, and the Secretary of State of their State.

Should there be delays or failures of state electors to submit electoral votes to Congress, there is no need to wonder, create, or invent a procedure, there is established precedent that guides us.  Federal law establishes that if no certificates of votes or lists have been received by the President of the Senate or the Archivist from electors by the fourth Wednesday in December, then the President of the Senate is directed by law to request the State’s Secretary of State to immediately forward the certificates (3 U.S.C. §§12,13).[2]  The States whose electoral votes are missing are sent a collection notice from the Senate President warning that their electoral votes are due immediately. The process, along with specific deadlines for counting electoral votes submitted and disregarding electoral votes not submitted, is well established by historical precedent, federal law, and the Constitution. 

Every fact checker should know the date for counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election unless the date is changed by law (3 U.S.C. §15). The votes that are submitted in compliance with the deadline are counted.  The Votes that are not submitted in compliance with the deadline are not counted.  The Twelfth Amendment requires only a simple majority of electoral votes to elect a Presidential.  Precedent establishes what happens if some electors’ votes are not received in compliance with the deadline and are not counted.  For example, in 1865 only two of the three Nevada electors cast their electoral votes and only two Nevada votes were counted and included in the “whole number of electoral votes” to elect the president.  Similar instances of votes “not given” by electors that were not included in the “whole number” of electors reported, occurred in 1809, 1813, and 1817.[3]

Additionally, pursuant to congressional act, a State’s elector’s certificate of vote can be rejected if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection. This means the votes from the electors in question are not counted. In 1873 both Houses decided not to count the electoral votes from Arkansas and Louisiana.[4]  In 1864, all of the votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected, and in 1872, all of the votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected.[5]

The drafters of our Constitution were concerned that a delay in counting the vote could result in a quiet, non-violent political coup by one party or one or more states, where one or more disgruntled States would hold the entire election hostage.   The framers of the Constitution even warned that the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House should never be given the powers of the presidency because they are elected members of one political party and are therefore partisan. Representatives Morris and Madison warned that in order to pass their party’s political agenda those in power in the Congress could affect a political coup by indefinitely delaying the legitimate election of a president.[6]  The system they established for electing the president is clearly established through the Constitution, Amendments, historical precedent, and Congressional law to prevent any delay and prevent that sort of political coup. 

The facts presented in this article are in a Congressional Summary Report which is available to Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. Now you know what your member of Congress should already know and what the talking heads in the media don’t know or are deliberately falsifying to create uncertainty, destroy trust in our elections and foment chaos aimed at the overthrow of our Constitutional government.  These facts cannot be denied.  Know these facts. Demand they be followed. Expect them to be followed.

“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.”  Thomas Jefferson, January 6, 1817.

[1] Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Sessions, Including objections by Members of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Maskell, Jack and Rybicki, Elizabeth November 15, 2016, page 12.

[2] Ibid, page 4-5.

[3] CRS Report RL30769, Electoral Vote Counts in Congress: Survey of Certain Congressional Practices, by Jack Maskell et al.

[4] Congressional Globe, vol. 46 (February 12, 1873), pp. 1305-1306.

[5] David A. McKnight (1878). The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 313.

[6] Records of the Federal Convention by James Madison, August 27, 1787.

Did Trump “incite” a riot? A Memorandum of Law.

  by KrisAnne Hall JD

AUTHOR’S NOTE: If you are looking for some proactive measures to take to influence your US Senator, you have my permission and encouragement to send this to your Senators.  My thought is, even if you believe your Senator will disregard this settled law, you should send it anyway.  We should never be silent with truth and every elected officer should be presented with the truth so they cannot claim ignorance.  It would be a very powerful message if you could organize your circle of people to all send this Legal Memorandum.  If you have any questions, you can always reach me at 

Memorandum of Law
TO:        Members of the United States Senate
From:    KrisAnne Hall, JD
RE:        HR24 – Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States for High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Date:     January 13, 2021


              On January 6, 2021 a group of Americans assembled in Washington DC: some to protest the counting of Electoral College votes they believe were cast as a result of a fraudulent election, some to support President Trump, some to encourage the counting of the Electoral College votes, some to protest President Trump, and some to simply create chaos and destruction.  During this assembly some in this assemblage chose to engage in violence that resulted in damage to the Capitol building and the loss of life.  During this assembly of multiple groups and individuals, including President Donald Trump gave a speech, which transcripts are available.

              HR 24- Articles of Impeachment allege that the actions of those who carried out the violence are attributable to President Donald J Trump due to words uttered at a rally and thus subjects him to legal and constitutional impeachment from office pursuant to Article 2 section 4 of the US Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection.”

Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution reads:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Questions Presented

  • Is President Donald Trump guilty of “Incitement of Insurrection” by inciting violence against the United States?
  • Is President Donald Trump subject to impeachment and conviction according to the Constitution under Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection?”

Answers & Discussion

Incitement has a very settled definition in law and the standard is referred to as the “Brandeburg Test” as resulting from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969). 

The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In Brandenburg, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally and, after speaking a laundry list of racial slurs, Brandenburg then said; “it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.”   In this opinion, the Supreme Court held that the government can only infringe upon freedom of speech by criminalizing speech when a two-prong standard created by this court is met.  The standard is as follows:

  • The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
  • The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Further Supreme Court opinions give specific direction on the application of the Brandenburg Test.  The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which an Indiana University protestor said, “We’ll take the fucking street again” (or “later.”) The Supreme Court held that the university protestor’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as speech that “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Mr. Evers made threats of violence against anyone who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg Test and found that Mr. Evers’ speech was protected under the principles of freedom of speech: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

The question is, Did President Donald Trump engage in speech that qualifies under the Brandenburg Test as inciting.  The only relevant evidence in this accusation will be the transcripts of President Trump’s speech.  In this transcript we see no language that fits the Brandenburg Test definition of inciting.  What a reader of this transcript will find is:

“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Using the Brandenburg Test, as established by the Supreme Court of the United States, it must be concluded that President Donald Trump’s speech did not rise to the criminal level of inciting.  Consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinions, the speaker over a group cannot be held accountable for the actions of that group unless the speaker “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND the speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”  It is highly dubious to assert that directing a crowd to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” incites violence and insurrection.  There can be disagreement as to the appropriate nature of President Donald Trump’s words in general.  There cannot be disagreement as to the statements made in his speech, since they are recorded and freely available. 

This is the only reasonable and moral way to maintain the essential standard of freedom of speech as enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights.  Any standard that deviates from this test in favor of criminalizing speech oughto be unacceptable in a nation built upon the essential principles of personal liberty.

The Supreme Court held in Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989) that freedom of speech is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” In RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992), the Court held that even “hate speech” is protected under these terms of the First Amendment.  Finally, the Supreme Court held in Gregory v Chicago 394 US 111 (1969), “To let a policeman’s command become equivalent to a criminal statute comes dangerously near making our government one of men rather than of laws. There are ample ways to protect the domestic tranquility without subjecting First Amendment freedoms to such a clumsy and unwieldy weapon.”  To allow disagreement over words and meanings, to allow political dissention to become the standard of criminal activity violates the Constitution and the standards established by the Supreme Court, transmutes America away from a land whose foundation is settled in due process and rule of law to the “clumsy and unyielding weapon” of politicians, mob rule, and arbitrary standards that are antithetical to everything that embodies our Constitutional Republic.

Because President Donald Trump’s speech does not meet the two-prong test as established by the Supreme Court, it must be concluded that his speech has not risen to the level of criminal activity.  Since the standards of due process lead us to conclude that no crime was committed, the House Impeachment accusation is unlawful as there was no violation of a “high crime or misdemeanor.”  Finally, because the criminal elements of inciting are not met, President Trump cannot, under the law and the Constitution, be convicted by the Senate at trial.

American History of Direct Taxation- Part 1

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

During the American “Civil War,” politicians figured out a whole new source of revenue…the individual American income.  If they could pull it off, it would invariably be the most consistent revenue stream the American government had ever experienced.  All that was needed was to convince the people that this “inconvenience” was not only necessary, but limited and temporary to meet an immediate need.  Enacted in 1862, this income tax was collected with the consent of the people to fund the War, was limited by income, assessed upon those who made $600 or more a year, and would expire after a set period.

But as we have learned, a power once assumed by government is never temporary and will always increase exponentially.  In 1894 Senator John Sherman, a Republican from Ohio, argued that this “temporary” tax should be made permanent.  He argued that the mechanism of consumption taxes were not “fair” and that the burden of the debt should not rest equally upon the poor, but upon those who can afford the burden.

“A few years of further experience will convince the body of our people that a system of national taxes which rests the whole burden of taxation on consumption, and not one cent on property or income, is intrinsically unjust. . . . [T]he consumption of the rich does not bear the same relation to the consumption of the poor as the income of the one does to the wages of the other.”

The Civil War Tax would expire in 1870 as planned, but subsequent economic challenges would resurrect the drive to create a permanent income tax solution.  The People’s Party would bring the discussion back into the public arena, but it would be the Republican Party, through Presidents Roosevelt and Taft and several key Congressmen who would give this unconstitutional measure its life, with bipartisan support by the Democrat party.

In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt stated that a “graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the supreme court will declare constitutional.”  Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, also appeared to accept the constitutionality and desirability, at least in emergencies, of an income tax. In accepting the Republican nomination in 1908, Taft said, “I believe that an income tax, when the protective system of customs and the internal revenue tax shall not furnish enough for governmental needs, can and should be devised which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, will conform to the Constitution.”

Furthermore, many Republicans had come to Congress willing to join with Democrats and any remaining Populists to push for an income tax.  Even the Republicans were trashing the consumption tax as “unfair” and pushing for a more “balanced” approach to taxation that put the burden of taxation on those who could “afford it.”

Sen. Cummins, a Republican from Iowa said,

“[A]n income tax, levied upon those who ought to bear the burdens of government, . . . will meet even that principle more perfectly than to levy duties upon things that the people must use, and impose the weight of government only by the rule of consumption.”

The question remained, would there be a tax by legislation or a tax by Constitutional Amendment?   In a full on bipartisan push for income tax, Senators Joseph W. Bailey of Texas, a Democrat, and Albert B. Cummins of Iowa, a Republican, both introduced legislation to add an income tax provision, modeled on the 1894 statute, to a tariff bill.  The supreme Court would be an insurmountable obstacle to this measure as this court had repeatedly deemed direct income tax by legislation to be unconstitutional.

President Taft weighed in with support for a constitutional amendment, stressing, among other things, the desirability of “stability of judicial construction of the Constitution.  Instrumental in the push for a Constitutional Amendment was Republican Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. Senator Brown would bring in greater support for the Amendment by proposing the following Amendment language: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes and inheritances.”  Although many did not like the proposal it gave a starting point for real discussion.  The final push for support would come on June 16 when President Taft gave support to a constitutional amendment. The next day, June 17, with the president now on the side of a constitutional amendment, Senator Brown tried again, proposing the following language: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.”  The joint resolution containing the Amendment passed unanimously in the Senate (77- 0), and in the House a week later, after about four hours’ debate, by a vote of 318 to 14.

Let us be reminded that the initial arguments of war time necessity and temporary implementation are completely out the door.  These politicians, both Republican and Democrat, had now devised a way to direct tax the people, contrary to Article 1 section 2 clause 3 of the Constitution.  They have nullified the Constitution and ignored the supreme Court opinions declaring such acts as unconstitutional.  With no “emergency” need and no way of ending this intrusion, the only the justification behind the actions of these legislators that remains is the desire to permanently enrich the government in a way that our founders concluded to be complete despotism.

Perhaps Thomas Paine tapped into a axiomatic truth when he wrote in his Answer to Mr. Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution,

“…a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.”

The Constitutionally & Historically Established House Procedures For Articles of Impeachment

 The Constitutionally & Historically Established House Procedures For Articles of Impeachment

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

The deceivers in Congress and MSM want you to believe that the Constitution is “vague” on House procedures for bringing articles of impeachment.  That is only because they WANT to evade the Constitution and have the authority to act arbitrarily to deny their obligations to the Constitution and due process.  Understanding how the House is supposed to proceed in the filing of impeachment is really not that complicated, the deceivers just want you to think it is.  So, as briefly and plainly as possible, here is how it is supposed to work….

If we work backwards it is the easiest way to logically understand the proper procedure for the House to file Articles of Impeachment. 

1.  We know from those who ratified the Constitution, our most relevant source, that the Senate is the “court” that will “try” the impeachment.  (Read Federalist 65 and

2.  We know from Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land) that impeachment is valid for the crimes of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

              A.  Article 1 section 3 clause 7 of the Constitution states that after impeachment the convicted can no longer hold public office AND can be tried in a criminal court for the SAME crime and held accountable under the law.

              B.  All four of the grounds for impeachment are actually CRIMES, subject to the terms criminal prosecution.  Alexander Hamilton discusses this in Federalist 65 when he explains why the Senate and not the Supreme Court is the proper body to try impeachments:

“Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury, acting under the auspices of Judges, who had predetermined his guilt?”

Hamilton says since the accused can be tried in a criminal court for the same crimes that brought about impeachment, it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to handle impeachment and also have the possibility of having the criminal case come before them as well.  With that being said, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will still preside over the impeachment trial to ensure the proper rules of due process are followed by the Senate. (See Federalist 65)

3.  In Federalist 65, Hamilton calls the Senate the COURT and speaks of the proceeding as a TRIAL and even indicates that the same process will be followed by the lower courts when trying the accused outside of impeachment.  Hamilton even explicitly states that the proper conduct for the Senate is to judge the accused by the “real demonstration of guilt or innocence,” once again using the legal vernacular appropriate of a true trial of justice.

4.  Since the accused (president, vice president, or any civil officer) will be having a legitimate trial in the Senate, with all due process considerations of a court of justice, it will only be fitting to describe the role of the House as the “prosecutor” who reviews the allegations and the evidence and has the responsibility of filing the charges against the accused.

A prosecutor (I know, I was one for nearly a decade) does not file every allegation that comes along.  A prosecutor does not even file a case against every person “believed” to be guilty of a crime.  The belief of guilt is irrelevant in the criminal justice system.  The only thing that matters in a true court of justice, is what can be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the framework of the statutory crime, the evidence admissible, and the rules of due process.

5.  Since the Senate is the Trial phase and the House is the filing stage, the House procedure for filing impeachment will logically be the same as that of a prosecutor. 

A.  The House members must look at the allegations.  They must then look at that law and determine if the allegations fit the law.  The Constitution establishes the law and that impeachment can only be brought for Treason, Bribery, High Crimes, or Misdemeanors.  If the allegations do not fit into one of those four categories, then the House, just like any good prosecutor, must refuse to file impeachment.  If you are confused by the current assertion that the Constitution permits the House to bring impeachment for “political” reasons, please read this article to help you understand why that reasoning is false:

B.  If the allegations fit into one of the four categories of impeachable crimes, then the House members must review the evidence and determine 1. if the evidence is admissible, 2.  if the admissible evidence satisfies the elements of the crime, and 3. if the relevant evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.  If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then the House must refuse to file impeachment.  If the answer to all these questions is “yes” then the House must file impeachment and put together the case for trial in the Senate.

That’s it.  That is the procedure for the House of Representatives for bringing articles of impeachment according to the intent of the founders and the Constitution.  Perhaps it seems very simple to me because this is the process I engaged in every day of my life for nearly a decade.  I was even blessed enough to train new prosecutors in this process.  The presence of due process in America is such a precious jewel and as not only a prosecutor, but one who trained future prosecutors, my philosophy was never “win at all costs” but to consider the lives of the people, both victims and accused, stay within the lanes of the law, and above of all preserve the Rights of the people involved so that the system doesn’t become a tool for vengeance and destruction. 

Our House members should hold the procedure of impeachment with the same reverence and respect.  The fact that every civil officer in our Constitutional Republic can only be impeached from office through the respect of law and due process is priceless and ought to be seen as invaluable.  It is truly one of the things that separates our Constitutional Republic from an arbitrary and lawless Banana Republic.

The thing I find interesting is that many of these House members are lawyers and many of the lawyers have trial court experience.  For these people to claim that they are “confused” as to this procedure seems very disingenuous and self-serving.  If American prosecutors handled cases the way the House Judiciary Committee is handling this impeachment, their cases would be thrown out of court, they would likely be looking at sanctions from the BAR Association, and could even face their own criminal trial for the crime of “vindictive prosecution.”  Perhaps one lesson our House members would do well to learn, the first lesson I taught all my prosecutors in training, we are “prosecutors” not “persecutors” and we must know the difference.  

It should be very important to every American that our House does not engage in vindictive prosecution and is diligent to the rights of due process.  What these people in high office are allowed to do to the president, or any other civil officer for that matter, will not only set a legal precedent but also a cultural one that will put the due process and fundamental rights of every American at peril.  I will close with the words of Hannah Winthrop, one of the founders of America: “How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!”

A New York Bill to Imprison and Force Vaccinate Without Due Process is Up For Vote

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

On January 6 New York Assemblymen will be asked to vote on a bill that will authorize the Governor and/or health officials to seize custody of New Yorkers, imprison, and force vaccinate them without due process.  This bill is not only a threat to the Constitution of New York, the people of New York, but also everyone in America if you consider the way certain legislation can spread throughout America in the age “crisis.”  We must stay vigilant, not only of our own legislation, but also of that which could impact other States.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Nick Perry (District 58) is titled A-416 “An Act To Amend the public health law, in relation to removal of cases, contacts, and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health.”  This legislation is not only dehumanizing by referring the people of New York as “contacts or carriers” it violates multiple sections of the New York Constitution and robs New Yorkers of their fundamental, inherent rights. 

If passed this legislation will place in the hands of the Governor, or his designated agent, the full and autonomous authority to “order” the “removal” and “detention” of every person the Governor or his “delegee” determines “may pose” a “significant and imminent threat to public health.”  The bill refers to these people as a “carrier” or “contact” of COVID-19.  Once some health department worker thinks a New Yorker is a carrier or contact to a carrier, that person will be seized and held without hearing, trial, due process, or bond for a period of time to be determined by the health department. 

A-416 does graciously establish that any person once detained “shall not continue to be detained once the health department determines” that person is “no longer is or will become contagious.”  What is the standard for that completely arbitrary determination by the health department you might ask?  The legislation leaves that entirely to the discretion of agent of the health department and their personal “due diligence.”  Only if and when the person detained formally “requests” to be heard will the health department be required to grant the “opportunity” to be heard…within 3 – 5 days.  To give some real due process perspective, if a New Yorker is arrested and accused of murder they are guaranteed, automatically without asking, a hearing within 24 hours.  If a New Yorker is picked up on the whim of some health department worker, they will have to wait at least 3 days to have a hearing — but only after a hearing is formally requested, from your detention cell, in a yet to be determined State designated facility. 

In short:

1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials.  New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution. 

2. A-416 arbitrarily reduces the well established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some worker in the NY Health Department which violates New York’s constitutional principle of separation of powers.

3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process related to a search and seizure of their property and their body.

These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  New Yorkers cannot allow that to happen. Everyone in New York needs to contact their Senator and Assemblyman and DEMAND they vote no on A-416.  Everyone in America needs to contact their State and demand that such legislation never be drafted.

**NOTE:  Here is a sample script created by Liberty First Legal, INC. for every New Yorker to use if they want to contact their representatives and demand they vote NO!

Dear Assemblyman (insert name)

I am writing as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416.

On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies.  This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process.

A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution. 

1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials.  New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution. 

2. This bill arbitrarily reduces the well-established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some executive bureaucrat in violation of the essential principle of separation of powers.

3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process before a search and seizure of their property and their body.

These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker, I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO.  Thank you for your time and service.


Sample phone script for New York A-416

I am calling as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416. On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies.  This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process.  A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution.  These are very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO.  Thank you for your time and service.

Learning from Natural Disasters

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Patrick Henry, a designer of our Constitutional Republic said, “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.”   What history lessons about the design of our republic can we learn from natural disasters?

As Americans we believe in helping each other in time of need, so the question is not SHOULD we help, but instead where should disaster help come from? Looking at the design of our Republic, here are some hard observations.

Disaster Relief is Not Within Federal Authority

Constitutionally there is no delegation of authority for the federal government to act as emergency funding services for the States.   James Madison, father of the Constitution and 4th president declared before congress in 1792:

“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 is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

If the power is not expressly delegated through a specific Article, section, or clause, then the federal authority does not lawfully exist.  We know that to be a factual statement by the terms of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution:

“…an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.  ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

The only way to change or expand federal power is through the amendment process described in the Constitution which in either process includes the creators of the Constitution, the States.  No single branch of the creation can expand its own power by any other means. Remember:

Congress cannot expand its own or another branch’s delegated power by legislative act. Alexander Hamilton, a designer of our Constitution wrote in Federalist #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.”

The President has no authority to change the Constitution; he doesn’t have the authority to make laws of any sort. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 1 section 1. Since any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is invalid, the president making legislative acts, is a clear violation of the Constitution and per se in valid.

The Judiciary cannot expand federal power beyond the Constitution. James Madison, addresses such a violation in 1800: “…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…”

If elected representatives in Washington DC cannot identify the Article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal government to engage in emergency funding services to the States, then that authority, very plainly does not legally exist.  Any reference to a congressional act, does not create that authority.  If legislative act is the only authority, then as Hamilton so accurately announced, that legislative act is void and no law at all.  A supreme Court opinion, nor series of opinions cannot be the basis for undelegated authority since the judiciary cannot exercise or sanction any authority that is not tied down to a specific power delegated through the Constitution. The existence of executive agencies designated to perform a function beyond the grant of the Constitution cannot provide legal justification for pretended authority.

Sadly, what we hear is that “We must have the federal government’s help; without it we cannot function.”  According to William Pitt, the Younger, 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 purpose of the Constitution is to “preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The plea of necessity over the limited nature of the Constitution is yet another unconstitutional argument. This cry of necessity is annulled because the terms of the Constitution binds the federal government to expressed powers. If the people through their states want the Federal government to have a new authority then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities.  To put forth any or all of these extra-constitutional assertions as legal justification for powers that are not enumerated is to suggest that the Constitution is NOT the foundation for the rule of law in our Republic. In that case, then Congress, the President and the courts would have ZERO authority, because without the Constitution they have no basis to even exist.

How Should Disaster Relief Be Handled

If the federal government wasn’t stealing and extorting money and power from the people and their States to fund and operate all their unconstitutional federal agencies and programs throughout year, the States would have plenty of money to manage their own disasters.  Under a properly operating Constitutional Republic, our States would have a surplus beyond our modern comprehension and the States (in addition to the millions in private donations we see after major disasters) could individually provide relief as they see fit. In fact, the designers of our Constitutional Republic speculated about unexpected burdens that one State may not be able to handle. 

Throughout the eighty-five published Federalist Papers, the authors of these papers repeatedly assert that the establishment of the union of the States would create a fiduciary relationship between the States.   This “brotherhood” would create a feeling of friendship and duty amongst the States for economic and defensive support.  They postulated that if there were such an unforeseen and unreasonable burden placed upon one State, the remaining States would voluntarily and individually administer aid as their citizens felt appropriate.  The designers of our Constitutional Republic never once asserted that the federal government would have the authority to engage in charity in any form.  As a matter of fact, they spoke against the federal exercise of charity on multiple occasion.

James Madison proclaimed before Congress in 1792, that for the federal Congress to engage in public charity with tax dollars, “would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

He repeated this truth in 1794, when he said most definitively: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

The Bottom Line

There is no Constitutional reason and no Constitutional authority for the feds to become involved with these kinds of domestic affairs. There is and never has been any constitutional reason to look to any President to be the savior after a storm, during a pandemic , or other natural disaster.* The only reason to look to any President in a time is crisis is political – to encourage love or hate of a personality – so parties can build power.  However, because America has been errantly trained for over 150 years that this is the purpose of the federal government, most do not even have an inclination that their cries for federal aid are transmuting the mutual brotherhood of the States into a “nanny-hood” of the federal government.  Charity is a voluntary gift of the individual. Government cannot give charity as they don’t take money voluntarily and they cant “give” what they don’t actually own.  So the solution is very simple:  (1) Give to your neighbor who is actually in need. (2) Don’t be a pawn in the political game for power by blaming someone in government or crying out to government to fix the hurt.

*If you have a questions about “Emergency Powers” then you must read THIS ARTICLE.