by Publius Hildah

March 13, 2013

from freedompost.com

A thoroughly gifted and deep piece on the lie of separation between church and state. Wholeheartedly welcome its read!          jim

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

1.  How did it happen that our country became a land where Christian children are forbidden to use the word, “God”, in the public schools; public school students are forbidden to say prayers at football games; and Christian religious speech is banned from the public square?  Read on, and I will show you how judges on the Supreme Court perverted our Constitution, prohibited the Free Exercise of Religion, and abridged our Freedom of Speech.

2.  We must begin by learning what our Constitution says – and doesn’t say – about “religion” and “speech”.  The three branches of federal government:  Legislative Branch (Art I), Executive Branch (Art II), and Judicial Branch (Art III), have only the enumerated powers delegated to them in the Constitution.  All “legislative” powers granted in the Constitution are vested in Congress (Art I, §1).  This means that no other branch may make law.  Since the legislative powers of Congress are enumerated, Congress may make laws only on those specific subjects listed in the Constitution as proper objects of legislation.  Since “religion” & “speech” are not among the listed powers, Congress may not make any laws about religion or speech.

3. Furthermore, the First Amendment to the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…What is an “established religion”?  I will show you how judges on the Supreme Court changed the historical definition of that term so that they could eradicate the Christian religion from our public square and eliminate speech they don’t like.  We will begin by finding out what “establishment of religion” actually meant when the Constitution was ratified.  To do so, we must consult English history, American colonial history, and writings of our Founders.

Established Religion in England.

4. Queen Mary I (“Bloody Mary”), who reigned between 1553-1558, deposed The Church of England which her Father, Henry VIII, had established; re-established the Roman Catholic Church, and burned approximately 300 Protestant dissenters at stake.

Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558-1603, restored the Church of England. Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity (1559), imposed fines, forfeitures, and imprisonment on church officials who did not conform to approved doctrine & practice; and imposed fines on all persons who, without sufficient excuse, did not attend services of the Church of England. Additional laws illustrative of English Church History from 1558-1640 are here.

During the reign of Charles II (1661-1685), the Puritan John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress, was imprisoned for 11 years because he refused to attend services of the established Church of England, and he refused to obtain a license to preach as a “nonconformist”.

5. The established religions in England, first Roman Catholic, and then Church of England, were supported by “tithes” – mandatory payments of a percentage of the produce of the land, payable by those living within the parish (regardless of their religious preferences) to the parish church, to support it and its clergy:

The payment of tithes was a cause of endless dispute between the tithe owners and the tithe payers – between clergy and parishioners – … In addition, Quakers and other non-conformists objected to paying any tithes to support the established church.  Almost every agricultural process and product attracted controversy over its tithe value.   By the eighteenth century the complex legislation surrounding the tithe began to have a detrimental effect … Tithing was seen as increasingly  irrelevant to the needs of the community and the developing agricultural industry.

6. So!  The essential characteristic of “established religion” in England up to the time of the founding of our country was coercion by the civil government: The people were forced to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment & fines, and were forced to financially support the established church.

Established Religions in the American Colonies.

7. English settlers in the colonies promptly established their religions.  In Massachusetts, where they established the Congregational Church, only church members could vote from 1631-1664; dissenters (Roger Williams, etc.) were banished; and from 1650-1670, Quakers were whipped, imprisoned, banished, and put to death.  InVirginia, where they established the Church of England, penalties for failure to attend services during the early 1600′s included death, prison, and fines. ¹ In Maryland, where they established the Church of England, between 1704-1775, Roman Catholic (“RC”) services could be held only in private homes, RCs could not teach school, inheritance of property by RCs was restricted, and RCs who would not take a certain oath were disfranchised and subject to additional taxes, as well as being forced to contribute to the established church.  In Virginia at this time, RCs were forbidden to possess arms, give evidence in court, or hold office unless they took certain oaths.  New York and Massachusetts made laws which stayed on the books until the Revolution directing all RCs to leave the realm.  Rhode Island’s laws from 1719-1783 prohibited RCs from being freeman or office holders.  Not until 1783 were RC’s given full political rights in Rhode Island.  In Virginia, no marriage was legal unless performed by a minister of the Church of England. ²

Everyone in Virginia, Maryland, and North & South Carolina was required to contribute to the support of the established Church of England, to maintain the building, pay the minister’s salary, and provide him with a house and plot of land.  New York required each county to hire a “good sufficient” Protestant minister and to levy taxes for his support.  By 1760, the Congregational Church was still established in Massachusetts and Connecticut; but Episcopalians, Baptists and Quakers were now tolerated, and no longer required to support of the Congregational Church. ³ Presbyterians of Chester, N.H. objected to being taxed to support the Congregational minister, and in 1740 won the right to be taxed only for their own denomination.  Even so, in 1807, the Presbyterians in Chester sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax!

Writings of Our Founders.

8.  As the Spirit of Toleration grew in England and colonial America, criminal penalties for dissenting from the tax-supported established religions were abolished.  By 1776, the essential characteristic of “established religions”, as opposed to “tolerated religions”, was that the former were supported by tax money (or tithes assessed & collected by law); whereas the latter were supported by voluntary contributions alone.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in The London Packet, June 3, 1772 of colonial Americans. They went from England to establish a new country … where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion … they granted the lands out in townships, requiring … that the freeholders should forever support a gospel minister (meaning probably one of the then governing sects) … Thus, what is commonly called Presbyterianism became the established religion of that country.  All went on well in this way while the same religious opinions were general, the support of minister … being raised by a proportionate tax on the lands.  But in process of time, some becoming Quakers, some Baptists, and … some returning to the Church of England … objections were made to the payment of a tax appropriated to the support of a church they … had forsaken.  The civil magistrates, however, continued for a time to collect and apply the tax according to the original laws which remained in force … a payment which it was thought no honest man ought to avoid under the pretense of his having changed his religious persuasion. … But the practice being clamored against by the Episcopalians as persecution, the legislature of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay, near thirty years since, passed an act for their relief, requiring indeed the tax to be paid as usual, but directing that the … sums levied from members of the Church of England, should be paid over to the Minister of that Church, with whom such members usually attended divine worship, which Minister had power given him to receive and on occasion to recover the same by law. [Emphasis in boldface added; italics in original]

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1775 in his “Remarks on the Quebec Bill” (No. 11):

The characteristic difference between a tolerated and established religion, consists in this: With respect to the support of the former, the law is passive and improvident, leaving it to those who profess it, to make as much, or as little, provision as they … judge expedient; and to vary and alter that provision, as their circumstances may require.  In this manner, the Presbyterians, and other sects, are tolerated in England.  They are allowed to exercise their religion without molestation, and to maintain their clergy as they think proper.  These are wholly dependent upon their congregations, and can exact no more than they stipulate and are satisfied to contribute.  But with respect to the support of the latter, the law is active and provident.  Certain precise dues, (tithes &c.,) are legally annexed to the clerical office, independent on the liberal contributions of the people …While tithes were the free … gift of the people … the Roman church was only in a state of toleration; but when the law came to take cognizance of them, and, by determining their permanent existence, destroyed the free agency of the people, it then resumed the nature of an establishment. [Emphasis added]

James Madison wrote in his letter of 1832 to Rev. Adams:

In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I., N.J., Penna. and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals…

9. So! The essential characteristic of an “established religion” by 1789 was that an “established” denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, but “tolerated” denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their adherents.  Benjamin Franklin’s  fascinating letter of 1772 shows that the hot topic of the time was the forcing of dissenters to financially support established religion:  In England, dissenters from the Church of England were forced to pay tithes to the clergy of that Church. The English supporters of the Church of England responded that the “dissenters” in America had no room to complain because they compelled American Anglicans to pay taxes to support the Presbyterian worship!

Whose Powers Are Restricted By The First Amendment?

10.  Before we look at Supreme Court opinions banning the free exercise of religion & abridging free speech, we must consider:  Whose powers are restricted by The First Amendment?  It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

The plain language shows that the First Amendment restricts only Congress’ powers! The People of the States are free to establish (or dis-establish) any religion they want – this is one of the powers retained by the States or the People!  Several States did retain their established religions after ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.  We saw that in 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, N.H. sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax.  Not until the Toleration Act of 1819 did the Legislature of N.H. make it illegal for towns, as corporate bodies, to raise money for the support of the gospel. Connecticut did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until they adopted their Constitution of 1818 (see Article Seven). Massachusetts did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until 1833.

11. So! The First Amendment (1) prohibits Congress from establishing a national denominational religion, (2) prohibits Congress from interfering in the States’ establishments of the religions of their choice, or dis-establishments thereof, and (3) prohibits Congress from abridging the Peoples’ freedom of speech.  Everyone understood that no one in the federal government had any authority to cancel, abridge, restrain or modify rights of any denomination or the States’ essential rights of liberty of conscience.  The People of Virginia said, when they ratified the U.S. Constitution:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … having … investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention … Do in the name … of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by ANY authority of the
United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions …We … in the name … of the People of Virginia … ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States… [Emphasis added]12.

But in Gitlow v. People (1925), judges on the Supreme Court asserted – without any justification in Law or Fact – that the 14^th Amendment (which applies to the States) ⁴ incorporates the First Amendment so that the First Amendment now restricts the powers of the States!  They said…we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and “liberties” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. We do not regard the incidental statement in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek ⁵ .…that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question. (p. 666) [emphasis added] The judges’ new interpretation of the 14^th Amendment became the weapon the Court has used to silence Christians and to seize Power over States & local governments. 

By claiming that the First Amendment restricts the powers of the States & local governments, the Court set itself up as policeman over the States, over counties, over cities & towns, and even over football fields & court-house lawns!  In this way, the Bill of Rights, which was intended to be the States’ and The Peoples’ protection against usurpations of power by the federal government, became the weapon the Supreme Court used to usurp power and force their wills on all People in Our Land.

How the Supreme Court Re-defined the Historic Term,  “Establishment of Religion”.

13. We have seen that Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison said the distinguishing characteristic of an “established religion” was that the “established” denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, whereas “tolerated” denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their adherents.

14. Now let us see how judges on the Supreme Court re-defined “establishment of religion” in order to ban prayer in public schools.  Engel v. Vitale (1962), is the case where six men outlawed non-denominational prayer in the public schools.  A public school board in New York had directed that the following prayer be said at school:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

Any student was free to remain seated or leave the room, without any comments by the teacher one way or the other.

But six men on the Supreme Court said this short, non-denominational and voluntary prayer constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment!  They (Hugo Black ⁶ Warren, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, and Douglas) admitted
that allowing school children to say this prayer did not really “establish” a “religion”!  They admitted that the prayer:

…does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others — that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago…(p.436)

Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion:

I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words.  A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. (p.442) But these six men didn’t want children praying in school.   So, they just redefined “establishment of religion” to mean, “a religious activity“, “a prayer” (p.424), having public school children hear or recite a prayer that “somebody in government composed” (pp.425-427), “writing or sanctioning official prayers“(p.435), and “government endorsement of a prayer” (p.436).

These six men also admitted that even though no coercion was present, and even though the prayer was “denominationally neutral”, it still constituted an unlawful “establishment of religion”:

The Establishment Clause … does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. (p.430)

Douglas said in his concurring opinion:

There is no element of compulsion or coercion in New York’s regulation requiring that public schools be opened each day with the … prayer (p.438); there is … no effort at indoctrination, and no attempt at exposition … New York’s prayer … does not involve any element of proselytizing … (p.439)

15. They thus redefined “established religion” to describe what the N.Y. public schools were doing so that they could then outlaw it.  They don’t have that right!  We have quoted Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton & James Madison as showing that the essence of an “established religion” is that the civil government selects a particular religious denomination (Roman Catholic or Church of England or Congregational or Presbyterian, etc., and forces everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes.⁷

16. Well!  Since the evil from which the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale pretended it sought to protect our public school children was having them recite or hear (if they wanted to) a one-sentence non-denominational prayer which “somebody in government composed“; that monstrous evil can be avoided if the children write their own prayers, right?

17. Oh no!,  said six judges  on the Supreme Court in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000).  Here, a public school district permitted, but did not require, student-initiated, student-led, nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer at home football games.  But Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, O’Connor, & Kennedy said this constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment, because the prayers were “public speech” authorized by “government policy” taking place on “government property” at government sponsored school events, and the policy involved “perceived” and “actual” “government endorsement of prayer.”

The six also said on page 309-310 of their opinion:

…School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-adherents “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community”Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 …

Do you see?  They cite themselves – their earlier opinion in Lynch – as authority!
⁸Furthermore, making “non-adherents” feel like “outsiders” is not a constitutional standard; it is the judges’ own silly standard.

The six said on page 310:

…We explained in Lee that the “preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere.”  505 U.S. at 589…

Again, they cite themselves – their opinion in Lee – as authority! Furthermore, the Constitution does not restrict religion to the “private sphere” – it forbids Congress from prohibiting its free exercise ANYWHERE!

18. Again, the six judges in Santa Fe re-defined “establishment of religion” to describe what the Santa Fe School District was doing so that they could then outlaw it.

19. In his dissenting opinion, Rehnquist, joined by Scalia & Thomas, said the majority opinion:

…bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.  Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”… (p. 318) [emphasis added]

The One-Way Only “Wall of Separation” Between Church and State.

20. We have all heard the chant, mindlessly recited, “separation of church and state”.  Many believe this phrase is in the Constitution, and that it forbids any Christian influence in the public square. But that is false. The phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is not a constitutional principle. The First Amendment says Congress may not “legally establish one [religious] creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers”;  ⁹ and it may not prohibit the free exercise of religion or religious speech ANYWHERE.

21. We saw that in Connecticut, the Congregational Church was the established religion until Connecticut dis-established that Church with its Constitution of 1818.  Earlier, on October 7, 1801, Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson in which they expressed their distress that in Connecticut, where they were a religious minority,

…religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen…

*****

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states…till…tyranny be destroyed from the earth…

These Baptists thus expressed their hope that the People of Connecticut would be influenced by Jefferson’s sentiments and dis-establish the Congregational Church in Connecticut.

22.  In his response dated January 2, 1802, Jefferson indicated that he hoped the People of Connecticut would follow the example of the “whole American people”:

…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights…

Jefferson agreed that civil government ought not dictate to People in matters of religious belief, and pointed out that the First Amendment prevents Congress from doing this.  He did not say that religion must be relegated to the private sphere!  He used the First Amendment as his model – and it restricts only Congress, not religion.

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists both knew the federal government had no authority to dis-establish Connecticut’s official Church.

23. An earlier Draft of Jefferson’s letter with recently discovered text reads:

…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State.  Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts… [Emphasis added]

24. Dr. Hutson’s article shows that on Sunday, Jan 3, 1802, right after Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended worship services in the House of Representatives, where John Leland, a Baptist minister and well known advocate of religious liberty, preached.  During the remainder of Jefferson’s two administrations, he attended religious services conducted in the House “constantly”.  Jefferson granted “permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held…”

Jefferson had no problem with sectarian praying, preaching & communion serving on public property!  It could be said that he “endorsed” Christianity! Those who are so determined to eradicate Christianity from our Country walk on a slender reed when they claim Jefferson as an ally.

25.  In Engel v. Vitale, Hugo Black said the reading of the prayer [“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country”] before children in the N.Y. public schools who chose to hear it breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State (p.425).

Even though this metaphor of  “wall of separation between church and state” is nowhere in the Constitution, this Klansman turned Supreme Court justice misrepresented it as a “constitutional” principle! ¹⁰

Furthermore, Hugo Black misapplied the metaphor:  The “wall of separation” metaphor doesn’t apply to what the N.Y. public schools were doing because The State of New York isn’t “Congress”; and New York, with its one sentence non-denominational prayer, wasn’t “establishing a religion.” What Jefferson’s metaphor applied to was an Act of Congress selecting a particular denomination (Roman Catholic or Episcopalian or Congregational or Presbyterian, or Baptist, etc., and forcing everybody to
financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes.

Congress may not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion anywhere – neither may the supreme Court; and that Jefferson thought “religion” should influence those in civil government is clear from all those church services & celebrations of communion which were “constantly” held in the House of Representatives and the Executive Office Building!

Lawlessness on the Court.

26.  Let us summarize what the Supreme Court has done to free speech and the free exercise of religion throughout our Land. They have violated the First Amendment in four ways:

a) Even though the First Amendment expressly restricts only the law-making powers of Congress, and thus was intended to be the States’ and the Peoples’ protection from Congress; the supreme Court reversed the purpose of the First Amendment so that it became the tool the Court uses to silence speech they don’t like and to suppress the free exercise of a religion they don’t like, all throughout the States, counties, towns & villages, all the way down to football fields & county courthouse lawns.

b) Even though the First Amendment says, “an establishment of religion”, a phrase which has a distinct historical meaning, the Court from time to time re-defines the term so as to describe the circumstances surrounding religious speech they don’t like so that they can declare it ”unconstitutional”.  In effect, they claim the right to sit as a continuing constitutional convention amending the words in the U.S. Constitution to elevate into “Law” their own WILLS.

c) They outlawed the free exercise of religion; and they outlawed free speech – when the subject is “religious” – because they
don’t like it.  They took away from their Sovereign – their Creators – a right expressly reserved by us in the U.S. Constitution.  Congress may not stop people from praying anywhere, or posting The Ten Commandments anywhere, or preaching in any public areas.  Neither may the Supreme Court.  But those lawless usurpers took away OUR religions and replaced them with THEIR humanist & statist religion which they seek to force on us.d) By claiming that their opinions have the effect of “law”, they made “laws” respecting religion, and “laws” abridging speech they don’t like, even though the federal government has no authority to act in this area.  When Congress is prohibited from making laws in an area, the Supreme Court certainly may not make laws in that area!  The only way “religion” or “speech” could ever properly get before the Supreme Court would be if CONGRESS VIOLATED the First Amendment and Art. I., § 8 by making a law “respecting” the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or by making a law abridging the freedom of speech.  The States and political subdivisions retained the rights to make whatever laws they please “respecting” religion (subject only to any limitations imposed by their own State Constitutions), and the U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority whatsoever to interfere.

27. Note this well:  Federal judges do not have “lifetime appointments”.  They serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, §1).  The constitutional remedy for usurping federal judges is impeachment, trial, conviction & removal.  Federalist No. 81 (8th para), A. Hamilton.

In the Year of our Lord, October 24, 2010 ¹¹

Publius Huldah.

Notes:   (Read them – they are interesting – you’ll see!)

¹ A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States, Williston Walker (1894), pp 114-149; Google digitized book.

² A History of the United States: A Century of Colonial History, 1660-1760, Edward Channing (1908), pp 423- 454; Google digitized book.

³ Id.

⁴ The 14^th Amendment (ratified 1868) says, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”

Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously researched book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves that the purpose of the 14^th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with silencing Christians!

John Whitehead’s essay, “The Fading Constitution”, in The Second American Revolution, Crossway Books (1982), shows how the supreme Court turned the Bill of Rights, “which was once a source of freedom against federal governmental interference [into] a source of intervention by the federal government into the very heart of the state governments.”  PH highly recommends Whitehead’s book to lawyers & laymen alike.

⁵ Just three years earlier, the Supreme Court said in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek (1922):

But, as we have stated, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about “freedom of speech” … nor … does it confer any right of privacy upon either persons or corporations. (page 543) [Emphasis added]

Do you see?   First it doesn’t; then, three years later – it does!

⁶ Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, was a New Deal Democrat, a former Ku Klux Klan member, a supporter of FDR’s court-packing scheme, & FDR’s first appointment to the supreme Court.

⁷ The majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale is also silly.  Between the times Hugo Black changed his white robe for a black robe, he apparently didn’t study Logic: On pp. 425-427, Black discussed the 16^th century Established Church of England and its Book of Common Prayer which was approved by Parliament during 1548 & 1549.  From that, Black concluded that when somebody “in government” composes a prayer, such constitutes an “establishment of religion”, even if the prayer is non-denominational & voluntary!  This is the form of Black’s argument:

1^st Premise: An established religion wrote a Book of Common Prayer for the public that Parliament approved.

2^nd Premise: People in NY State government wrote a one-sentence prayer for the public.

Conclusion: When people in government write a one-sentence prayer for the public, they “establish a religion”.

Oh my! Black made several errors in Logic, among which are:

(a) The dreaded “Fallacy of Four Terms“: The Premises don’t connect “establish a religion” with “people in government writing a prayer”, so the reasoning is invalid.  There are four terms in Black’s argument – and the fourth term, “establish a religion”, is introduced in the conclusion!!

(b) Black selected one of many activities engaged in by established religions – writing prayers – & concluded that anytime government performs that same activity, such constitutes an “establishment of religion”.  But established religions do many things – you can’t pick one of the things & say that if government does it, government “establishes a religion”!  That’s ridiculous!

(c) Our Founders said the defining characteristic of ”established religion” is that a particular denomination selected by civil government exists on taxes & tithes extracted
from the People by force! But Black redefined the term to mean “people in government writing a prayer for the public”, so as to enable him to rule in the case then before him, that N.Y. “established a religion”.  This is the fallacy of “Victory by Definition”: one redefines the
terms so that one “wins”.  It is intellectually dishonest.

⁸ They insert their personal views into their opinions and then, in later cases, cite those earlier personal views as authority!  This is preposterous and a classic example of the Rule of Men!  The judges’ sole authority is to decide cases properly before them; their decisions affect only the parties to the cases, and do not have the force & effect of “law” on anybody.  The Federalist No. 78, A. Hamilton.

⁹ “A Wall of Separation”,  by James Hutson.  The quote is in the next to the last paragraph.

¹⁰ Justice Stewart, who dissented, said in Engel v. Vitale:

Moreover, I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation,” a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution…(pp.445-446)

¹¹ Art. VII, clause 2, U.S. Constitution, contains an express recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  Is that “unconstitutional”?  I think not – It is, after all, “in the Constitution”.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/the-lie-of-separation-of-church-and-state-the-u-s-supreme-courts-usurpation-of-power/#ixzz2P6ymN3SN

ARTICLE IS FROM FREEDOMPOST.COM

Written by Tim Brown

March 29, 2013

It’s about to get real people. There are those in law enforcement who are standing for the law of the land and then there are the radical Socialists in Washington who seek to trample the law under their feet. Since a number of brave men in this country have come forward to state that as the supreme law enforcement officers in their counties they will not enforce new gun control laws, the Obama White House has demanded that they must.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/white-house-demands-american-sheriffs-enforce-gun-control/#ixzz2P26aNEhg

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) has the support of at least 381 sheriffs and the cooperation of at least 15 state sheriff associations stating that they will not enforce federal or state gun laws they consider unconstitutional.

At a press conference on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked by CNSNews.com, “There have been 381 sheriffs that have signed on saying they would not enforce gun laws they believed were unconstitutional. Would the administration have a problem if local law enforcement did not enforce whatever gun package were to pass?”

While Carney said he had not seen the list of sheriffs, probably like he claimed a video was responsible for Benghazi, he did say, “I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law. As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”

Obviously releasing documents to the people regarding Fast and Furious, bringing forth the survivors of Benghazi to testify to Congress about what took place and other scandals in this administration have nothing to do with following the law for this White House.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, who now educates American sheriffs on the law, was one of seven sheriffs in 1994 that challenged the constitutionality of the provision in the federal Brady bill that require sheriffs to perform background checks. They won that argument in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.

Mack contends against Carney’s claim that people ought to just follow the law. He says people shouldn’t follow the law when it contradicts the Bill of Rights

“When Rosa Parks didn’t give up her seat on the bus, should she have been arrested or should the police have escorted her home?” Mack said. “The law was to arrest her. It was a stupid, unconstitutional law.”

In referencing new legislation being considered, Barack Obama’s demands and the Supreme Court, Mack said, “Every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have.”

Not only have sheriffs stood up against the tyrannical Obama administration on this issue, but so have state officials.

This comes as Texas State Representative Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas) has proposed legislation that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal law. The text of Ms. Davis’ bill (HB no 2167) reads in part:

Sec. 66.004. FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. (a) For purposes of Section 66.001, a person holding an elective or appointive office of this state or of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person’s office if the person:

(1) wilfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties;

(2) directs others subject to the person’s supervision or control as a public official not to enforce a state or federal law; or

(3) states orally or in writing that the person does not intend to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties.

(b) For purposes of this section, “law” includes any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute, or constitutional provision.

(c) This section does not apply to a law:

(1) that has been held to be invalid by a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer; or

(2) the validity of which is currently being challenged in a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer.

(d) The attorney general or appropriate county or district attorney shall file a petition under Section 66.002 against an officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence, including evidence of a statement by the officer, establishing probable cause that the officer engaged in conduct described by Subsection (a). The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101, Government Code.

(e) If the person against whom an information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is found guilty as charged, the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office and disqualifying the person from public office for a period of 10 years.

Keep in mind that sheriffs are elected officials. They are put into office by the people and serve at their consent, not at the bidding of bureaucrats. So do these pompous representatives in Washington and at the State level. Under this legislation, a law enforcement officer or sheriff found guilty would be removed from office and not allowed back in office for a period of ten years. Seriously, this should be applied to Ms. Davis and those who think like her, not upstanding sheriffs who are dismissing unlawful laws.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/white-house-demands-american-sheriffs-enforce-gun-control/#ixzz2P26NZkeU

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/white-house-demands-american-sheriffs-enforce-gun-control/#ixzz2P268bIXm

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/white-house-demands-american-sheriffs-enforce-gun-control/#ixzz2P25q3kkc

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/white-house-demands-american-sheriffs-enforce-gun-control/#ixzz2P25ZbWVI

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/white-house-demands-american-sheriffs-enforce-gun-control/#ixzz2P24ndT4E

from freedompost.com

by TIM BROWN

3/27/2013

I must admit that it seems silly to me that the law of the land, and I’m specifically referencing the Second Amendment, has to have another law in place to preserve it. However, in the days we live I’m glad to see that states are stepping up and taking the Tenth Amendment to heart against an overreaching, tyrannical government. One such state is Kansas. Their Second Amendment Preservation Act, also known as HB2199, has moved one step closer to the desk of Governor Sam Brownback (R-KS).

Yesterday the Kansas State Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs passed the bill by a voice vote.

In part the legislation states:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.

The above is quoted from Section 6a of the bill. The bill goes on to define what is meant by “the second amendment to the constitution of the United States.”

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.

This ultimately means that state and local officials would not be allowed to enforce or support any federal legislation regarding firearms. This would make it nearly impossible for Federal gun control laws to be enforced, but I caution that we should still seek to repeal them for the sake of future generations.

The Tenth Amendment Center also points out that HB2199 could also be a potential jobs bill. They cite the specific language from the Firearms Freedom Acts passed by various states since 2009, which are contained in HB2199.

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

Such protection for the manufacture of firearms, accessories and ammunition could be an incentive for well-known manufacturers in New York or Maryland, for example, that are feeling the pressure of gun control advocates in those state legislatures. Encouraging businesses to relocate to Kansas is what some supporters says is “just what’s needed in a time of economic difficulty.”

The legislation takes this “jobs promotion” part of the potential law seriously. It would protect manufacturers who move to Kansas by providing for criminal charges on federal agents who attempt to violate the state law.

It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony.

Kansas citizens are urged to contact their State Senators and encourage them to vote “Yes” on HB2199. Citizens across the country are also encouraged to present the Second Amendment Preservation Act bill to your city and county councils and county commissioners to pass similar resolutions and ordinances.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/kansas-second-amendment-preservation-act-moves-closer-to-becoming-law/#ixzz2OpHrDGe1

from freedompost.com

by Tim Brown

In a move that is reminiscent of the tyrannical actions of Abraham Lincoln that led to the War of Northern Aggression, Barack Obama says that he will not wait on states to enforce Obamacare. Instead his administration has announced its intent is to completely disregard the state’s Tenth Amendment rights to nullification of the Obamacare law, via their passed legislation and state constitutions. In fact, his administration has said that in states where they refuse to comply with federal healthcare mandates that agents from the Department of Health and Human Services will assume absolute control over the state’s health insurance industry.

Politico reports,

But the feds will be overseeing the health care law in Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming after those states told HHS they couldn’t or wouldn’t implement the new rules.

“We are enforcing because Oklahoma notified … that it has not enacted legislation to enforce or that it is otherwise not enforcing the Affordable Care Act market reform provisions,” Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, wrote to the Oklahoma Insurance Department on Friday. Officials in Missouri, Texas and Wyoming received similar letters, an agency spokeswoman said.

The enforcement letters come a little more than a month after a Commonwealth Fund report found just 11 states and Washington had started to adjust state laws to prepare for seven major ACA insurance reforms taking effect in 2014.

In a statement by Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak he said, “It is unfortunate that health insurers are being forced into a system of dual regulation by the overreaching Obama administration. My position on this has never wavered, and I welcome every opportunity to try to overturn Obamacare.”

In a letter sent to Cohen, it was clearly stated that the Oklahoma Insurance Department does not have the authority to enforce federal law.

“The Oklahoma Insurance Department regulates the health insurance policies sold in the state and responds to consumer questions and complaints. Our consumer assistance team receives over 30,000 phone calls and our website receives over 1,000,000 visits each year,” the letter said.

“We will continue to serve these consumers by adhering to our duties under the State Constitution and Statutes. The consumers are the ones who are going to bear the costs of these unnecessary federal regulatory burdens.”

The Tulsa World reports:

Meanwhile, health insurance companies doing business in Oklahoma are receiving letters from Cohen telling them that enforcement of the law’s requirements will be handled by the federal agency. A state health insurance trade group said the additional level of regulation is troubling.

“The Oklahoma Association of Health Plans’ members are very concerned about the impact dual regulations will have on administrative expenses and premiums paid by our consumers,” said Executive Director Laura Brookins.

Essentially, health coverage that will be sold through a federally run health insurance exchange starting next year will be regulated by the federal government, but coverage outside the exchange — sold by the same companies — will face different rules, forms and officials.

“Unfortunately for everyone, this dual oversight process will result in increased costs for all Oklahoma health plans,” Brookins said.

Doaks warns that this additional level of regulation, or duplicate regulatory scheme will result in increased costs to the consumer. “Oklahomans should be alarmed,” he said.

Deputy insurance Commissioner Mike Rhoads says the two regulatory structures will simply make things needlessly confusing. “Since statehood we’ve been doing this and frankly we’re the … experts in the regulatory matters,” Rhoads said. “I’m not going to say that they can’t do it, but they damned sure can’t do it as efficiently as we can.”

Joe Wolverton at The New American writes,

When it was informed that Oklahoma would not — in fact, legally could not — comply with ObamaCare mandates, HHS was not deterred, proposing instead the establishment of a “collaborative enforcement arrangement.” This deal would permit the feds to force ObamaCare on Oklahomans while allowing the Oklahoma Insurance Department (OID) to ostensibly keep its hands clean.

As if that weren’t insulting enough, included in the cache of documents provided to The New American was the letter mentioned above that was sent to Oklahoma insurance companies from HHS informing them that since Oklahoma cannot or will not enforce the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), this responsibility has been assumed by CMS.

Furthermore, as part of its oversight, CMS demands in the letter that insurance companies “submit all group and individual health insurance policy forms, certificates, riders, endorsements, and amendments, as well as any other requested material pertinent to the market reforms of the Affordable Care Act to CMS for review.”

Then, lest insurance companies in Oklahoma doubt who’s in charge of healthcare in the Sooner State, the letter declares that “a filing with the Oklahoma Insurance Department does not constitute a filing with CMS for these purposes.”

In other words, the Obama administration could care less about the boundaries of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment or anything else regarding the law. They believe they are above the law and will seek to force unlawful laws upon a law abiding people. This is a tyrannical Federal government that is seeking to usurp state constitutions and the will of the people in those states, including nullification legislation that has passed through state legislatures.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/obama-ignores-nullification-says-federal-agents-will-enforce-obamacare/#ixzz2OezLlmwi

WANT  TO  DEFUND  OBAMACARE?

CALL  1-800-599-1068

March 20, 2013 by Publius Huldah of freedomoutpost.com

1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III §2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States ¹ [“federal question” jurisdiction];

b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];

c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;² or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects;³ [“diversity” jurisdiction].

These are the ONLY cases which federal courts have constitutional authority to hear! Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, 8th para:

…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority. [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton commented on each of these itemized “proper objects” of judicial authority. But here, we will consider only cases “arising under the Constitution”, which concern “the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union” (2^nd para).⁴

2. Consider State laws criminalizing abortion or homosexual conduct.  Are these “proper objects” of the judicial power of the federal courts?  Do these laws fit within any of the categories of cases which federal courts are authorized to hear?  No, they don’t!

Nothing in the Constitution forbids States from criminalizing abortion or homosexual conduct!  The federal courts have no “federal question jurisdiction”, no jurisdiction based on status of the parties, and no “diversity jurisdiction” to hear such cases!

But the federal courts have evaded the constitutional limits on their power to hear cases by fabricating individual “constitutional rights” so that they can then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!

Thus, in Roe v. Wade (1973) seven judges on the U.S. Supreme Court said a

right of privacy…founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action (p. 153)

makes unconstitutional State laws making abortion a criminal offense! These seven judges just made up a “constitutional privacy right” which they said prohibits States from outlawing abortion! 

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003) six judges on the U.S. Supreme Court said a Texas Law criminalizing homosexual conduct was unconstitutional because it violated practitioners’

…right to liberty under the Due Process Clause (p.578)…of the Fourteenth Amendment (pp. 564, 579).

But nothing in our Constitution prohibits the States from making laws declaring abortion or homosexual conduct to be crimes!  Nothing in our Constitution grants “rights” to individuals to engage in these practices!

3. But federal judges used the 14^th Amendment as a blank check to prevent the States from outlawing conduct which the federal judges want to legalize.  They simply make up a “constitutional right” to do those things.  Under their view, there is no limit to their powers! States criminalize child rape, but 5 judges on the Supreme Court can fabricate a “constitutional right” to have sex with children – a “liberty & privacy right” in the 14^th Amendment to have sex with children!  If these “liberty & privacy rights” mean that women can abort babies & homosexual conduct is fine; why can’t they also mean that adults can have sex with children?  Why can’t they mean that people have “liberty & privacy rights” to use crack cocaine & heroin?  What’s the limit?  There IS no limit! Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas,  said:

…As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (p. 579)

Kennedy just tossed Art. III §2 out the door!  He and his ideological allies recognize no limits on their power!  Just name an act you want legalized and if 5 of them agree, Voila! A new “liberty” “right”!  And a State law prohibiting that act
bites the dust.  And since federal judges also claim the right to “set policy” for all of these United States, and we have let them do it, State laws throughout the land prohibiting that act bite the dust.  And that is how we got a handful of un-elected judges setting “policy” for everyone in the country.

4. Abortion, homosexual conduct, prostitution, child sex, drugs, etc. are issues for The People of the several States to decide (subject to any restrictions imposed by their respective State Constitutions).  Congress is not authorized to make laws on these subjects, and these are not listed as “rights” in the U.S. Constitution.

5. What does the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment really mean?  Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously researched book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment⁵ proves that the purpose of the 14^th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.  In Ch. 11⁶ , Berger discussed the meaning of the “due process” clause of the 14^th Amendment:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

The clause, “due process of law” is a term of art with a well-known & narrow meaning⁷ going back to the Magna Charta!  It means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Specifically, that freed slaves could not be punished except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial where they could appear, cross-examine witnesses and put on a defense! “Life” meant “life” as opposed to being lynched; “liberty” meant being out of prison
instead of in prison; and “property” meant the person’s possessions.

6. So! We see that the federal judges have redefined “Liberty”.
To them, “liberty” is freedom from moral restraints; they do not see “liberty” as freedom from coercive civil government. They have no problem with making us objects to be plundered & controlled by the federal government!  They have no problem with suppressing our religion & silencing our speech.  They have no problem with imposing their values & radical conception of “liberty” on us.

But Professor Berger proves that the framers of the 14^th Amendment did not understand “Liberty” as freedom from moral restraints.  The purpose of the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being put to death, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! 

7. When federal judges redefine terms in the Constitution, they “amend” the Constitution in violation of Art. V.  Article V. sets forth the two lawful methods of amending the Constitution, neither of which is “redefinition by judges”.

8. Are there remedies for this judicial lawlessness?  YES! Congress should use its Impeachment Power to remove the usurping judges.  How many times have you heard they have “lifetime appointments”?  They don’t!  The only reason it ends up that way is because our representatives in Congress are ignorant & lack the Will to do the right thing.  Alexander Hamilton addressed judicial usurpations & the judiciary’s “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force” in The Federalist No. 81, 9^th para:

…the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments
in one part of the legislative body [House], and of determining upon them in the other [Senate], would give to that body [Congress] upon the members of the judicial department.  This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it [the impeachment power], while this body [Congress] was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehension on the subject it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments [some had said impeachments should be tried in the Supreme Court]. [italics added]

Folks, ignorance & misinformation will do us in if we don’t learn the Truth pretty soon. “Everybody” says judges have “lifetime appointments”, & we believe it.  Well, now YOU know that federal judges can be impeached, convicted & kicked off the bench for usurping power!  We hear that “The Rule of Law” requires us to go along with all court decisions.  That is a Lie!  If the decision is based on an usurpation, the Rule of Law requires us to spit on the decision and demand that the judges be impeached & removed from the bench.

9. Finally, a word about our Rights:  The Constitution is about the Powers which We the People delegated to the 3 Branches of the Federal Government. It is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God, are unalienable, & predate the Constitution!
We created the Constitution & the federal government!  Why would the Creator (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the federal courts), the power to determine & define OUR Rights?

Alexander Hamilton opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. He said they were unnecessary & dangerous because they contain exceptions to powers which are not granted.  Thus, they afford a pretext to regulate those Rights (The Federalist No. 84, 10^th Para).  Hamilton was a prophet as well as a genius in political philosophy.

Today, we have been conditioned to believe that the source of our “Rights” is the Constitution, as defined & “discovered”, from time to time, by unelected federal judges.  But D.C. v. Heller (2008) which upheld private ownership of guns, was a 5 to 4 decision!  One vote switched to the other side, and the Supreme Court will rule that we have no right to bear arms.

THIS is what happens when we substitute the Constitution for God as the Source of our Rights.  You must always insist that your Rights to Bear Arms – to defend yourself – are unalienable and come from God, not the Second Amendment!  Don’t forget that We had that Right before the Constitution was ratified.  The same principle applies to all of our Rights.  If, like the Declaration of Independence, we insist that they come from God and are unalienable, no human court or legislative body can take them away from us.

¹ Since ours is a Constitution of delegated & enumerated Powers, the U.S. must be authorized by the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty on that subject qualifies as part of the “supreme Law of the Land” (Art. VI, cl.2).

² Hamilton said this is the only instance in which the Constitution contemplates the federal courts hearing cases between citizens of the same State. The Federalist No. 80 (3^rd Para from end).

³ The 11^th Amendment (ratified 1795) withdrew from the federal courts the power to hear cases filed against one of the States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign State.

⁴ Hamilton gave examples: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]” (3^rd Para).

⁵ Prof. Berger retired in 1976 as Senior Fellow in American Legal History, Harvard University. His book is at http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&Itemid=28 It is fascinating!

⁶ Here is the link to Ch. 11.  Read it!  You will then know more about “due process” than most federal judges! http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&chapter=106938&layout=html&Itemid=27

⁷ http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&chapter=106887&layout=html&Itemid=27

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/what-are-the-enumerated-powers-of-the-federal-courts/#ixzz2OBUJsiYN

Okay, I’m trying to figure the confusion Obama has created recently. What else is new?

So, let’s see. The sequester occurs. After that buffoon of a move, President Morsi, of Egypt, gets 250 million in US aid and our own White House tours are cancelled. Does that make sense?

According to President Obama,  immigrant felon criminals are released because of the sequester. Yet somewhere, there is 117 billion dollars of taxpayer monies unaccounted for. How does that work?

By the way, the sequester was President Obama’s idea. He initially denied that it was and later tacidly admitted that to be true. If that is the case, why did he lie? Interesting twist.

They kept the national St. Patrick’s day party on schedule but cancelled the Easter Egg party. I’m beginning to think that anything close to a Christ centered holiday finds Obama running in the other direction.

The Pentagon spent 7 billion dollars on nothing that had to do with the military. What is going on there? At the very least, gross mismanagement of sacred taxpayer funds.

Now Obama wants to do something worse and snoop through the FedEx and UPS packages that are delivered to you. It’s none of his business what’s in the packages you receive through those corporations. However, UPS is complying with the government’s request and FedEx is fighting it. Talk about privacy rights disappearing and Uncle Sam turning into your father. Watch out.

That’s all for now.

UPDATE: 6:10pm CST

According to the REAL NEWS news show [Glenn Beck channel], Senator Tom Coburn [R] Oklahoma, introduced a bill to keep the White House and National Parks open during regular hours. Senator Coburn had asked for an appropriation of eight (8) million dollars for this. The Senate defeated the measure 54-45.

this is a wonderful article. all credit goes to WND for it.      jim

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The Obama administration is demanding the nation’s two biggest shipping companies police the contents of Americans’ sealed packages, and a FedEx spokesman is warning that the move “has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages.”

FedEx and UPS are in the Justice Department’s cross-hairs for not flagging shipments of illegally prescribed drugs the companies say they had no way of knowing were in their possession.

Criminal charges could be coming against the carriers, even though the government has not alleged any deliberate wrongdoing by the companies.

FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said his company has a 40-year history of actively assisting the government crackdown on any criminal conduct, but he told WND this probe was very different from the start.

“What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and we find it to be completely absurd because it’s really not our role,” Fitzgerald said. “We have no way of knowing what is legal and not within the packages that we’re picking up and delivering in this situation.”

“At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers,” Fitzgerald said.

In addition to the unrealistic expectation that the federal government seems to have for the companies to know what’s in every package, Fitzgerald said protecting the rights of customers is paramount and the issues go hand-in-hand.

“They clearly are attempting to put some responsibility for the legality of the contents of these packages. That’s why for us it goes far beyond even just the online pharmacy situation. This really has a chilling effect. It has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages via FedEx because the government is assigning a role on us as law enforcement or taking on their role in a way that is not appropriate,” Fitzgerald said.

FedEx sought to diffuse the standoff by offering to stop doing business with any pharmacies that the government suspected to be involved in illegal activities. The Justice Department declined, citing the potential for the pharmacies to sue over a lack of due process.

“If the government were to come to us and give us the name of a customer that’s engaged in some level of illegal activity, we can immediately stop shipping for that customer. We will not tolerate any illegal activity within our networks,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is a solution that will apply for the entire industry and serve the public’s interest. That’s why we find it completely absurd and, to a large degree, stunning that the government is not working with us on that solution as they have with other problems in the past. As long as they’re not doing that, there’s really no solution even if they were to pursue an investigation or criminal charges against a specific company. There needs to be an industry-wide solution that will put a stop to this problem.”

That leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge.

“The comparison that we’ve made is a no-fly list. It’s as if the government were to go to major commercial airlines and accuse them of some level of criminal activity if they were to allow somebody on the no-fly list onto one of their planes without providing them a no-fly list,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is the no-fly list for online pharmacies. If they are aware of some level of illegal activity by some number of pharmacies, simply provide us that list and we will stop providing service. It’s a very simple solution.”

Fitzpatrick said no other private carriers are being targeted by the Justice Department, and he has no evidence to suggest this probe is designed to boost the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service at the expense of private competitors.

UPS is currently negotiating a settlement with the government, but FedEx is fighting this all the way.

“Settlement is not an option for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part,” Fitzpatrick said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/now-big-brother-targets-your-fedex-ups-packages/#X80LCVuizkbDrMIt.99

The blogosphere and other conservative media should be lighting up with stiff opposition to The UN Small Arms Treaty working its way through UN discussions right now. The United Nations shouldn’t even be involved in this discourse, yet, they are.

We are not only having to fight the left in the United States regarding the 2nd Amendment, we are now having to participate in an international discourse which leads the United States where——-regarding our own national debate?

One of the United Nations favorite things to do is to stick their nose where it doesn’t belong, but, that’s the UN for you, always sticking their nose in topics they should leave alone.

My point bloggers, rise up. Speak on this topic now. Do not wait until it appears futile. Rise up and we can defeat this ugly dragon and keep it out of UN policy and politics. Refuse to speak and you get what you deserve, international law over a United States sovereign, God given, inalienable right; THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

Are we going to let this happen to us?

freedomoutpost.com has originally posted this article on their website.

I will have personal commentary on this discourse soon. This is an evil, wretched tactic that calls for the impeachment of Obama immediately.       jim

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819. Here’s what Obama’s advisors are telling him about the way to confiscate guns: Tax them

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/obamas-advisors-disarm-america-through-taxation/#ixzz2Nu2wcpfU

They are advising him to tax guns, ammunition, magazines, and licenses and then attach draconian remedies for failure to register and pay the taxes. Set the taxes low the first year, then increase them gradually to the point where a person owning an AR 15, three magazines and a box of ammo would owe $5,000 a year in taxes.

If a gun owner doesn’t pay, the small print at the end of the tax law would subject him to jail and confiscation of everything he owns.

Why use this approach? Because people ignore gradual change and taxes can be imposed as a gradual change. It’s only when two things happen simultaneously that revolution occurs. First, the ideals underlying the society must be undermined. That has already happened. And second, there must be a spark that ignites revolt. Since traditions and ideals of the country have already been compromised, it would be unwise to create any sparks.

Taxes ignite no sparks. Getting a tax bill is a non-event. The hapless taxpayer grinds his teeth and gets out his checkbook. He’s in a bad mood for a month. There is nothing to rally around. No one has been killed or invaded, at least at the point where the tax has been imposed.

Under this taxing approach you increase taxes to the point no one can pay them, then send a tax bill to the gun owners you know about (in Pennsylvania, that’s pretty much everyone who owns a gun), and you wait for someone not to pay. When a preferred target doesn’t pay, you send the storm troopers to his house, find his guns, and arrest him. You take the offender’s guns and his house and put him in jail for twenty years. Then you publicize the arrest and declare a period of amnesty for other weekend rebels and watch the guns flow in.

At that point, the country will have been effectively disarmed.

After the taxes are imposed and offending gun owners are picked off one at a time, wives will implore their husbands not to risk the family home, all their savings and the husband’s own freedom. And they will point to the examples of imprisoned and bankrupted gun owners that have already been held up to public view.

Norman Thomas described America’s descent into socialism very much in the way I have described America’s descent into gun confiscation:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without every knowing how it happened.”*

That’s the smart way to do it, Barack. Get us a little farther down the road to socialism, then quietly tax guns, and finally, take them all.

*Source cited quote from “The Liberal Mind,” pg, 27 by Lyle H. Rossiter
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/obamas-advisors-disarm-america-through-taxation/#ixzz2Nu3oPC13