# Drake Bailey Says:
August 20th, 2009 at 10:51 am

Most of the reasons are stated in this link:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/108803659

The show won an emmy. I’ve watched it, it names names, and how the system works. It also tells how much data they have on each of us.

==============

It appears this link is no longer valid. Do you have another link, or do you know the actual name for the video?

Australian Observer: Premise: What if Commerce essentially, legally and practically means any activity, trade or exchange of goods or services which are NOT executed/transacted in the lawful money of substance as outlined in the original American Coinage Act(s)? There are no actual ‘gains’ made by any party involved...

I don't agree with the premise. "Commerce" has to do with movement and transaction. Profit is irrelevant. Even if "regulation of commerce" is interpreted broadly, the method of regulation need not include taxation.

AO Conclusion: Want your sovereignty back? You must first return to a system of lawful money both private and public.

Agree completely!

Monica said, "Constitutionally, SCOTUS has the authority to decide which decisions will hold up and which will be overturned, not us. That’s how they set up the rule of law."

I say, "NO, NO, NO!"

What Monica said reflects the mindset which permitted the statists to take over our country & which keeps them in power. It is also what we are taught in law school - but it is a Lie.

The federal judges are SUBJECT TO the U.S. Constitution. When judges set themselves above the Constitution, their acts are mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such. When the federal courts issue opinions which are usurpations, the "Rule of Law" requires us to spit on their lawless opinions and refuse to obey them.

The federal courts are NOT the final authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. WE THE PEOPLE are the final authorities. The point is made again & again in The Federalist Papers. E.g., Alexander Hamilton considered the people to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, & contemplated “a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (The Federalist, No. 16, 10th Para).

In Federalist No. 33, Hamilton cited Art. VI, cl.2, as showing that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (7th Para). He also said:

"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." (6th Para)

That includes, among other things, a free people saying, "Hell, NO!"

Here is an interesting & helpful article, by Timothy Baldwin, Esq.:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090724.html

PH

Leaderless Resistance could be a much more powerful tool than any one organaized effort. Its just that there’s so much fear running rampant...

Ideas can not be stopped. We are in the idea spreading stage of this movement. But eventually organization and leadership is essential. Mobs can be manipulated. Decentralized leadership with common core values on the principles of liberty can not. Study the difference between the French and American Revolution. Don't be goaded into revolt. Hold out for true revolution.

Terry says"

[i]TEA is the acronym for “taxed enough already.”[/i]

Hmmm, that's the first time I've heard that acronym, so I wonder how many other people outside the movement have made that connection. And its doubtful that anyone in this country isn't already aware of the historical connotations, but the current economy doesn't lend itself to a protest over the price of tea, whereas the outlandish tax on tobacco does, whether you use the product personally, or not. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that point, but I will stand by my position on what (all) needs to be protested in a current context.

That said, I can't see that the tea parties have had a great deal of success lately, anyway, particularly from the aspect that a lot of well known people with questionable (IMO) motivations jumped onto that bandwagon as soon as it started gaining gound and my first thought on hearing about that was uh-oh, here we go again. If their MO is the same as usual, they will use their reknown to re-direct the original goals in totally fruitless directions, and of course the media has gone mum on the subject, lessening its impact in a wide enough arc.

Of course physical protests do have a place in the sun, but it seems to me that Leaderless Resistance could be a much more powerful tool than any one organaized effort. Its just that there's so much fear running rampant out here in the hinterland that everybody's looking for someone to watch their back before they're willing to make a move. Gotta have a crowd. I can certainly understand that, but it does tend to knock the stuffing out of the concept of independence. JMO

Monica wrote:

Tea isn’t taxed any higher than any other commodity. If they wanted to make a point about unfair taxation, they should have made it a tobacco party.

Monica, the TEA rallies had/have little to do with tea (the beverage). TEA is the acronym for "taxed enough already." The tea rallies, therefore, are intended as protests against ALL excessive federal taxation. "TEA Party" was chosen for its historical significance.

But anyway, these TEA rallies are far from insignificant (or a "joke" as some would have it). To some people such protests are a joke if they don't result in immediate armed rebellion. But the fact is that all such movements generally start out rather small. Just remember, the TEA rally movement, the tenth amendment movement, nullification ... the run on guns and ammunition, etc., are all part of the same movement. Acknowledge your good fortune; that you're not yet reduced to protesting in the fashion of the Iranians...

Drake Bailey -- July 21st, 2009 at 1:29 am

Interesting post. I, like you, am concerned about what is going on in America. I, like you, have raised my objections to my state and federal representatives to no avail. I, like you, am in a backup mode regarding my relationship with my state and federal government. I, like you, have been watching and learning from my readings, from my neighbors, and from public events. And, like you, I am not alone in any of these observations and feelings.

I believe we have had a non-violent coup in America, caused by fraud and deceit from our political parties and from many of our government representatives, and that our state and federal constitutions have been declared null and void by government employees who no longer defend and protect our Constitution as they have sworn to do.

Having said that, Americans believe in the rule of law, and I see most of the current efforts of Americans to reverse the communist coup are being focused on legal activities, i.e. lawsuits, civil protests, quiet withdrawal of resources, guns and ammo purchases, etc.

Everything is civil right now.

But everyone is asking why law enforcement and the military aren't stopping the lawlessness in government. These folks are part of the Executive Branch - the key component and leadership of the coup. The military is conflicted, and law enforcement is quiet. Much discussion is going on regarding Obama's natural born citizenship status, which is now believed to be non-existent.

Attorney General Holder is Obama's employee and he won't challenge his boss. So quo warranto actions aren't working so far because they are not being prosecuted by AG Holder.

SCOTUS is impotent as far as any corrective action is concerned.

And Congress? They are a main element of our problems today. No help there.

People may have lost their jobs, but they are still able to travel freely, and they still have food on their tables. When, and if, these conditions change, the rules of engagement will change.

I think we are all learning, and most of us are awake now. This is the first time that our way of life has been so openly challenged and threatened by an internal anti-American force (opposed to an external force), and I observe that the conservatives and producers within our country are gathering their strength. Obama is losing credibility and popularity. The political parties and the Congress are write-offs to most conservative Americans because they are so openly violating our trust in them.

If we, the American people, don't see some return to our lawful way of life soon and via the electoral process, I see open rebellion, i.e. open refusal to pay taxes, voluntary closing of businesses, movement of families away from the liberal states, generally the challenge of, and the shutdown of support for the federal government.

We outnumber them. What is going to happen when we stop supporting them? They cease to have any power.

My greatest concern is that the United States may break up - I don't want that to happen, and neither do many other Americans because we are the true Americans. But the Russians have forecast the breakup of America, and the Obama administration is openly dividing Americans and pitting us against each other.

My belief is that the greatest strength is located within the states, and when they choose to push off the federal government, they will be the winners – as long as there is no violence. The states (like Maine, my state) that are solidly liberal will not be of much help unless the conservatives in Maine rebel against their overburdened state government.

As much as I am concerned, and as much as I have begun my own preparations for a lousy future, I am still American, and I still believe we will outlive this challenge before us. We only do well when we are challenged, so maybe this test will help America become stronger and better as a nation.

I think I am not quite as pessimistic as you. Maybe I’ll get that way after a while, but I’m not that way right now.

Good luck to you, and good luck to us all.

God Bless America.

Monica...that is their quote not mine. See comment below yours. Also, the people of the several States were already citizens. They did not need the Amendment to make them citizens.

If that made you scratch your head in "perplexity," the following quotes should make you want to smack your head on the computer table in disgust.

In a speech before the Oregon Bar Association on September 2, 1943, Mr. Alfred Clark stated:

"Today, in a very real sense, law no longer governs the American people. They are governed by regulations, orders and directives issued by one or the other of our multiple Federal bureaus. I am not now referring to war regulation and the like, but to conditions existing before the war, and which, unless the trend is checked, are likely to continue and to intensify after the war is over.

This has been accomplished, to a very large extent, through a new and, in many aspects, a startling interpretation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, which is now being used to obliterate the States and convert our system into a highly centralized form of government, exercising uncontrolled police power in every State, over all, or nearly all, local affairs and industries."

After discussing several decisions by the Supreme Court, Mr. Clark explained the chain of causation, as defined by the Court, to be followed in determining what is interstate commerce. He used the following example to illustrate the danger of the Court’s decisions:

"This may sound to you like a soporific nursery rhyme. Not so. On the contrary it is modern judicial logic…

Indeed, if Junior decides to emulate Popeye and insists upon a double portion of spinach at the dinner table, thus increasing the demand on the market, and lessening the supply to meet the demand, his act may so affect interstate commerce as to bring him within the ambit of Federal control."

The simple act of consuming food, according to decisions by the Supreme Court, can be used by the federal government as a pretense to bring an individual within the scope of federal control through the Commerce Clause.

What Professor Natelson says is true (although I don't know who the two unnamed law professors are). However, we need to teach laymen how to study the Constitution on their own so that they are not dependent upon pronouncements of law professors. Besides, as the good professor proved with his two examples, much of what comes from the ivory towers is NOT TRUE! So! We need to show The People how to learn the Constitution on their own & how to distinguish between lying & truth-telling law professors & judges.

I submit that intelligent laymen can learn the Constitution with a few simple tools: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, an old American dictionary (I have Webster's 1828 ed.), & The Federalist Papers. With a collated copy of The Federalist Papers & an index, one can look up just about anything in the Constitution and find out what Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (the Father of the U.S. Constitution), & John Jay said it meant! And since The Federalist Papers were written for the purpose of explaining to the American people of 1787-1788 what the Constitution meant, wouldn't it serve that same purpose today?

I'll illustrate: If one looks up the interstate commerce clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) in The Federalist Papers, one can quickly learn the basics of what it means: In Federalist No. 22 (4th Para) & in Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th Paras), Hamilton & Madison explained the purpose of the “commerce clause”: It is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Webster's (1828) also shows the general meaning of "commerce" as trade & trafficking.

Art. I, §8, last clause, grants to Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution …all …Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…”. This clause worried the People, so Hamilton & Madison explained it. In Federalist No. 33, 4th para, Hamilton said the clause "...may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy..." In Federalist No. 44, 16th para, Madison said, "...whenever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included." Hamilton & Madison made it clear that the "necessary & proper" clause bestowed no new substantive powers on Congress.

THIS is how we defeat & discredit statist lying law professors & judges! It's because lawyers, judges, many law professors, & The People are ignorant of The Federalist Papers that the statists law professors & judges have been able to prevail. PH

Merry Colin Says:
July 20th, 2009 at 11:21 am

Well, you really shook me up a bit. I had never thought of your definition of Executive Branch and Judicial Branch conjoining at the hip. Interesting.

I don’t have a copy of “The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary”, Second Edition, Callaghan and Company, Chicago, IL 1922″, but I do have a copy of Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1870 Edition.

This is what I found:

1. Executive: That power in the government which causes the laws to be executed and obeyed.

It is usually confided to the hands of the chief magistrate; the president of the United States is invested with this authority under the national government; and the governor of each state has the executive power in his hands.

The officer in whom the executive power is vested.

The constitution of the United States directs that “the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” Art 2, s.1. See Story, Const. b.3, c,36.

2. The Supreme Court: The constitution of the United States directs that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. (HJ - This is consistent with Art.3, S1 of the Constitution of the United States)

I could find a connection between the Supreme Court and the Congress regarding matters of impeachment (as you noted), but could find no connection with the Executive Branch. So, I think I am not dissuaded to give up my original definitions of the traditional three branches of our representative government.

Having said that, I do consider the jury to be a fourth element of government due to the power of jury nullification of law.

Can you point me to some specific legal citations or definition in which the judicial Branch is somehow a part of the Executive Branch?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ”

The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states that this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers may, be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Emphasis on the word "all". If they hadn't actually meant "all", restrictions on what they couldn't include would have been enumerated.

"Federal Usurpation"
By
Franklin Pierce
Of the New York Bar Association
D. Appleton and Company (1908)

Quotes from the book on the Commerce Clause:

“The Constitution probably would not have come into existence, for many years at least, had it not been for the abuse by states of their right to control the importation of goods from foreign markets, and their abuse of the right to impose duties and imposts upon the importation of goods from other states of the Confederation.”

“Congress, before the treaty of peace with Great Britain and again after the making of that treaty, had sought the power from the states to impose duties upon foreign imports and to control interstate commerce.”

“As a result of all these duties upon imports from foreign countries, and imports from adjoining states, animosities had arisen between the states, and the need that the national government should have power to stop these obstructions to commerce was the very cause of the meeting at Annapolis and of the Constitutional Convention.”

“In regard to foreign commerce, the general government stands in the place of every state and represents it for every national purpose, yet when the states surrendered {delegated} the right to control interstate commerce, having in view the abuses which had grown up, it was undoubtedly their intent to confer only the power to make commerce free between the states.”

“It was the desire for freedom of commerce among the states which inspired this provision as to interstate commerce in the Constitution, and all the early cases so indicate.”

“In fact it will be found that, within the conception of the fathers, the control which they gave over interstate commerce was intended to cover only coastwise shipping from the port of one state to the port of another state.”

"But there is an abundance of evidence found in the acts of the Constitutional convention, and in the construction of the Constitution by the early Presidents, to show that it was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution, under the power to regulate interstate commerce, to clothe Congress with the power to prohibit commerce, Edmund Randolph, who presented to the Constitutional Convention the Virginia plan, while Attorney-General under the administration of Washington, gave his opinion to Washington, February 12, 1791, on the extent of the power in Congress to regulate commerce, saying that its extent was ‘little more than to establish the forms of commercial intercourse between the states, and to keep the prohibitions which the Constitution imposed upon that intercourse undiminished in their operation; that is, to prevent taxes on imports or exports, preference to one port over another by any regulation of commerce or revenue, and duties upon the entering or clearing of the vessels of one state in the ports of another.’ Gallatin, in his report on internal improvements submitted April 6, 1808, said: ‘It is evident that the United States cannot under the Constitution open any road or canal without the consent of the state through which said road or canal must pass.’”

“But the times have changed and the customs have changed. To-day government goes roaming at will upon a boundless sea without chart or compass, seeking power wherever it can find it, with little reference to the limitations of the Constitution.”

“In short, the national government, with few delegated powers, is going back to the old world views of the functions of government, and, through the interstate commerce act, is establishing a Federal police power which follows the footsteps of every citizen by licenses and restraining laws into every avenue of life, and practically supplants the police powers reserved to the states.”

"If the United States Supreme Court sustains all these powers, the national government will become omnipotent.”

“The internal commerce of a state is just as much under its control as foreign and interstate commerce is under the control of the national government. The ordinary liabilities and duties of the citizens of a state are not affected in the slightest by the fact that they are persons engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

“We are all well acquainted with what is known as the police powers of the state. The states originally possessed entire control of laws affecting public morals, public health, and all laws of a similar nature of so many descriptions as to be hardly capable of enumeration. It delegated none of these powers to the United States government. To put that fact beyond question the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, expressly reserving such powers, were passed. They provided that ‘The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’; and that ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ All police powers are vested in the state as securely as the ingenuity of man can devise language to vest a power in a state; or, to state the proposition more clearly, those powers were always in the states and were never delegated to the national government, and, with a distrust and jealousy of power which we do not seem to feel, the states were determined to put it beyond question that such powers were not delegated, and therefore insisted upon the adoption of these two amendments.”

“May Congress use the power granted for one purpose for the accomplishment of an entirely different purpose? Because it has been given the right to regulate commerce, that is, to prescribe the rules by which commerce is to be governed, may it use that right to destroy the exclusive powers which belonged to the states before the Constitution, which were not delegated to the national government, and which amendments to the Constitution expressly reserved to the states? Does not the national government disparage such powers of the states when it attempts indirectly to take the place of the states in enforcing them? ‘Should Congress,’ said Chief Justice Marshall, ‘under the pretext of exercising its powers pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government, it would be come the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.'"

In his 1913 book, The Framing of the Constitution, Max Farrand explained, in part, why this provision was incorporated into the Constitution:

"Pending a grant of power to congress over matters of commerce, the states acted individually. A uniform policy was necessary, and while a pretense was made of acting in unison to achieve a much desired end, it is evident that selfish motives frequently dictated what was done. Any state which enjoyed superior conditions to a neighboring state was only too apt to take advantage of that fact. Some of the states, as James Madison described it, ‘having no convenient ports for foreign commerce, were subject to be taxed by their neighbors, through whose ports their commerce was carried on.’... The Americans were an agricultural and trading people. Interference with the arteries of commerce was cutting off the very life-blood of the nation and something had to be done."

I totally agree that the purpose of the words “regulate commerce…among the several States” was to insure the free passage of goods between the individual States. During the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention on this provision, Oliver Ellsworth stated:

"The power of regulating trade between the States will protect them against each other."

James Madison reiterated this point in the Convention:

"[P]erhaps the best guard against an abuse of the power of the States on this subject, was the right in the General Government to regulate trade between State and State.

In The Federalist, essay No. 45, Madison asserted that the Commerce Clause was a harmless power that no one really opposed:

"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL powers. The regulations of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."

In light of the heated debates that raged following the close of the Federal Convention concerning the extent of the powers delegated to the federal government, it is inconceivable that there were no apprehensions or serious opposition to a clause that allegedly granted the federal government unlimited regulatory power.

Thomas Jefferson, in 1791, stated that Congress was not granted the power to regulate commerce within the several States:

"[T]he power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a state, [that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen,] which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another state, or with foreign nations, or with Indian tribes."

The Commerce Clause granted Congress the power to make regular or normalize commerce between individual State and individual State. It did not grant Congress the general power to control individuals or private business engaged in commerce. This fact is substantiated by the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 (banning slavery), the 18th Amendment passed in 1919 (banning intoxicating liquors), and the 21st Amendment passed in 1933 (repealing the ban on intoxicating liquors). All of these amendments involved commerce, yet Congress realized that it took a constitutional amendment before it had the power to legislate in these areas.

One difficulty with this area is that when the court did attempt to reign in an out of control government, FDR came up with a court packing scheme in order to remove all obstacles to his socialist agenda. The court was forced to retreat and has ever since taken a “hands off” approach to the commerce. I think only one or two statutes have been ruled unconstitutional in many decades. Part of this was also the notion that court consists of non-elected officials and should defer to Congress in questions of economic policy lest the autonomy of the court be further impugned and imperiled by court packing schemes. It has now come to pass that there is virtually no human activity Congress cannot bring within its regulation under the “name” of regulating interstate commerce. In fact, the current “Hate Crimes“ legislation is purportedly justified and sponsored under the commerce clause.
The solution does not lie with “we the people” however. The solution lies with the States. The Patrick Henry Caucus should be formed into a multistate “Tenth Amendment Center” whose purpose is to do battle with Leviathan and chain the monster down with the Constitution. The economic crisis we are facing ought to be sufficient practical motivation (since the moral and ethical implications of a lawless federal power apparently are not). Further incentive should be found in the present administration’s clear intent to create a overthrow the nation’s whole body of traditional morals and values (witness “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”). And if more were needed, the deliberate attempt to destroy the country (and, yes, I believe the intention is to destroy the country, Why else would any one pursue such obviously destructive policies?) the deliberate attempt, I say, to destroy the country through reckless and profligate spending, socialized health care, cap & trade legislation, bail outs, nationalization of auto manufacturers, etc, etc, etc, and one could hope we might actually see the States band together for their MUTUAL DEFENSE against the federal government, even to the point of secession if need require (AND IT DOES!).

And in case you didn't catch it, the quote from Edwin Vieira above by Highlander Juan is really saying that we need to begin to seriously think about, or actually do, organize militarily for our mutual defense. And if I read between the lines correctly, he is not merely saying we should sit back in a defensive posture indefinitely, but actually take the offensive to restore lawful government. And, he is probably right. Sad day when men who love their country and freedom have to hint at taking up arms against the goverment to restore the rule of law. Very sad indeed.

I certainly agree with you all and I have written my representatives a while ago pushing to invoke the tenth in Georgia and to follow up as to how it will be implemented is a very good idea. And an equally good idea it seems is to make sure the highest court in each state does indeed review Supreme Court decisions to validate that they don’t infringe on 10th amendment. But, how do you accomplish that task? I’m not familiar with the process.
It will be difficult to organize a movement, less we forget that roughly only 30% of the population of the colonies were in strong favor to fight the British for our independence. Most are complacent.

There is another excellent article by Edwin Vieira this morning found here:

Part of the article makes these points:

"Why should average Americans presume that their country is lost, and their freedoms and prosperity with it? Are average Americans not smart? Do they not, collectively at least, have as much knowledge and as many skills as—or far more, if the truth be told, than—their oppressors? Are average Americans not rich? Do they not exercise immediate physical control over most of the valuable property in this country? Could they not easily extend that control to all the rest of the property worth controlling? And, as the old saw has it, is not actual possession “nine-tenths of the law”? Are average Americans not powerful? Do not “we” outnumber “them” by orders of magnitude? And does not God favor “the big battalions”? Yes, yes, and once again yes! So the obviously correct course of action is for Americans to stop sniveling and whining about their impotence and vulnerability and instead to set about doing something decisive with the strengths they have. After all, God helps those who help themselves.

First and foremost, a little thinking is in order. Only “a little thinking”, because not that much is really necessary to solve this country’s fundamental problem. What is that problem? Ultimately it is a matter of law—or, more specifically described, of lawlessness. America is suffering the transmogrification of her legal system from the rule of law to the lawlessness of rulers. With the aid of puppet-politicians, media propagandists, and other front men, influential factions and special-interest groups are systematically seizing control of the apparatus of law so that they can use the law to break the law under color of the law—while treating everyone who justifiably opposes them as, if not actual lawbreakers, “extremists” only one short step removed from outlaws.

Where, though, is the law to protect the people? Why, where it has always been and remains today—in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those are We the People’s laws. In the Declaration, We the People “assume[d] among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle[d] them”. Then they “ordain[ed] and establish[ed] th[e] Constitution for the United States of America”. And all public officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution."

Not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce for one, and two no one can be compelled to gamble and purchasing insurance is gambling.

Of course, the simple solution is for states to grow some guts and throw federal police such as the ATF, IRS, TSA, DHS, and such into local jail for violating the rights of their citizenry instead of standing idly by as they do so. That and simply have states start coining their own gold and silver money (it's constitutional!) good for use only on products and services made or performed entirely within that state, with exchanges for other state or national coinage or FRNs...

# Drake Bailey Says:
August 20th, 2009 at 10:51 am

Most of the reasons are stated in this link:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/108803659

The show won an emmy. I’ve watched it, it names names, and how the system works. It also tells how much data they have on each of us.

==============

It appears this link is no longer valid. Do you have another link, or do you know the actual name for the video?

You are right. The Courts (judicial branch) are supposed to be independent of the Legislative and the executive branches but they are all in the same bed together. Madison would have been thoroughly disgusted if he could see this.

I agree, except she wasn't expressing an opinion. She was just observing that between the commerce clause and the feds tying federal funds to federal mandates for states, there really is no state power. By taxing so much money from the citizens, the feds hold all of the power.

It's also interesting that federal courts interpret the constitution. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Any professor who claims that the tenth amendment is irrelevant and should be ignored due to being rendered moot by case law needs to be challenged vigorously. The Constitution does not allow for ratification by means of case law, period. Any such bastardization of the Constitution needs to be challenged (despite likelihood of failing). The only remedy provided by the Constitution is the formal ratification process, which is very hard. That is why issues like healthcare or gay rights have never been constitutional.

In con law, our Harvard-educated professor told us to ignore the 10th amendment because it was no longer relevant. Case law had rendered it moot.

Although having a Congress that refuses to respect its constitutional limits is a problem, the main problem with the big, tax-hungry, power-hungry federal government is actually the people, IMO. More specifically, US citizens have evidently not been teaching the Constitution and its history to their children for many generations, particularly the enumerated constitutional principle of state sovereignty. Consequently, the people have been electing lawmakers to their state legislatures and the federal senate who are as state sovereignty-impaired as the voters are. And once these lawmakers are in office, they don't do their jobs to protect state sovereignty by protecting citizens from unlawful federal taxes and federal government interference in their lives.

And speaking of unlawful federal taxes, note that Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the power of the feds to lay taxes.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

So not only are most federal government spending programs constitutionally unauthorized, but the corrupt Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund such programs in the first place.

Finally, the following link should help give people an idea as to how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792

Most of the reasons are stated in this link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/108803659
The show won an emmy. I've watched it, it names names, and how the system works. It also tells how much data they have on each of us.
Privacy has been sold off in order to target you in every way. Everything you thought was private, isn't...
Out of control corporations and $...guess who get that $? Our reps...
Our group is trying to get the full video, we'll see.

I'm really hoping this issue keeps getting brought up. It has become completely lost. What constitutional authority does congress even have to take on health care? We all know it will use the threat of withholding funds to coerce the states into accepting whatever they come up with. So the federal government takes a large percentage of wealth from the citizens of the states, then make the states grovel to get it back? There is no state power right now.

In response to the affronteries to our Constitution, we offer The Peoples Court.
This is a 'Truth Court' dealing with exactly these kinds of abuses, etc.
The first issue would be to address the several states that are using The Tenth Amendment and offer intercession between them and the federal government/admiralty/corporate legal system.
Within this would be found rulings addressing all these issues.
This is a project under construction by a few of us, now.
Due to the obstruction of 'justice' by several entities, and in lieu of sentences, expulsion/exile from our country. They leave everything excepting the clothes on their backs and go.
As I stated in earlier posts, there is way too much detail involved to post here. Consequently, our group is in process of addressing all these issues, and then some, on another site and in a different format. We hope to be functional in the next week or so at most.
We are intending to link to, use, and offer interviews. There is a massive library of information on the issues, people involved, and the circumstances/situations only hinted at in the press.
We are planning to link to several sites including this one (with permission).
Much of the information we put out is going into very well written articles in several publications, hard copy and on the net.
The rights I faught for (Nam 67-68) are not for sale, open to litigation, and out of the reach of the people mentioned.
From the mess I'm seeing, we all have a lot of work to do. Straightening out this mess in simplest form will require people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, stand up to be counted, and are loyal to base principles of humanity...including all in the federal government. Then the states also need the same cleansing, counties, and municipalities.
Organization anyone?
We few can make all the noise we want and be ignored...unless the group is large and the voices many.

The ultimate authority on what the Constitution means is not any branch of government. The Supreme Court established early on that it would declare law by Judicial Fiat when it claimed sole authority to say what the Constitution means (See Marbury v. Madison). The people are the ultimate authority on the Constitution. Unfortunately the people for the most part haven't read the document, haven't read the necessary contextual documents such as the Federalist and the Declaration of Independence, and so have abdicated their responsibility to be educated enough to understand when the Constitution is being violated. I have to agree with Lysander Spooner that the people, as juries, need to start acting as the final check on the laws that Congress passes. That alone is not enough to rescue us from our predicament. We need to make it politically unprofitable for Congress to keep passing crap legislation. We need a court that will tell Congress that it needs to actually write laws that can be understood if they expect enforcement. We need an executive that is willing to tell the court to try to enforce its own bad decisions. But there is no money or increase in political affluence by doing the right thing, so we wind up with corruption in different directions from each of the three legitimate branches of government, and unapologetic power grasping from the Administrative "branch."

Excellent article about the Commerce clause being out of control. I will be reading the law review article you linked to when I get a chance.

Monica,

(1) You're welcome for the tip.

(2) Don't put your whip away for good. All of us are apt to break ours out now and again, me included. Indeed, I usually break out and climb atop my own, self-made soap box when I don my whip. And I usually make an attempt at a sommersault with a half-twist on the way down. Not that I'm in any way apologizing for doing so. :-)

Excellent post, Australian Observer!!!

There's not much to add to what you said. The organic constitution was overthrown by the corporate constitution a long time ago and very few people noticed. Many still don't believe it.

Australian Observer: Premise: What if Commerce essentially, legally and practically means any activity, trade or exchange of goods or services which are NOT executed/transacted in the lawful money of substance as outlined in the original American Coinage Act(s)? There are no actual ‘gains’ made by any party involved...

I don't agree with the premise. "Commerce" has to do with movement and transaction. Profit is irrelevant. Even if "regulation of commerce" is interpreted broadly, the method of regulation need not include taxation.

AO Conclusion: Want your sovereignty back? You must first return to a system of lawful money both private and public.

Agree completely!

Australia;
Yes it is valid.
However there are some things, such as the underground cash economy, etc.
Then too, the debts are those of the entities regulating, and not those of the several states.
The last open exchange in the state of Indiana, was raided for counterfeiting. They were exchanging reserve notes for gold/silver coin, etc. So far no new news on this.
Any 'even trade' is considered tax exempt on goods and services, yet when any intrinsic valuable is used, a 'value equivalent' tax is imposed.
As I have stated before, only when a serious number of the general population speaks with a unified voice will any objection be heard. As an example, at least the tea parties were noticed and made a lot of people nervous...
The fed did it and will be stuck with their bills. I know of no private financial interest of that size that has ever gotten away with trillion$.. anyone?
States can invoke financial emergencies and hold all monies normally transacted in terms of taxes. However, a state of war might then exist between the fed and that state.
An equality sharing has never been equal for the states from the fed. Because the fed controls the money, they believe they can do as they please, bailouts, etc.
The way the thing runs right now a serious tunup is in order.
There are some 'banks' that use precious metals as their coin of the realm. However, it is held on site and not circulated.
Until the fed is cornered into an accounting/audit things will not change.
The Constitution needs to be reinstated or the USA will become a very dangerous place to be, as in heavy police state...
In addition, the concentration camps are ready...camping anyone?
The whole of it all is not reliant on words, rather decisive action of a slow burn type. A well thought out plan can work depending on how many of the general population is willing to stand up and be counted.
Do not misunderstand me. This is not about a follow me deal, or anyone person. It is a collective of the people, by the people, for the people.
Those who are willing to take such a stand will be required to fill in at those offices vacated.
Think as to what all that means and my other posts as well.
I am in process of contacting The Appleseed Project to see what they think about it all. I intend to share that here, with permission of course.
As I stated, the details are extreme by shear volume, and I can't see filling up this whole web site with that amount of info.
My associates and I are in process of putting up several interesting sites of our own. We will offer links to this site and several others of interest.
If God is willing and the creeks don't rise too much, maybe early next week. I'll post that info here, with permission, as it becomes available.
>Now for the big question!
How brave are all of you?
Because I saw nothing happening and that I was being ignored by the adminstration, I made a post:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/drakebailey
Specific questions for the president, so far ignored.
If these people are going to do what I posted, then I believe I/we have nothing to lose.
So get ready, because 'they' are...

Please ponder this very serious and critical question - What if Commerce essentially, legally and practically means any activity, trade or exchange of goods or services which are NOT executed/transacted in the lawful money of substance as outlined in the original American Coinage Act(s)?

There are no actual 'gains' made by any party involved in such transactions as what takes place is an equal exchange of property, therefore the transaction is NOT taxable as no "income" was derived by any of the parties involved in such a transaction.

Worse still - And this is the key to all of this trust me on this one - What if the lawful money of substance (as clearly described in both the original organic Constitution for the united states of America and the original American Coinage Acts) has been completely removed out of circulation due to America (and most other 'Westernized' countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England etc) having seriously 'defaulted' upon their loans obtained from the 'Bank of England', practices which commenced as far back as 1776?

When one is using lawful money of substance (i.e. gold coin or paper money that is at least redeemable in gold or silver as clearly described in both the original American organic Constitution for the united states of America or the original American Coinage Act(s)), one has full title to this form of "lawful money" - when a transaction takes place using lawful money redeemable in substance such as gold or silver a complete exchange of 'title' to both the money and the property takes place, and there are no third party interests involved in the transaction whatsoever. The party accepting the lawful money takes full title to the lawful money and the party accepting the property in exchange for the lawful money takes full title to the property.

Now what if a foreign private bank/institution has completely replaced the once lawful money that was redeemable in gold or silver (and minted in accordance with the original American Coinage Act and as defined in the original American Constitution for the united states of America) with paper money that is not redeemable in any substance but instead, a mere promise to pay? i.e. 'Legal Tender/Currency' rather than 'lawful' money.

What if that which is backing this so called new 'legal tender' is anything/property that is registered to the Federal Government? i.e. Your body (birth certificate), your marriage and the fruits therof (marriage certificates and licenses), your property (registration of titles)?

Is there any lawful money redeemable in gold or silver in circulation today which ensures that you have full title to the coin to begin with and then full title to the property that you exchange the coin for?

If not, then all of your transactions today are being conducted in COMMERCE and all of them are legally and rightfully regulated by the Federal Government, which in a jurisdictional sense, is really a foreign/international entity set up by the (international) financial institutions that is handling the original defaults on the loans which were borrowed by America and most other countries commencing as far back as 1776. By the mere use of the legal tender/currency that is in circulation today, each of your transactions and business dealings and trade are being conducted in international commerce due to the fact that the World Bank/IMF have the legal title to the paper money that you are using today.

All property that is registered today has a split title - essentially the Federal Government holds the superior legal title with the owner of the property holding a mere equitable interest in the property. If one does not hold full complete legal title to the money, then one cannot exchange that money (i.e. today's legal tender/currency) for full complete legal title to any property. The international financial institutions in effect always retain the superior title to both the legal tender/currency and any property that such legal tender/currency is exchanged for.

This is why the current US Federal Government (essentially and jurisdictionally foreign US Federal and other Federal Governments - not the same thing as the original organic federal government of America or any other country) has the power to regulate virtually all aspects of trade and business today.

Follow the (form of) Money - this affects the form of law that a nation is operating under.

Want your sovereignty back? You must first return to a system of lawful money both private and public. This use of such lawful money returns to you both property and your sovereignty without a single shot ever needing to be fired.

When the original American Constitution for the united states of America was drafted, the founding fathers were dealing with lawful money. The Constitution only applies if you are dealing with lawful money in your everyday trading and exchanging of goods and services.

Adelaide Australia

Appologies to all!
The correct link is:
www.saf.org/LawReview/Mullins1.htm

Interesting series of posts.

I wonder if any of you are connected with Edwin Vieira's Committees of Safety (http://www.committeesofsafety.org/). Might be something to look into.

Regarding the state militia, here in Maine it is managed by the Governor, and has some restrictions for joining (ages 18-45), so being part of the militia here is iffy at best. As far as being part of a national militia, I'm concerned about how big a target that would be for the feds (which already don't like or trust militias).

Also, my belief is that the states are the keys to the solutions, and I have recently viewed Tom Woods' video "Thomas Jefferson and the Principles of '98" on Google in which he discusses at some length early American concerns about the federal government. Video, which you may all have already seen, is here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833064339712731418

During the War of 1812, the Connecticut legislature commented:

"It must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic."

The statement is true for all states, and that's why I am so positive about a state based solution, and have pretty well given up on a federal solution. It doesn't seem to be in the fed's interest to monitor and restrain itself.

Your link didn't work for me Drake.

Drake: I propose a Nationwide Constitutional Militia composed of every gun owning American Citizen.

Have you heard of The Appleseed Project? I've been to one, and they are excellent. I think it is essentially what you have in mind. They are growing like crazy.

OK all...
A real time explanation seems to be in order. I offer as I seem to have hit a nerve or two...
In terms of taking action there is little choice. However, the mob mentality of grabbing a gun won't work. Then too, neither will any revolutionary endevor that uses the ideas of short fuse and tear it all down.
What I am requesting is the best of all, that we simply organize this.
I propose a Nationwide Constitutional Militia composed of every gun owning American Citizen.
Further, that we, as a group, exercise our base rights to defend against those who would, in any way, attempt to take our Constitutional freedoms away, no matter who.
From this 'force' replacements for those removed, put into the respective office.
>This goes a long way and there is too much info on this to post here.<
In order to have a solid idea of what is being looked at and into, I recomend the following link:
http://wwwsaf.org/LawReviews/Mullins1.htm
This report covers all the relationships involved with The Tenth Amendment, Commerce, and States rights.
After each of you read (it's a long one) this, see if your take is not modified a bit.
We have what can be a really great system, IF, it is adjusted towards the intent and spirit contained in our Constitution.
That said, Admiralty Law has no bearing, influence, nor jurisdiction over a dry land citizen. Common law does. Do not 'pass the bar' or recognize the courts jurisdiction nor their officers. You have this right.
The idea of using common law as our basis, negates almost all the present problems.
As an example; the housing crisis. As reported in The Herald Tribune, Sarasota, Florida: none of the officials did anything to stop it. This makes each of them replaceable, so says The Constitution.
Acts of intended abuse of any citizen, and any restrictions unduely limiting or restricting in any way, the normal conduction of 'commerce', is strictly prohibited...any and all license to, travel, conduct business, etc. Other than as described and defined by Common Law...
It would seem 'we' need to relegislate a whole lot of 'laws'. AND, throw the bums out who think it such a good idea to have limited our rights thus far.
However much I enjoy a lively discussion, slow down on the coffee, and reduce the passion level a bit.
Then consider joining together as a joint effort, a national group dedicated to reinstituting the Bill of Rights and The Constitution.
Retaining legal representation is being worked on with some interest, etc.
So take the angst and passion of revolt and revolution into the driving force of reason, and let us move it on down the line! Getting ready to do it right this time, as I am.

Donald, Oh yes, decentralized leadership is key. So why aren't we battering down the doors of our decentralized county commissioner"s offices and knocking some sense into their heads? (figuratively, of course.)

Well gee, I didn't think you were calling me a liar, Publius Huldah, just that I was wrong and for sure its not the first time I've been accused of that!!

So we're back to jury nullification, as that's the only constitutional recourse I know of for stopping bad laws. That's always been available to us and look where its gotten us. Nowhere. Jurors don't have to be competent or knowledgable to be selected, most just do whatever the judge tells them to do. The wake up call is that one can go to jail simply for trying to inform jurors of their rights and powers. So what other remedies do we have against usurious rulings that I'm apparently missing? Law ENFORCEMENT enforces their decisions, not ours.

I'm probably not as pessimistic as it may sound about the potential for redress .... well, okay, I'm not exactly an optimist either. But somebody please tell me what Hamilton's "what Prudence justifies" means in real terms. Far as I can tell, they're just pretty words with no teeth.

Ooops! Obviously, I am NOT saying that Monica is lying!

My point is simply that the statement she made & which I quoted, is not accurate. I believed the same Lie when I was told it in law school many years ago. PH

monica: One bad leader can be as harmful as no leader at all
A key word I used above is decentralized leadership. But common ideals on liberty is the glue that holds us together.

monica: I thought revolt was the root of revolution.
Well it may be the beginning (as in Lexington & Concord --"the shot heard round the world") but its not the root. Freedom core values are the root.

Monica said, "Constitutionally, SCOTUS has the authority to decide which decisions will hold up and which will be overturned, not us. That’s how they set up the rule of law."

I say, "NO, NO, NO!"

What Monica said reflects the mindset which permitted the statists to take over our country & which keeps them in power. It is also what we are taught in law school - but it is a Lie.

The federal judges are SUBJECT TO the U.S. Constitution. When judges set themselves above the Constitution, their acts are mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such. When the federal courts issue opinions which are usurpations, the "Rule of Law" requires us to spit on their lawless opinions and refuse to obey them.

The federal courts are NOT the final authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. WE THE PEOPLE are the final authorities. The point is made again & again in The Federalist Papers. E.g., Alexander Hamilton considered the people to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, & contemplated “a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (The Federalist, No. 16, 10th Para).

In Federalist No. 33, Hamilton cited Art. VI, cl.2, as showing that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (7th Para). He also said:

"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." (6th Para)

That includes, among other things, a free people saying, "Hell, NO!"

Here is an interesting & helpful article, by Timothy Baldwin, Esq.:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090724.html

PH

I agree, Donald, mobs can be manipulated more easily than individuals and the French revolution is a great example of that. Its a fine line though. One bad leader can be as harmful as no leader at all and I guess we've had some darn good examples of that already right here in river city, even within the constitutional limits placed upon that leadership.

I thought revolt was the root of revolution. That could be wrong, but believe me, I'm not recommending a fire storm. We'd lose before we could get our proverbial pants zipped up.

Thanks for the tip, Terry!

I appreciate the short time the tea parties have been in existance, its just that I've been at this so long and the oligarchs are moving so much more quickly now to fence us in that my patience is wearing a wee bit thin. I'll put away my whip now ;)

The group vs the individual mentality: you'll so often hear people ask, "what can one person do?" and there's really a lot one person CAN do, but there's tremendous risk attached to their actions ... or inactions, preferably (non compliance). But the answer most often given to that question is to join a group and I think that limits us. Both methods would be ideal.

Leaderless Resistance could be a much more powerful tool than any one organaized effort. Its just that there’s so much fear running rampant...

Ideas can not be stopped. We are in the idea spreading stage of this movement. But eventually organization and leadership is essential. Mobs can be manipulated. Decentralized leadership with common core values on the principles of liberty can not. Study the difference between the French and American Revolution. Don't be goaded into revolt. Hold out for true revolution.

Monica,

Bracketing won't work in this forum. Use "lesser than" and "greater than" symbols, like so. See, works every time. ;-)

Anyway, "agree to disagree?" You mean about the excessive tax on tobacco products? No. I absolutely and unabashedly agree. I don't personally buy into this "let's tax the hell out of everyone that doesn't follow along with the "popularity of the day"" mentality. I'm more apt to disagree with your assertion that organized protests "knocks the stuffing out of independence." Precisely how do you figure that? Have the tax protests been effective to date? Well, it's something of a debatable point. That is, if you think that three months time is enough to get a good guage on it. As someone else has said elsewhere, it would be very interesting to see exactly how many tax protesters are depriving government of its lifebread by necessity vs. the number doing so voluntarily.

Well, my italics obviously didn't work, darn it.

Michael,

The question is, WHO will overturn Wickard v. Filburn? Constitutionally, SCOTUS has the authority to decide which decisions will hold up and which will be overturned, not us. That's how they set up the rule of law. And if you ask me, the commerce clause isn't the only fly in the ointment, although its probably got the biggest bite.

Terry says"

[i]TEA is the acronym for “taxed enough already.”[/i]

Hmmm, that's the first time I've heard that acronym, so I wonder how many other people outside the movement have made that connection. And its doubtful that anyone in this country isn't already aware of the historical connotations, but the current economy doesn't lend itself to a protest over the price of tea, whereas the outlandish tax on tobacco does, whether you use the product personally, or not. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that point, but I will stand by my position on what (all) needs to be protested in a current context.

That said, I can't see that the tea parties have had a great deal of success lately, anyway, particularly from the aspect that a lot of well known people with questionable (IMO) motivations jumped onto that bandwagon as soon as it started gaining gound and my first thought on hearing about that was uh-oh, here we go again. If their MO is the same as usual, they will use their reknown to re-direct the original goals in totally fruitless directions, and of course the media has gone mum on the subject, lessening its impact in a wide enough arc.

Of course physical protests do have a place in the sun, but it seems to me that Leaderless Resistance could be a much more powerful tool than any one organaized effort. Its just that there's so much fear running rampant out here in the hinterland that everybody's looking for someone to watch their back before they're willing to make a move. Gotta have a crowd. I can certainly understand that, but it does tend to knock the stuffing out of the concept of independence. JMO

It's long past time to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, which, more than any other SCOTUS decision created the "everything is commerce" monster that now afflicts us.