by Michael Boldin
NOTE: The following is based off a speech given on 09-04-10 in Fort Worth, Texas. Michael will be a featured speaker at upcoming Nullify Now! tour stops in Orlando, Chattanooga, Phoenix and Los Angeles. Get your tickets at http://www.nullifynow.com or by calling 888-71-TICKETS
*******
There are a few core beliefs that guide me in everything I do as the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
- Rights are not “granted” to us by the government – they are ours by our very nature, by our birthright.
- ALL just political authority is derived from the people – and government exists solely with our consent!
- We the people of the several states created the federal government – not the other way around!
- The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution – and nothing more.
- The People of each State have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in all areas not delegated to their government.
- A Government without limits IS A TYRANNY!
- When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.
These seven items – are what establish the proper role of government under the constitution. But sadly, an honest reading of the constitution as the founders and ratifiers gave it to us makes clear that MOST of what D.C does today is NOT authorized by the constitution.
Question - What do we do about it?
Do we lobby congress and ask federal politicians to limit federal power? Do we go to federal courts and ask federal judges to limit federal power? Do we vote the bums out in the hopes that the new bums will limit their own power?
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow.regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system…
They were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out – but yet.year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish – and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.
The problem we face today is about power – and until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.
Question – What do we do about it?
Answer – Jefferson, Madison and others advised us on what we should do when 2 or more branches conspired against the constitution and your liberty..and it’s best described with a few quotes from Jefferson:
“the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government”
But wait – that’s not all. He went on to say that all undelegated powers exercised by the federal government are “unathoritative, void and of no force.” And, that a “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
NEW MOVEMENT
In 2007, Maine.one state rep introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the REAL ID Act
In 2008, two state legislators in Oklahoma introduced a simple non-binding resolution reaffirming the Constitution as defined by the 10th amendment,
In 2009, one state rep in Montana introduced a Firearms Freedom Act, to nullify some federal gun laws and regulations
In 2009, one state rep in AZ introduced a Health Care Freedom Act, effectively banning a national health care plan in the state.
And that’s grown into a nullification movement like this country has never seen -
- Already nearly a dozen states have passed 10th amendment resolutions
- 25 states have stopped the real id act dead in its tracks in most of the country.
- 8 states have passed binding laws nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations in their state – including Wyoming, which included a penalty of a fine and imprisonment for fed agents violating the state law
- And 5 states have already passed laws to nullify federal health care mandates – with more on the way.
The reality is this – when enough people say no to the federal government, and enough states pass laws saying no to the federal government – they will not be able to enforce their unconstitutional mandates on us.
ROSCOE FILBURN
During the Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or starving, the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict production of wheat in order to raise prices.
As a farmer, Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10 acres of wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided that it was in his best interest – possibly because he had less revenue due to the production limitations – to plant another 10 or so acres. But, the “excess” wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power to regulate “interstate commerce.”
What did the federal government do? The expected – they ordered Roscoe to destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment and you’ll really understand the evil of having too much power in too few hands. At a time when large numbers of people were starving, these thugs in government forced people to reduce production for the sake of raising prices. From this, it seems clear to me that corporate bailouts have been going on a long, long time in America.
Roscoe sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history of this country. It now had the power to control the growing and consuming of something that never left one’s back yard.
LOST LIBERTY
John Adams, In 1775 he wrote, “liberty once lost, is lost forever.” He went on to explain that when the People allow government to gain power and restrict liberty, it will never voluntarily give that power back. Liberty given up to government power will never be returned to the people without a long and difficult struggle.
If we fast forward to present times, we can see this principle at work.
ANGEL RAICH
In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who has a huge cancerous tumor in her brain was told by her doctor and California law that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain associated with her cancer was acceptable.
The Feds don’t take too kindly to states passing laws in direct contravention to theirs. Marijuana, for example, is illegal on a federal level in all circumstances, and federal agencies have consistently said they don’t recognize state laws. You can probably guess what happened, right?
Federal agents destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance. Like Roscoe before her, Angel sued. The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana – in any situation.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption.then Congress’ Article I powers.have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
WHAT THE.?
You might be asking, “What’s the point of this?” Well it’s pretty simple. The constitution is not about political parties. It’s not about political ideologies. It’s about liberty. It’s about limiting the federal government to certain enumerated powers so the most difficult and most divisive issues can be dealt with where they belong – close to home.
Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire.
This is the lesson, the blueprint – the Supreme Court may have an opinion on Obamacare, but let them come and enforce it! They may have an opinion on the EPA and Cap and Trade, but we don’t have to go along with it. And if Texas does what she should be doing – which is following the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses – she would say no to every federal gun law, she would say no to all the EPA, she would say no to all the Obamacare mandates, and maybe even the marijuana laws too.
The reality is this – we don’t need approval from the federal government to stand up for our rights. We need to stand up for them whether they want us to or not!
LIBERTY
Over the past 2 years, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN, or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, “What political party do you support?” Each time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government.”
They always have virtually the same follow up question too – “what about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political background, what political party do you support?”
“None,” I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s true.
I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.
All I am is me, and all I want is to live free. Thank you for joining me.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
WOW!!! Great article and even better speech!
Thanks!! Very effective presentation. I hope everyone has the time to read and watch this and think about what you're saying.
Thanks, TD – I really appreciate the feedback! I have given a similar speech in California and Georgia too – people seem to really get it….
I definitely have a long way to go with the public speaking, but – excited for the practice!
Michael,
You need to get this on PJTV and FOX NEWS, as soon as possible. Thank you for posting it. Great speech and it needs to be sent around the world. We will not stand in the shadows of tyrants anymore!!!!!
I would love to! They both know we exist, but rarely call – if ever. But if enough of their own supporters asked them, ….well – maybe.
Michael, I found your talk thanks to Mike Church; he linked in on his site. If you guys aren't talking, you should be!
FWIW, I thought your presentation was perfect.
I don't want another smooth, slick, Teleprompter Speaker.
You came across to me as sincere (just there to speak out), knowledgeable (Wickard v. Filburn, etc.), reasonable (there's no perfect answer) and tolerant (maybe Texans don't want legal pot) but frustrated (I'm a regular guy and I want to be left alone!) with the current mess and very inspiring (regular people can make a difference)!!!
I must say it is VERY VERY encouraging to see your concise presentation (and, as always, Tom Woods) and know that there are probably thousands and thousands of people across America who want to say what you said.
Again, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU !!
Wow, thank you. I am what I call an un-political person, although I have found myself recently deeply entrenched in the political world.
You said something that rang so true to my own beliefs – "All I am is me, and all I want is to live free". I can't tell you how many times a day I say this myself. That's all I want, is to be free. I am angered that current events have caused me to be a part of something I really don't want – politically active.
In the end, I'm just a mom. I want to grow my garden, raise my daughter to be a good person, and live my life. I do not hurt others nor do I expect anything from anyone else…..and I say this even as I sit here unemployed, single and with no family. I wish more than anything the government would get out of my way so that I can provide for my daughter and live my life as a good person, a decent citizen, and govern myself.
Knowing that there are people like you, who are encouraging people to live free regardless, is more encouraging than I could put into words. I'm glad I found your site, and I thank you for being a part of my national family.
Heather
I attended the presentation in Ft Worth. I was very happy to hear this out loud and would like to hear it more and more. People need to hear how they are being lied to by media and polititions about what the truth really is. I was disapointed to hear the last two polititions talk . I do give them bennies for taking their licks from the audiance. But they seem to be lazy and not in sinc with Nullification. I have watched the vidio of the TX congress voting for all those that where not their in their seets it was like a circus people jumping and spinning in their seats to vote for others. What a joke.! Their is not alot of credibility their.
Thank you again for bringing it to us!
I am a DAV and I sit at the computer and send this info to every one I know incluting my local and fed reps as it is dificult for me to get out and pound the beat. I was laid up two days just from the ride to Ft Worth. It was well worth it just to hear the truth spoken. Thank you for your service!
Thank you, Della! If I knew just 10 people like you – I would be in a great place..
"…I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.
All I am is me, and all I want is to live free. .."
Wow…took the words right out of my mouth…thank you Michael!!! Keep up the great work and we will continue to spread the message.
Thank you, Tracy! Can only spread the word with your help….glad you are here with us…
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or Give Me Death."
Patrick Henry, Saint John's Church, Virginia
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Samuel Adams
"…I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.
All I am is me, and all I want is to live free."
Michael, you took the words right out of my mouth…thank you & keep up the great work!!! We will continue to get the message out.
"It always seems impossible until it's done" – Nelson Mandela
Micheal,
I listened carefully to everything you said, I cannot find disagreement in anything. I will be in Orlando for the Nullify Now tour, hope to see you there.
Michael Boldin, I think you have nailed it down well.
Now, what is required is that the states who nullify federal laws, require the Sheriffs of every county within their borders to enforce state laws and arrest any federal agent that attempts to ignore or circumvent state laws.
See Unalienabe Rights? From God? http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/010/founding-ri…
Great speech and Post! Why would we ask permission for something we already have? Standing on our unalienable rights will always protect our precious liberty, and no government or corporation can every take it away.
This man, as President, is creating the perfect storm that has the potential to change America Fundamentally. That means the our fundamental concepts of freedom, liberty and commerce will no longer be the precept of the people. The freedom to fail or succeed will no longer be based on sweat equity or personal risk management but will be left to government regulation and preference. That is the current reality, not a prediction. The American dream is, at least temporarily, a nightmare.
Our line in the sand must be nullification and th 10th Amendment. The states are the union and it is up to the states to preserve the union. keep up your great work Michael, you are making a difference.
Guido
Great speech. We need to get back to basic principles. Keep spreading this message.
I believe we as a nation have come 360 degrees. We are now fighting the same type of tyranny which our founding fathers fought and everyone seems to skirt the response we should be taking. It always comes down to superior fire power. Unless we are willing to stand up as a fighting force and show we are committed to our constitutional laws then we will continue to see the decline of this Constitutional Republic and the advance of a socialist democracy. In my state of Nevada, most of our legislators are from elsewhere, especially California, and they continue to push the same liberal agendas which the states they left have.
Micheal—God Bless your vision and honesty. Truly a remarkable speech. Me and a few other board members of our TEA Party of Gilmer County have been asked to speak on the Constitution and current politics to students in the Advanced Activity Civics class this month, as well as to the senior assembly on Spt. 16., at Gilmer High School. With your permission, I beg leave to excerpt parts of your speech. Of course the Tenth Ammendment Center will be part of my presentation. Thanks you once again for a remarkable ability to speak truth to power.
By the Constitution, Sherriffs ARE the law of the land!
A most effective and common sense presentation, Mr. Boldin. Kudos to you and all who support you. I
have considered myself an independent with conservative leanings ….until I read THIS piece and, now I know it is perfectly allright to have no political niche or category in the usually accepted sense. I am most appreciative of this article and could not agree more. Government of some kind has always been and will always be, a necessary evil, in my estimation. However, the Federal government of this country has become as oppressive to it's citizens as many foreign detractors and if we would cherish and maintain the heritage and the civil liberites henceforth, the message must be sent through Nullification, the mid term elections or outright rebellion, if the need arises. Unfortunately, it is my beleif that it may well come to that as we have allowed through acceptance like sheep, and inattention
to what the Feds have been doing to us for so long, that they are solidly entrenched and may have to be persuaded by force to live within the parameters of the Constitution and the rule of law. Keep up the good work.
Michael. I am a fan, but I must comment on your statement: 1.Rights are not “granted” to us by the government – they are ours by our very nature, by our birthright.
I had published in the Virginia Gazette, September 4, 2010, Williamsburg, Virginia:
"….'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'
….
Neither the federal, state and lesser government, or the people have any authority or power to usurp God’s highest laws. His law transcends all others. We ignore this truth at our peril."
© Copyright, Delbert L. Curtis, Williamsburg, Virginia, August 25, 2010
More coverage of the Fort Worth Nullify Now Conference can be found at http://texasgopvote.com/principles/state-sovereig…
Michael, it was great meeting you and your team! I hope I get to visit the corporate office someday!
Those who feel everyone needs to convert 'the Creator' "Nature's God" etc. comments from the DoI into their personal view of God and Christianity need to stop and consider exactly which version of "God" they expect the government to follow.
Should we follow Mormon teachings or Catholic? How about Protestant views or Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Evangelicals or Branch Davidians? The list is endless…
The brilliance of our country is that it was founded on FREEDOM of choice on the one hand and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY on the other. Government is formed by MEN for their mundane purposes. America was NOT founded as a Christian theocracy.
The neutral term "Creator" was used in the DoI for the very reason Michael and other smart people avoid getting bogged down in pointless debates about exactly HOW we acquire the rights recognized by the US Constitution.
You're free to follow God's highest laws in your daily life thanks to the genius of the people who drafted the Constitution.
If you have any knowledge of the discussions, writings and recorded activities of the Continental Congress you would certainly have to admit that the Founders were talking about the God of the Judeo-Christian bible. That doesn't mean that we were established as a theocracy or that anyone was to be compelled to believe in any religion or in no religion. The Founders clearly recognized God as the grantor of all or our rights. I don't particularly care if you agree with that or not. Truth is truth, whether we believe it or not. Creator, capitalized as it was is neither neutral nor generic.
Thanks for the input, however, "Truth is truth" and similar tautologies don't advance the discussion. I have detailed knowledge of the discussions, writings and recorded activities of the members of the CC. I do not agree that JEFFERSON was "clearly" writing about your particular view of God when he penned the DoI (long before the CC was convened) and used the words 'Creator' 'Nature's God' and 'Divine Providence.'
In fact, I submit it's much more likely he assiduously avoided reference to the Judeo-Christian Biblical "God." Why use such odd terms as "Nature's God" or "the Creator" or "Divine Providence?" Why not just refer to "God" as you did? If you used the term "Nature's God" in a typical church in America this Sunday, many of the members would think you'd gone soft and would storm out in a huff.
There is history to show Jefferson believed that "God" was revealed through logic and not by divine revelation as recorded in the Bible. He avoided religious discussions because they were counter-productive. Here's a quote from a letter Jefferson wrote to Mrs. Samuel Smith in 1816:
"I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to change another's creed."
Jefferson specifically did not reveal his religious beliefs because he was concerned that topic would distract from the practical realities our new country faced. No one will ever know the true religious beliefs of the founders and it is not especially relevant since they agreed of freedom of religion.
I personally agree that our rights come from our Creator but that doesn't really matter as long as we agree we all have certain 'unalienable' rights based in liberty that come from SOMEWHERE.
Again, the point is that the founders wisely decided to allow each of us to make up our own minds on this issue without government interference. You have the freedom to believe as you wish as long as you don't interfere with my freedom. Trying to dictate exactly what beliefs are "true" work AGAINST freedom.
Jefferson was a FreeMason. Plain and simple explanation.
WOW!! Your speach is #A1, thumbs up, right on, faaaaantastic!!! Let the American people hear it THAT way and case closed, you win! Haaaahaaaa! My God! that was refreshing. Just what we need to hear. I am so glad I get this kind of email. And I'm even more glad that I don't watch the main stream media. You really hit the nail on the head with your poignant speach!! HERE, HERE!!, or better yet, HEAR-HERE!!
Thankyou, Michael, you have made my day and I am going to listen to your video over and over and over until I can repeat everything you said just as well as YOU said it. With you around, there is hope for this country yet. I am passing this email and video around to everyone I know!
Thankyou again. What a fine job!
In 1861 Abraham Lincoln prosecuted a constitionally illegal war against several southern states primarily to prevent those states from “nullifying” the Morrill act. That act would have raised tariffs on exported goods from 27% to 47%. South Carolina intended to enact a 10% tariff after secession. That war proved that the federal goverment could and did impose its will on any state that tried to “go its on way” as outlined in the constitution. I hope we patriots have more success in our future attempts to defy the federal athority. Hopefully we can do this at the ballot box.
Ayn Rand challenged the monopoly on morality that religion has had for 2000 years and gave atheists a philosophic basis for a new moral code based on the unique human essence. I would not base my morality on superstition because I choose reason over authoritarianism. In doing so I accept the responsibility for my life rather than turning to a book of rules which requires total, blind acceptance.
Nor would I base my morality on superstition or a fairytale. You may choose the rules that are written on your heart, they have been placed there for a reason. Blind acceptance is a stretch, faith is based on what has been evidenced to you over your lifetime and coming to the realization that there must be explanation for all of this. You can either see it for what it is or reject it wholly yourself, the choice has been left to you. As much as He might want you to follow Him, He specifically gives you that choice because true love is what He seeks, not slavery. The best anyone can do is just present you with the Word as it is written. Understand though, the Word is proven history. How much of it you choose to believe is up to you.
Thank you, Michael, for your dedication, passion, conviction and purpose. I stand with you every step of the way and invite all freedom-loving Americans to stand up against tyranny and oppression by joining and supporting the Tenth Amendment Center! Together, we are unconquerable. We Shall Prevail and Overcome!
Michael,
Thanks for bringing more of us together.
Could I ask for some more of your and help me to start implementing this RIGHT NOW/ this cycle?
The Texas Constitution Article 1Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Is self explanatory, but, we must have someone in office ready to use it.
That someone, right now, is me!
I'm running for the Texas Agriculture Commissioner, and I could sure use your help to get this message out to everyone that can relay it on to everyone they know in Texas.
I want to start to Nullify ALL of the Federal Alphabet agencies out of TEXAS, and with your help, We can/will do this.
Thanking you for ALL that you do,
Rick Donaldson http://www.rickdonaldsonfortexasagriculturecommis…
sure wish I was in Texas and had someone such as you that want to make something happen. Here in misery (missouri) it's all about money and power, corrupt and very wasteful state government, rediculous taxes, no jobs.
How do I move my ag business there??
<DIV>Mark,</DIV> <DIV>Thanks for the reply,</DIV> <DIV>Moving your Ag business to Texas would benefit you How? The FDA, FTA, EPA, USDA, and all of the rest are doing their best to destroy Texas, Too!</DIV> <DIV>As you may be aware, Texas is a BIG Target for them, as we have been known to defy Federal Regulators until the Republican administrations became so prominent.</DIV> <DIV>Mind you, I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT, I am a Libertarian. More interested in the Rights of the Individual.</DIV> <DIV>I could, however, really use your abilities to till and fertilize the Minds of the People of Texas and plant some more seeds of Liberty and help this Tree once again to grow and produce fruit.</DIV> <DIV>Keep in touch, my new riend. We'll see how well we do in November.</DIV> <DIV>Politics is such a short season crop, Let's get some more weeding done!</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Rick Donaldson— On Thu, 9/9/10, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:</DIV>
Awesome message!!! If only our "political" leaders within all three branches actually understood (even read) the constitution, and had the honor to remain true to their oaths to uphold, defend, and by definition support our constitution, our country would not be in the mess it is now.
But we can, as individuals, come together and end this atrocity and help bring this nation back to greatness. Mistakes not withstanding, this nation remains this single greatest hope and possibly only real chance for any person willing to live free.
Keep up the great work!
I fully agree with you. This is a simple thing for people to understand. It does not matter if I agree or dont agree with people smoking marajuana in California. I do not have the right to vote on what the people in california do.
awesome , read this first on infowars, this is right on, now what to do???
This organization must continue to build upon the important yes ciritcal point that until the people better know, become better informed, well informed they will remain subject to their limited understandings of what their rights and liberties truly are. I applaud 10th Amendment for striving to do just that. Yet we cannot make the people drink the truth, we can only lead them to the knowledge share it will planting the seeds of active patriotism and by example lead citizens to the priceless knowledge that America is indeed empowered by we the people and all authority arises from the people not the government. One Nation, under God, with liberty and jsutice for all, F. Michael Russo Jr.
Here’s how we can stand up for our rights and legally put an end to what the federal gov’t is doing. The gov’t is operating under the provisions of the foreign commerce clause. This dissertation will evidence that the gov’t is quite aware of its limited powers and jurisdictions.
The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and its main tenet is that “all men are created equal”. Under such a tenet no person or group of people, including some group called government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people. This is the basis of individual sovereignty. The Constitution was adopted to form a gov’t that would uphold this tenet.
The Constitution acknowledges this where in Article I, section 8 it grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce since the law is based upon the tenet that “all men are created equal”. The individual American is sovereign, not the federal gov’t. See the following Supreme Court decisions that uphold the sovereignty of the individual – United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed. (2 Dall.) 415. All of these Supreme Court decisions were rendered before the bankruptcy of the federal gov’t in the 1930’s.
The FED bankrupted the gov’t in the 1930′s. This is easily evidenced by the correlation between the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): title 11 USC, “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 CFR, “Federal Elections”. Our vote is simply to elect a bankruptcy “administration”.
However, bankrupting the federal gov’t wasn’t enough to make Americans pay the interest on the FED’s counterfeit money loans to the gov’t. Sovereignty lies with the individual American, not the federal gov’t. as evidenced above by the Supreme Court.
To get around all of the chains that the Constitution imposes on the federal gov’t, Social Security was created to destroy American sovereignty. The “Form SS-5″ that an applicant uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form. After all, only a federal employee is liable for federal employment taxes. You know the name of the federal employee – the “taxpayer”. “Taxpayer” is a legal term defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine – a federal employee. 26 CFR 2.1-1(b) states that this is the definition of the term as used throughout the Code and the regulations for all calculation of taxes.
The gov’t has been given jurisdiction over its possessions by Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution. By checking the box “U.S. citizen” on the “Form SS-5″ the applicant has given the gov’t prima facie evidence that he has U.S. possession citizenship. “U.S. citizen” is also a legal term exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (Puerto Rico is cited in the example) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship. This regulation then references back to 26 USC sec. 2501(b) where it states that this is the definition of the term “citizen” “wherever used in the title”. The U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries (see 26 USC sec. 865(i)(3), 872(b)(7), and 2014(g) for example). This makes a “U.S. citizen†a foreigner in relation to America. This is the 14th Amendment citizen.
The combination of the legal terms “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” is known as the “U.S. resident” at 26 USC sec. 865(g). A “U.S. resident” is a “U.S citizen” living in America – a foreigner.
So by applying for a S.S.# an American has given away all sovereignty and become a slave to the federal gov’t.
All of this evidences that the owners of the gov’t are quite aware of its limited jurisdiction, but they have absolutely no regard for freedom.
The federal gov’t is legislating today on two main premises – under foreign commerce and that everyone is a federal employee.
The CFR was created during the bankruptcy proceedings in the mid-1930’s to evidence the correlation of which of the new federal regulatory agencies would be in charge of implementing the regulations under the statutes of the USC.
Obviously, federal gov’t regulatory agencies can have no jurisdiction over a sovereign American since “all men are created equal†and the federal gov’t has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce. But a “U.S. resident†has no constitutional protections.
Since one becomes a “taxpayer†by applying for a S.S.#, that person is now subject to the income tax.
The income tax was ruled to be constitutional in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions – see Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920). These Supreme Court decisions all stated that the gov’t always had the power to tax income and, further, that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal gov’t by the 16th Amendment. In other words, the income being taxed must be within the limited jurisdiction of the federal gov’t to begin with since no new power was granted to the federal gov’t. Cites from each of these cases can be found at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3a on my Blog.
Internal revenue is within the customs. Customs gains revenue for the gov’t from importing duties from foreign countries. Internal revenue gains revenue for the gov’t from importing duties from the U.S. possessions – thus a source of “internal revenue”. Customs is foreign commerce.
The 3 commerce jurisdictions are cited separately in title 28 USC, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; Jurisdiction”. Section 1336, “Surface Board Transportation Orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s Orders” in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction. Section 1362, “Indian Tribes”, is obviously the trade with the Indians commerce jurisdiction. Section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”, is the foreign commerce jurisdiction. Income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. Inheritance tax is the third plank of the Communist Manifesto. These communistic taxes are only available to the federal gov’t under foreign commerce along with the presumption that the individual is a federal employee.
Social Security gives the gov’t an unlimited reservoir of revenue from its “taxpayers†to do whatever it wants under the foreign commerce clause. Abolish Social Security and claim your sovereignty – this can happen!
I have evidenced the entire Social Security Scam on my Blog at LLSTULER.wordpress.com.
In times of great danger to the Republic, average men and women are imbued with the Revolutionary Spirit of America. They rise to confront this danger; and in doing so, they show us the way forward. Michael Boldin is one such man.
It's a tough issue, frankly. In hindsight, it's something that should have been addressed during the original Con-Con.
But, if you remove secession and nullification from the table, you end up with what we have seen today: an all-powerful national monster that completely subverts the original idea of a LIMITED FEDERAL government. When the federal government is allowed to decide the extent of its own power, the result is predictable. Cases such as Filburn and Reich show the fatal flaw in the Marbury solution.
At least with nullification, there is a chance for people to blow off some of the steam that is building up around the country and make it clear to TPTB that true change is necessary. Without some sort of pressure relief valve, this system could blow…
If this federal government truly wishes to force correction upon our State Legislators, Governors, or even our Cities.
I say bring it on Big Brother.
Get rid of the cap!!!. If you want to appeal to a larger audience (larger than the already convinced gathered in front of you), you'll have to be a bit more mainstream. Remember, you must always address the audience as they are, not as you wish them to be.
You're seriously worried about his cap?
If an audience is so simple-minded and shallow that a cap will turn them off, then there's no chance Michael's message will be accepted by that same audience.
If a cap is going to influence a persons acceptance or non-acceptance of an intellectual argument they do not have a brain to reach in the first place.
I feel duped by the Nullification Now Conference. I purchased tickets thinking it was about state's rights issues and when I got there the first speaker was about legalizing marijuana.. Because prohibition failed. Well, let me tell you what really failed and that is selling liquor everywhere. I worked in Gary, Indiana with DUI's _1000 a month at that time. The cost to society of police, jails, courts, child abuse and neglect and the break up of the family, people dead and disabled due to drunk drivers. Don't tell me that it works better than prohibition. Being high on drugs plays into the hands of the radicals who would love to have people drinking and drugging instead of alert and aware of what is going on in this country.
The second speaker was about homeopathic medicine, etc. Good, but not applicable to anything I wanted to hear at the conference. A whole morning wasted and I left. Don't invite me to any more of your conferences. I want my money back.
Peg Wooden
Pam – seems like you missed a LOT of speakers! the first you mentioned was actually the 4th…and we had at least a dozen others throughout the day. you would’ve heard about issues all over the political spectrum….but never will you hear everything you agree with at our events. We leave that to politicians….you know, the liars!
Interesting take on it, though…
Texas is unique from other states in that when it entered the Union, it gave itself an out. Article One, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution states in part that: "…[Texans] have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
This is a unilateral choice for Texas. We don't have to get "permission" from D.C. to act. It's my greatest hope that Texans will one day "reform" their working relationship with Washington in a way similar to the following: Texas will not comply with, or fund, UN-enumerated (as expressly read in Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) federal laws or regulations until the Texas State Legislature has vetted, approved, and funded said items. In addition, Texans must insist that Federal Court decisions will only be observed and respected in Texas if those rulings reflect the original intent, and expressed jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Teresa
San Marcos Texas
The result of the Roscoe case is exactly what is wrong with American government and the Courts. This is a prime example of two or more branches working together to usurp power. The Court was intended by the Founders and Framers to review laws and either approve them or disprove them with legal findings for either. If they were Constitutional they needed to show the authority – if not then they need to return the law to the proper legislature for further action.
Clearly they used a flawed decision to create a case law basis for the Courts and the central government to usurp more powers. The only remedy open to the People is a Constitutional Convention or a Revolution as the Courts and Congress will not return the limits of a Constitutional Republic with a small central government and enumerated limited powers.
With all due respect to Mr. Boldin, I wish that he had mentioned the following in his article. The USSC had decided an agricultural-related case similar to Wickard v. Filburn a few years earlier, United States v. Butler, 1936. The Butler case had also tested the limits of Congress’s power with respect to regulating intrastate agriculture. However, when Butler was decided, FDR had not been in office long enough to establish an activist majority on the USSC. So the Court had decided against FDR and Congress in Butler where the regulation of intrastate agriculture is concerned.
I bring up Butler for the following reasons. Not only does the Wickard opinion not reference Butler (corrections welcome), but Butler has the best clarification that I have seen so for concerning the limits of Congress’s power with respect to intrastate agriculture. This clarification would probably have been used as a case precedent in Wickard if it weren’t for FDR’s activist majority justices. Here is the clarification.
“From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.”–Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936. http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/1/case.html
In fact, the following is the only acknowledgement of state sovereignty that I’ve been able to find in Wickard.
“In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”–Wickard v. Filburn, 1942. http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html
As I’ve ranted elsewhere, FDR’s anti-republic justices had essentially reduced 10A to a wives’ tale when they decided Wilburn.
On a final note, FDR’s justices also ignored Jefferson’s clarification of the Commerce Clause in Wickard.
“For the 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 remain 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 the Indian tribes.†–Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.a…
Given terms like “does not extend” and “exclusively,” Jefferson had made it clear that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.
This is about "Constitutional rights" and indeed OBLIGATION of its citizens to fight unconstitutional laws and overreach by the Feds. This adminstrations complete and utter lack of acknowledgement of the MAJORITY of americans that were opposed to Obamacare is a prime example of "overreach" as well as being "Unconstitutional" (interstate commerce clause)
Additionally the Tenth Ammendment REQUIRES that state legislature uphold states rights as "paramount" over Unconstitutional Federal Laws. These actions protect " Individual Rights" under the very same action, you deicde, Federal Goverment TELLING YOU what your rights are OR states rights GUARANTEEING those rights under our Constitution.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson
The Principles of '98 – The Kentucky resolution http://mises.org/media/1851/The-Principles-of-98
Yes it's time to fight or become slaves.