Tenthers and Oath Keepers: Partners in Liberty

So, Stewart Rhodes is a "dangerous patriot" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center-- WAY TO GO, Stewart! Wear that label proudly! The only danger a patriot poses is to those who are enemies of our Republic. If only every American were a "dangerous patriot"! C'mon, step up, y'all...

Regarding the “Republican Government” clause mentioned in the message from Stewart Rhodes, note the following:

When Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) suggested that the "full text" of the Constitution be read on the House floor for the first time in history, it sounded like a great idea! This historic event was officially scheduled to take place at the opening of the 112th Congress on January 6, 2011. Goodlatte, however, later qualified this pronouncement to state that those parts of the Constitution which were considered to have been superseded by one or more amendments would NOT be read, after all.

I have never seen a printed "full text" copy of the Constitution which did NOT include those portions that were affected by subsequent amendments. It is truly astounding that Congress just arbitrarily assumed the authority to "revise" and read their own version of the Supreme Law of the Land!

It is very interesting to note that one of the most crucial sections in the Constitution, which is completely unaffected by ANY amendment, was deleted in its entirety:
Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Why did Congress refuse to read this section? Could it be that the political establishment (the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties) would like to ignore the fact that, not only is
the United States of America a Republican Form of Government, but so is every State in this Union? In addition, the second phrase suggests that the United States Government is prohibited from invoking martial law in any State, since this would essentially be an invasion BY the United States Government into the jurisdiction of that State.

I am curious if all of our "public servants" are allowed to modify whatever portions of the Constitution they find objectionable when they take their oaths of office. I seriously doubt that any of our military personnel are permitted this liberty when they take their oaths.

Reference Video Source (reading of Article IV, Section 1 begins at about 12:10 into the video) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annota...

You are all a little late, don't you think? Follow: Where were the military oath keepers in, say, the Mexican-American War of 1846-8? or the Trail of Tears some time earlier? And where were the civilian oath keepers in 1803 when Jefferson and that Congress went ahead with the illegal and Tenth shattering Louisiana Purchase? And where did those much larger acts of nullificatgion, interposition and secession get us, anyway? What was the upshot of the VA-KY Resolutions? smaller national government? Not hardly. One Joe the Plumber put it in unintendended irony, stating that no new government healthcare plan was going to interfere with his Medicare...The new generations after those original oath takers have altered the words and meanings of the "original intent"(whatever that was) as to be as night to day. ,

There is no way to keep an oath to defend the Constitution & stay in the govt's employ. Don't take an oath, resign.

We don't have many Oath Keepers that are ACTIVE military, do we?

I ask this because it seems to me that anyone who is serious about protecting & defending the Constitution against enemies both foreign AND domestic should have REFUSED to obey Obama's orders to attack Libya. Why is our top military brass bending over backwards to please him?

All groups, with a quite similar goal, should bring themselves under one roof. There is great strength in numbers, and contributions would be concentrated on that goal. We are very divided in many efforts, even if we want the same thing. Much like the pro-gun lobbies, who all want a piece of the action, and forces us to contribute to all, which means someone has to suffer. We could place a high wall of defiance before our Government, if we were united under one roof. I have yet to see this requirement take root, however the combining of Oath Keepers and the Tenthers may just teach the others a lesson in power.

Where I was raised, men -young or old- were instilled with 'manners' - to offer up their seat to a woman, and without regard to her 'color'. Guys I served with -US Army, 1960's - had similar 'parenting' regardless of color. But then, we - our Society - had not yet allowed 'GOD' to be removed from the public square, nor interference with our parents to establish sensible upbringing; now, we seem to have succumbed to a 'Leviathan' GOV'T and the likes of 'scum' like Morris Dees. I say we nominate Rosa Parks as a Symbol of bravery, for Nullification of bad laws!

Yes! Agree with the above! I have a distaste for Morris Dees and S.P.L.C. propaganda labels of 'Racist' directed at me, others of O.K.-TAC sentiments..I view as a symbol of Nullification of bad 'laws' or 'legalisms' the Stance by Rosa Parks. In the mid-50's she took a stand - by refusing to stand, and surrender her seat on a bus - a public accomodation - to a man. Should it matter whether she was black, or white? Now-a-days, probably not!; but, back then, in Montgomery, Alabama where "old South" and Jim Crow legalisms prevailed, she was expected to stand, move to the back of the bus, only because she was 'colored' folk. She was arrested, detained, jailed, for NOT giving up her seat. Thus began the Montgomery Bus Boycott, by working class black people, at a time and place where it was dangerous for them to oppose -- or ultimately to Nullify -- bad 'laws'.

It is right and just that the Tenth Amendment Center and the Oath Keepers stand together in defense of our Constitution and liberty.

The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves. ... whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from ...any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society, and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.

John Locke...

During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite critical of the Bush administration’s uses of signing statements telling the Boston Globe in 2007 that the “problem” with the Bush administration “is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.”

Then-Sen. Obama said he would “not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
The president said that no one "doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that."

BUT NOW OBAMA STATES HE WILL NOT ABIDE BY THE BILL BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT.

The president signed into law today the $38 billion in budget cuts that the House and Senate approved earlier in the week week. But Obama said that there were certain provisions of the bill that he would not abide by.
Namely, the provision defunding the czars.
Jake Tapper of ABC explains:

Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.
One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

Earlier this evening, Obama signed the budget bill, with the czars provision attached to it, according to the AP. At the same time, he issued a “signing statement”objecting to the defunding of the czars provision–and a couple others:
In an accompanying signing statement, however, Obama questioned the constitutionality of a provision in the spending bill that prevents the White House from retaining special policy advisers, or “czars.” He also objected to two other sections that block the transfer of terrorist suspects from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States or to other countries.

The president basically told Congress to shove it, issuing this statement about the provision defunding the czars:

"The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority…The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President‘s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
The president went on, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
Tapper translates:. “In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we don’t think it’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.”
If Obama gets away with this, doesn't it set a precedent, that if someone decides they do not agree with a law and will not "abide" by it, their decision will be accepted?

A holy alliance!