Michael says:

My census form arrived today in an envelope emblazoned with a bold warning: YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW I seriously doubt that it is. Article I, Section 2, clause 3 states, “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” The federal census is mandated by the Constitution so the number of House representatives and direct taxes for each state can be mathematically calculated. There is no Constitutional requirement for people to respond to the census questionnaire. If there are statutes that mandate a response, I would argue that free and independent people cannot be compelled to participate against their will – especially when the government making those demands is egregiously guilty of violating their Constitutional restrictions.

One of the things I noticed about my census form was a light blue box in the top of the left column. The box includes several short paragraphs of instruction, and the first census question. How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010? The answer box instructs you to enter the “number of people”. All of the other questions are outside this blue area. I suspect that this is somehow connected to the fact that this is the only question the government is allowed to ask in order to fulfill its Constitutional mandate.

The second question is downright insulting. Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1. Is it just me, or is our government accusing us of lying, or being stupid, or both? The remaining questions appear to be rather innocuous, asking for phone number, name, age, and ethnic origins. These questions are so simple that even a caveman could fill it out. (Do I apologize to Geico or cavemen?) Many people will undoubtedly argue, “I have nothing to hide, so why shouldn’t I provide these answers” The question remains – why does the government feel it needs this information? I’ve learned to be very suspicious of anything the government does to “help me”, so I plan to answer only Question 1.

However, the best reason I can think of for limiting your response to the number of people living with you is to demonstrate our willingness to resist our government’s abuse of power. Very few people are willing to take up arms against the government at this time (although that number is certainly growing). Only a few more are willing to tear up their IRS 1040 form without sending it in, and the number of demonstrators at protest rallies is still an insignificant percentage of the population. But this! This is a form of protest that almost everyone can (and should) participate in. This is peaceful, passive resistance in it’s purest form – not to mention that it caters to our tendency to procrastinate. Keeping in mind that except for one notable exception, none of our members of Congress truly represent us anymore anyway, so there really isn’t much justification for wasting the time to fill out this population survey.

If you’re still not disgusted enough to join this protest on principle, perhaps the instructions on the back page will push you over the edge. The government offers a toll-free number “If you need help completing this form”. I got your form! Right here!

You can read the article here.  His site, Constitution Preservation, lists the constitution classes he will be conducting throughout America.  His class is also on DVD if you cannot attend in person and can be purchased on his site.

Related posts:

1. Rob Pastore Meet & Greet, Question and Answer, March 27th., Valparaiso, Indiana.

Every person elected to office has to swear on oath to uphold the constitution. No politician should have any problem with a review of any legislation to make sure that the federal government is not overstepping the limited powers granted to them by the people.

Pete Visclosky and Evan Bayh each voted FOR this federal takeover with Bayh voting ‘yes’ twice. Their pal Ben Nelson, the guy who got Nevada a sweet payoff deal in exchange for his yes vote on healthcare reform asked all of the AG’s to ‘call off the dogs‘

Meanwhile, you can add the Indiana’ s AG to the list that Ben Nelson originally complained about. You have the republican party to thank for growing a set and demanding that the federal government and the dems currently in control of America be held accountable for their proposed takeover of 1/6th of our economy via this healthcare legislation.

The entire article can be found here.

A snip is posted below.

WASHINGTON — At the request of some Indiana Republicans, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is reviewing the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul bill passed by the Senate last month.

Several Republican senators say the bill’s requirement that most people buy insurance or face a penalty violates the Constitution’s ban on taking private property for public purposes without just compensation.
Advertisement

Republicans also say a provision that could treat some insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan differently violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause.

Republicans used those arguments to back procedural challenges to the Senate’s bill but were defeated in party-line votes before the Senate approved the bill on another party-line vote.

In a letter to Zoeller on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., wrote that because votes on procedural challenges took place only five days after the bill’s final language was made public, there was not enough time to study the constitutional issues.

Indiana law allows the attorney general to make “any reasonable or appropriate investigation or study” of federal legislation when asked to do so by a member of the state’s congressional delegation.

“This little-known provision in state law was intended for a circumstance such as this, where proposed federal legislation could have a sweeping impact on state government,” Zoeller said.

Zoeller said he will look at other issues not specifically requested in Lugar’s letter, including a provision added by Democrats to gain the support of Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson. The federal government would pick up all of Nebraska’s share of the cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid but pay only for most of the expansion in other states.

In that same article it says,

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a self-described progressive legal association, has written a brief arguing that the bill’s insurance mandate is constitutional because Congress has the authority to regulate commerce and set taxes.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that he doesn’t think “that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the legislation.”

When you read the word ‘progressive’ read ’socialist’. The socialist party took on the mantra of ‘progressive’ because it was a politically sexy word that hid who they are and covers up what they really want to do.

I say that there is no way the feds can hide behind the commerce clause in that this healthcare legislation demands and requires the people to purchase something, and that is it’s own right is unconstitutional. What is next? The feds own GM, and GM’s profits are falling, so the feds say ” From now until the end of 2011, the only cars available for your purchase will be GM cars.” ?

Related posts:

1. Indiana Attorney General to Join Lawsuit against Obamacare health care reform

Watch Judge Napolintano describe his conversation with Rep James Clyburn, a democrat from South Carolina.

Now you understand the size of the job we have in front of us and the years it will take to restore the Republic of America. We have to VOTE THEM OUT, ignore party lines and select and elect persons who are willing to work toward a constitutional state.

Related posts:

1. Sept. 17th, Constitution Day

As We The People are gathering at town halls, on the streets, in front of the offices of our non-representatives in the House and Senate, as we write, call, fax and build coalitions, as we do all of that and more we still have much work to do. Many times I have heard people talk about how the Constitution is being destroyed. Congress has over-stepped it’s limits many times and in the wake of their actions we have legislation, limits and laws in place that only serve to give more power and control into the hands of the Feds while ignoring the original premise of The Constitution.  The Constitution was written so that the Federal Government has LESS power than the States, LESS power than The People and now we have the States begging for ‘grant’ money, federal funds and in turn operating the State under a weighty burden of Federal mandates.

It is all upside-down. The People have the most power, then the State and last is the Federal government. Look around you and who has the power now? Are you afraid of the Federal government? The IRS? If the Federal Government send out a mandate, say for how to school your children, does your State tell them to buzz off of do you receive a notice that your taxes are increasing because there is an added cost to comply with the Federal mandate? Why is you State NOT telling the Feds to buzz off? The States, according to the Constitution have MORE power than the Feds? When did all of this get reversed and The People ended up with the least power? How did that happen?  How do we fix that?

So, the Continental Congress has this purpose, as stated on their website:

PURPOSE OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

The purpose of Continental Congress 2009 is to determine a legal and peaceful means to stop the violations of The Constitution of The United States of America and to restore Constitutional governance.

Visit the sites below, Dr. Kate, The Dame Truth and get the lowdown from folks just like me and you. They are there and are writing about the CC2009 as it happens. We need and rely on people such as those that are taking two weeks out of their lives to work toward righting America.

Dr. Kate is a representative attending the convention and she is writing about it here.
Visit her site and scroll down to read the entries covering the events. The Dame Truth is another great blogger who is a representative and she blogs here.
She also has a radio program and is a great resource for information.

The convention is being streamed over the Internet at This Link. Take a listen and watch the Continental Congress 2009 in action. You can also click on the map shown on that link and see who is representing your state. While you are there drop a dollar in the donation bucket. These are real people, not a corporation, lobbying firm or a political party. They need your help.

Related posts:

1. Visclosky & Donnelly voted yes to approve H R 3221 Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.

It seems to me that the constitution was written to protect the people from the federal government , but today it is being used against the people by the federal government. Politicians wield their legislation as a weapon against the people. The constitution has become so twisted, while we slept, that now the very document we desire to preserve, is being used by politicians to hold onto the power that the constitution sought to never allow them to have.  Only a tattered document allows them to punish and batter the people. They are the ones who placed the constitution in tatters and now sit in power, lording over the people in lieu of defending the constitution and being servants to the people.

The people are awakening and there is much work to do. Our Congress is corrupt and we are fighting to preserve America and we never thought that those sworn to defend the constitution would be the ones fighting against us. We must arm ourselves with knowledge.

Dr Kate outlines:

The Assault Revealed

Utilizing both the ‘political question’ and the ’standing’  issue,
the Courts seem to be, at their discretion, dismissing key
Constitutional questions, including the WTP’s  petitions to the
government under the First Amendment and legal proceedings under
Articles II  and IV of the Constitution.

It has been implemented over history under the guise of ‘checks and
balances’, but appears to be a convenient tool for ’stacked’ courts to
avoid key questions or upsetting the true balance of power
right now.  It certainly seems a potential avenue to influence judges.
At the very least it creates a power vacuum into which nefarious
politicos readily enter.”

Clear Signs

Like Paul Revere, we are looking for signs of which way they are coming, ‘one if by land, two if by sea’.  If you begin to see more and more Constitutional issues being thrown out by Courts using the ‘political question’, or even suspicious uses of ’standing’, understand that the Courts are infected too. Yes, as if we didn’t already know that.

But also, these signs just require us to be vigilant in thinking everything all the way through.  Legal preparation, cases, and tactics must be impeccable.  And, our strategies must be coordinated, effective, and aimed at outmaneuvering them on the avenue by which they come.

Read the entire article with comments here http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/the-political-question/

Titled:

The ‘Political Question’

©2009 drkate

In my earlier article on the First Amendment, 912, and the Continental Congress 2009,
I suggested that Article IV, or the “Guarantee Clause”, was an
important underlying principle of protecting our ‘republican form of
government’, and could prevent the assault on our current
Constitutional Republic by fiat or decree by Congress or the
Executive.  Specifically, Article IV Section 4 states:

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.

I initially read this to mean that the Federal government cannot move this country to a socialist form of government, because it was required to ensure to each state a government that was a republic.

More Questions

In reading further,
however, another layer of assault on our Constitutional Republic is
revealed, as the Courts employ the ‘judicial invention’ of the
‘political question’ to avoid court review of the exercise of governmental power:

As with other judicial doctrines created by the Court, the rule is interpretive and self-imposed.
It is neither a result of legislation nor a part of the U.S.
Constitution, although it appears to emanate from the Constitution’s Separation of Powers.
The Court created the political question doctrine as part of the
broader concept of justiciability—the issue of whether a matter is
appropriate for court review.

The doctrine was first articulated in 1803 by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney:

“federal courts should leave certain constitutional
questions to the legislative and executive branches in any matter that
is “a political question to be settled by the political power.“

Otherwise known as, ‘political process’.  When the We the People Foundation’s
petitions for redress under the First Amendment were dismissed by a
federal court under the ‘political question’ doctrine, founder Bob
Shultz rightly critiqued that the First Amendment rights of American
citizens under the U.S. Constitution were not guaranteed, but were
instead up for a vote by the very government it was petitioning.

While the Court has not ducked all publicly sensitive issues (see rulings on Abortion and Affirmative Action),
the blatant dismissal of  WTP’s First Amendment right is troubling. The
Courts would appear to have the discretion to dismiss important public
questions, and Constitutional cases,  under the guise of the ‘political
question’.  This sounds similar to the use of the judicially invented
doctrine of  ’standing’ to avoid the Constitutional question presented by the eligibility cases.

In the important case  New York v. United States
[112 S.Ct. 2408, 2432–2433 (1992)], Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited
Section 4 of Amendment IV as limiting the federal government’s ability
to commandeer state officers to implement federal law.  In addition to Gregory v. Ashcroft[ 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991),

The opinions draw support from a powerful argument
for utilizing the guarantee clause as a judicially enforceable limit on
federal power (Source:
Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a
Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988)).

The Assault Revealed

Utilizing both the ‘political question’ and the ’standing’  issue,
the Courts seem to be, at their discretion, dismissing key
Constitutional questions, including the WTP’s  petitions to the
government under the First Amendment and legal proceedings under
Articles II  and IV of the Constitution.

It has been implemented over history under the guise of ‘checks and
balances’, but appears to be a convenient tool for ’stacked’ courts to
avoid key questions or upsetting the true balance of power
right now.  It certainly seems a potential avenue to influence judges.
At the very least it creates a power vacuum into which nefarious
politicos readily enter.

The Kerchner v. Obama case, which was discussed extensively here, has not been granted a decision yet by the Court, although it was promised in early August.  This is late by the standards and practices of the Court and by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although Obama has not raised the ‘political question’ in his defense,
I am sure he has thought about this argument.  What do you want to bet
that the judges in the eligibility cases are thinking about using this
tool in ducking a Constitutional question, or delaying until sufficient
Supreme Court justices are in place to secure a ‘political resolution’
to the issue?

Indeed, our hapless senators and representatives, the foolish obots,
and the democrats continue to insist that ‘the election is over, get
over it, he’s our president’, as if our very Constitution was subject
to the ballot box.  The judge who dismissed the Hollister case cited
‘twitter’ as definitive proof that Obama had been vetted.

This is the subtle use of the ‘political question’, which now seems
applicable to an array of dangers we face as Obama and the democrats
nationalize the banking and auto industries, and attempt to do the same
with the health care and energy industries.  This is a move to change
the fundamental basis of our government from one of a Republic, and
capitalism, to a  ‘democratic’ socialist economy run by ‘majority
rule’, or ‘elite’ rule, or ‘government rule’.

When challenged in court, will health insurance reform, which may be at its core unconstitutional,
or the cap and tax legislation, or attempts to nationalize industries,
be ruled as ‘political questions’ and not subject to review by the
Courts?  Is the Constitution up for a vote?

What is the line between Obama’s discretion as the so-called
Executive, traditionally covered by ‘the political question’,  in
foreign policy, and purposeful disarmament of America to enable our
enemies to attack us (treason)?

Clear Signs

Like Paul Revere, we
are looking for signs of which way they are coming, ‘one if by land,
two if by sea’.  If you begin to see more and more Constitutional
issues being thrown out by Courts using the ‘political question’, or
even suspicious uses of ’standing’, understand that the Courts are
infected too. Yes, as if we didn’t already know that.

But also, these signs just require us to be vigilant in thinking
everything all the way through.  Legal preparation, cases, and tactics
must be impeccable.  And, our strategies must be coordinated,
effective, and aimed at outmaneuvering them on the avenue by which they
come.

Paul Revere on “Big Brown”

Related posts:

1. Sept. 17th, Constitution Day

This event is a piece of the United States history.  The current administration has control of most media outlets. We are able to view the lack of coverage from, for example, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN as indicators that we can no longer see the truth or hear the news from those agencies. The current administration has swallowed them up and they are now the mouthpiece for government controlled information. Can anyone say North Korea, Venezuela? State controlled media is here in the USA. Obama recently added a FCC czar. Do the math folks. The intent and purpose of this FCC czar is to control the information given to the American People and ‘redistribute’ the media airwaves to state controlled left wing organizations. They have already begun the process and that is another post to be aired down the road.

So much BS, so little time.

Here is another video I took of the march. There were waves and waves of people.  During the march, as we walked down Pennsylvania Avenue, we heard a rumble, sounding like a low roar, with the sound getting louder as it neared. We couldn’t make out what was being said until the wave of the chant neared us. It became clear that the crowd was saying, “You Lie. You Lie.” and we joined in as the wave became us and those in front of us caught the wave and picked it up. It was a very surreal experience, very moving and powerful.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We can easily say that 2 million patriots attend this historic event. Zac Moilanen calculates the number to be

Zac Moilanen – Indiana University (Leave it up to a Hoosierite) has a PDF HERE outlining the calculations for The Real Number of Protesters at the 9/12 Washington, D.C. March. Considering that the government and the State run media refuse to report accurately, Zac took up the project.

1,982,760

That is the number from Zac’s analysis.

Click here for Cspan’s live coverage of 912dc March on Washington.

“I got One Nerve Left and you’re on it.”

Related posts:

1. 912dc- Panoramic Photo – March on Washington

Below is a copy of a post from the Tenth Amendment Center:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
–Patrick Henry

This Constitution Day, Try Something New: Ignore the Feds!

Posted on 16 September 2009

by Michael Boldin

There’s plenty of federal holidays for Americans to celebrate.  On July 4th, there’s independence from King George’s England.  On the first Monday in September, a holiday was dedicated to the “social and economic achievements of American workers.”  Other days throughout the year celebrate autumn harvest, soldiers who died in the civil war and even a person who sailed to this continent nearly three centuries before the country was “founded.”

When there’s no federally-sanctioned holiday to call upon, protesters and activists across the political spectrum often pick “important” dates to schedule events to bring attention to their cause.  We’ve seen protests on Tax Day, Independence Day, May Day, Earth Day, and more.  And, just last week, we saw great importance placed on a day that doesn’t even have a letter in its name, 9/12.

But nowhere to be found on these great lists of “federal holidays” or “protest days” is a celebration of the document that defined the principles of liberty that this country was supposedly founded upon – the Constitution.

LIMITING POWER

The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, and every year that date passes by with hardly a sound.  Sure, now that it’s considered a day of “federal observance” you’ll find government schools around the country including it in their lesson plans.  But these discussions generally focus on “Constitution Trivia” instead of what’s really important. While it may be good to educate our young on how many years a Senator serves, or how Supreme Court justices are appointed, it’s not enough.  Seriously lacking in the public discourse is the actual purpose of the Constitution – its underlying principles.

When the Constitution was being considered for ratification, there was strong opposition from famous American figures that included George Mason and Patrick Henry. One major reason for this was a fear of too much power.  The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny – a government without limits.  But, when the Constitution was written, it was done to codify in law that the powers of government would be limited to those which had been delegated to it.  The entire system was created under the principle of popular sovereignty – that ‘We the People of the Several States’ created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained.

But that’s not something you’re likely to hear from politicians in Washington DC, political pundits, schools, or just about anywhere else.  It’s generally not in their interest, either.  If politicians and their backers were promoting such crazy ideas as “originalism” and “limited government” they’d never be able to convince you that they have the power to tell you what kind of health care plan you’ll be getting, how big your toilet can be, what kind of plants you’re allowed to grow, where you’re allowed to exercise your “right” to free speech, whom you can buy and sell from, and even when you must send your children to die for them.

MORE OF THE SAME

Throughout history, even kings and queens have often failed to survive such acts of hubris; but, in “free” America, the major parties that produce all the presidents continue to receive approval through tens of millions of votes.  And where has that gotten people?

Well, let’s take a look at some major issues.

If you were opposed to war in the Bush administration, you’ve still got the same wars and threats of wars under Obama.

If you were opposed to national health care under Clinton, you got a massive expansion of government health care under George Bush, which laid the groundwork for an even bigger expansion under Obama.

If you didn’t like the federal government passing the Patriot Act without even reading it, you’re still getting the same failure to read today.

On the other hand, if you liked the Bush bailouts, you’ve gotta love the ones that Obama has given you!

No matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, the federal government is not your friend.  It’s not a friend to the Constitution, and it’s certainly no friend to your liberty.  For years and years…and years, people have yelled “vote the bums out!”  “Call Congress now!”  “March on DC!”  But, in the long run, little to none of this actually works.

If you oppose this national health care plan, they’ll give you that one.  If you oppose one war, you’ll get another one. If you oppose today’s bailout, they’ll find a different one tomorrow.  Decade in and decade out, the government keeps growing, and your liberty keeps shrinking.  And it doesn’t matter if the person in charge is named Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Clinton.

The bottom line?  Looking to the federal government – whether it’s though elections, or protests, or lawsuits, or rallies – is a failed strategy.   So how about trying something new?

A DIFFERENT PATH: NULLIFICATION

This year, for example, seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Two states passed laws nullifying some federal firearms regulations. Three states are considering constitutional amendments allowing residents to effectively opt-out of any future national health care plan. And, thirteen states now have Medical Marijuana laws in direct opposition to federal laws.

In Jeffersonian-speak, this all falls under the banner of “nullification.”  When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

While some in government and the media would like to paint this essential tool for resisting federal tyranny as solely aligned with the South in the War Between the States – and nothing more, they’re missing some essential history.  It’s been used in efforts to advance free speech, help runaway slaves, resist high taxes and more.

And recently, the Bush-Era Real ID Act is now virtually dead in the water, not due to elections or rallies, or calls to Congress.  In the past two years, approximately two dozen states simply refused to implement the law.  The result?  It’s effectively null and void.  While the Obama administration would like to revive it under a different name, the reality is still there – with massive state-level resistance, the federal government can be pushed back inside its constitutional box.  Issue by issue, law by law, the best way to change the federal government is by ignoring it.

Even better, this is no single-issue movement.  Legislators in over 20 states are considering legislation to nullify some federal gun laws, and another 10 are looking at ways to nullify national health care.  15 states are weighing legislation or ballot initiatives that could turn them into medical marijuana states by next year, and activists in over a dozen states have been pushing for legislation that would require their governors to bring national guard troops home from Iraq and elsewhere.

Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself.  I believe it’s time for people to recognize this as fact, and bring that enforcement closer to home.

So whether you’re on the left, or on the right, or even somewhere in the middle, the path to freedom, the path to your political goals lies not in Washington D.C.  Instead, it lies in Madison, and Jefferson (City)…and other state capitols around the country.

So this Constitution Day take a new pledge.  Ignore and nullify the federal government.  It’s as worthless as it is dangerous.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Related posts:

1. Article IV of the Constitution, the “Guarantee Clause”