Cheryl Oprisko would have you believe that they are extremists, akin to terrorists who serve to incite violence. Really Cheryl? America disagrees with you.

Related posts:

1. Cheryl Oprisko of the Portage Indiana High School Board declares that Northwest Indiana Patriots are Extremist. Declares Portage JROTC should be banned from carrying the Colors.

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

When, in the history of America, have we ever allowed a person who is so unknown to us in so many ways, who refuses to share who he is, where he came from, how he lived his life, yet shows us who he is through proxy of associations, when have we ever allowed that person to hold the office of President?  How deep was this plot to elect an unknown with ties and associations, some of them lifelong, to persons and corporations that we know work to destroy the freedoms of America.

How did this happen?  How do we stop it now and prevent another takeover, another ‘transformation’ in the future?

Here is the article:

The Fundamental Transformation of America

(I’ve asked Sergeant Bancroft for the name of his friend. Illustrations by Robert Hefner)

When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank (Frank Marshall Davis), an avowed Communist, people said it didn’t matter.

When it was discovered that his grandparents were strong socialist, sent Obama’s mother to a socialist school and introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama, people said it didn’t matter.

When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims, people said it didn’t matter.

When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,” people said it didn’t matter..

When in his book Obama admittedly said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn’t matter.

When he traveled to Pakistan after college on an unknown national passport, people said it didn’t matter.

When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, people said it didn’t matter.

When Obama sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, people said it didn’t matter.

When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records gave him the distinctive title as the “most liberal senator”, people said it didn’t matter.

When the Palestinians in Gaza set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, people said it didn’t matter.

When his voting record supported gun control, people said it didn’t matter.

When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign as other candidates had done people said it didn’t matter.

When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Moammar Kadafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

When it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.

When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter..

When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.

When he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.

When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.

When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.

When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisers who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.

When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues, people said it didn’t matter.

When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.

When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.

When the place of his birth was called into question and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.

When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezko, a man of questionable character who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home, people said it didn’t matter.

When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

When he started appointing czars who are radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist, people said it didn’t matter.

When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.

When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.

When he appointed a cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialist, people said it didn’t matter.

When he appointed a science czar John Holdren who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.

When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in “Explicit Consent” harvesting human organs with out family consent and to allow animals to be represented in court while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter..

When he appointed Kevin Jennings a homosexual,and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.

When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama’s senior White House adviser and she is an avowed Socialist, people said it didn’t matter.

When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.

When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and Trade as the nations largest tax, people said it doesn’t matter.

When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar who was forced to resign when Jones history was made known, people said it didn’t matter.

When Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for health and human services secretary, could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.

When as a counterfeit president of the United States Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.

When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.

When his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over America’s long time friend Israel, people said it doesn’t matter.

When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it doesn’t matter.

When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it doesn’t matter.

When Obama played politics in Afghanistan by not sending our troops what field commanders said we needed to win, people said it didn’t matter.

When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.

When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks and other financial institutions, people said it didn’t matter.

When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.

When he designed plans to take over the healthcare system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.

When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn’t matter.

When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State people finally woke up……… but it was too late.

Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph.

Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America? Personally, I like happy endings.

If you are an Obama supporter please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist but there are too many facts supporting this.

If you seek the truth you will be richer for it.

Don’t just belittle the opposition.

Search for the truth. I did.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish.

If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.

Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy.

Don’t rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the Internet.

Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies.

Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth?

Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason… He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn’t.

Please find the truth. It will set you free.

Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , Iran. No, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC .

Related posts:

1. The Fundamental Transformation of America

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

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”

If your plan for a government takeover of healthcare was such an honorable and beneficial plan, you would not be hitting the road and the airwaves, once again, campaigning, trying to pull wool over the people’s eyes. It doesn’t matter whether you disguise your intentions of a government controlled health care plan. It doesn’t matter what you call what you are doing.  Every proposed healthcare plan is currently unconstitutional.  Start telling the truth to the American people. ( I KNOW YOU don’t wanna hear those two words again, you know, the words blurted by Mr. Wilson.) Tell them that this latest healthcare revision still has the language that gives the Federal government control over healthcare and that you just mixed some words around to try and hide your motive.

Obama: ‘If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out’

Posted: September 9th, 2009 05:46 PM ET

EXCERPTS OF THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS TONIGHT:

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

**

[clipped]

***

This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

[end of clip]

Well, we accepted your challenge to the tune of 2 Million Americans from all walks of life. You had 810,000 people attend your coronation. The American people arrived on your doorstep Sept. 12th, 2009 numbering two times that amount, to tell you to ‘Knock it Off’.

We came. You left.

Here is a photo of us on Sept. 12th:

Here is a photo of you, leaving the White House Sept. 12th:

(I waved to you. Did you see me?)

Related posts:

1. 1,982,760 – Can you say Two Million? Can you hear us Now? 912dc March on Washington.

People from Northwest Indiana, patriots, concerned citizens from all over Indiana and the nation are gathering in Washington on Sept. 12th, 2009.  Please try to be there.  People are driving, chartering buses, flying.  Check around and you can hitch a ride and share a room.  You will not want to miss this historic event and the chance to have your voice be one with millions.

Check out info here: http://912dc.org/

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. 1,982,760 – Can you say Two Million? Can you hear us Now? 912dc March on Washington.