It has become clear the Federal government is the driving force behind the financial troubles of the States; every Federal incentive is for the States to overspend as explained in The Nature of the Beast, and What went wrong with our Republic.

Who benefits when the States go bankrupt?

This recent article from the New York Times lets the cat out of the bag.

“Some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.”

Do what General Motors DID? Would the Federal government now come in and OWN the State thus replacing the Governor with a hand-picked buddy of the President? Would the State Legislature be dissolved and replaced with advisors to the President? Or would it all be done behind the scenes as a “shadow government” to let us keep the illusion of a Republic?

Introduced to committee; the public hearing not yet set, the General Court of New Hampshire will consider this legislation to use the lawful and Constitutional powers of the State to shield the people of New Hampshire from the illegal and un-Constitutional expansion of the Federal government. I will keep you updated when the public hearings are set.

The question is “What will a free and sovereign people do?” We must support our State Legislators!

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT prohibiting interference with access to medical services and health insurance of New Hampshire citizens.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Findings.

I. The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

II. The Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

III. Each State acceded to the compact titled the Constitution for the United States of America as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party.

IV. The State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised.”

V. The other States that included recommendations: Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change.

VI. These recommended changes were incorporated as the Ninth Amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the Tenth Amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America.

VII. The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, all remaining powers for their own self-government.

VIII. The construction applied by the general government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution. Such words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.

IX. Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

X. No power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people. Furthermore, also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, freedom of speech and of the press, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

XI. All acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force.

XII. The Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, and slavery, and no other crimes.

XIII. All acts of Congress, the orders of the Executive or orders of the Judiciary which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

XIV. The State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “Twelfth Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.”

XV. The other States that included recommendations: New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

XVI. These recommended changes were incorporated as the second amendment.

XVII. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in Heller v. The District of Columbia, (2008), that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right of the people.

XVIII. All acts of Congress, the orders of the Executive or orders of the Judiciary which assume to regulate or license the owner ship of firearms manufactured, sold and held within the jurisdiction of any State are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to regulate or license the owner ship of firearms manufactured, sold and held within the jurisdiction of any State is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory subject to the limitations of its own Constitution.

XIX. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states.

XX. All compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding are prohibited.

XXI. The Constitution for the United States of America, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 gives Congress the authority to authorize inferior officers of the government of the United States of America not enumerated in the Constitution by law and for them to be appointed by the manner proscribed by law enacted by the Congress, and that the Constitution gives not such authority to the President.

XXII. No officer not authorized by Constitution or by law or exercising a power not authorized by the Constitution, nor their subordinates shall have any authority in, or over the sovereign State of New Hampshire, nor any inhabitant or resident thereof, nor any franchises created under the authority thereof when within the borders of the State of New Hampshire.

XXIII. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

XXIV. The Legislatures and Legislators of the several States have the right and duty to consider the constitutionality of any legislative act or order promulgated by the government of the United States of America; and to protect their governments, inhabitants, and residents and instruments created under their authority by prohibiting, and if necessary punishing the enforcement of any Acts by the Congress of the United States of America, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a prohibition or punishment include, but are not limited to:

(a) Requiring the States to create a national identification card system.

(b) Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(c) Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

(d) Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

(e) Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

XXV. The Constitution for the United States, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution for the United States of America Article 1, Section 8 delegates no power to Congress regarding health care or medicine. Therefore, all laws, statutes, rules and regulations regulating the health care of the citizens of the States, not employed by the United States are not pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, and are not part of the supreme law of the land, and are not binding upon the citizens of the state.

XXVI. Any act, order, law, statute, regulation or rule restricting the ability of New Hampshire citizens to contract with health care professionals or facilities for the provision of health care services or to contract with corporations providing health insurance authorized by the State of New Hampshire for health insurance is unconstitutional, void and of no force. Any attempt to enforce such a law is an affront to the Sovereignty of the States and their Citizens.

2 New Chapter; Health Care Choices. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 415-J the following new chapter.

CHAPTER 415-K

HEALTH CARE CHOICES

415-K:1 Definitions. In this chapter:

I. “Health care professional” means any physician, chiropractor, dentist, nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, nurse, dental assistant, midwife, or naturopath, or any other person recognized to practice medicinal arts or sciences in New Hampshire.

II. “Health care facility” means any hospital, clinic, physician’s office, chiropractor’s office, dentist’s office or any other facility licensed by the State of New Hampshire to provide medical services or for health care professionals to practice medicinal arts or sciences.

III. “Health insurance provider” means any corporation authorized by the insurance commissioner of the State of New Hampshire to contract with residents of New Hampshire, or sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations located in New Hampshire.

415-K:2 Interference Prohibited.

I. Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, or withholds medical services from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire or withholds medicines or medical treatment from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

II. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, or withholds medical services from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire or withholds medicines or medical treatment from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

III. Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, voids or administers penalties for a contract between a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire and a health insurance provider authorized to business in New Hampshire based upon a law, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

IV. Any public servant of the of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, voids, or administers penalties for a contract between a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire and a health insurance provider authorized to business in New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

3 Copies Required. Three copies of this act shall be transmitted by the house clerk of the New Hampshire house of representatives to the President of the United States, the presiding members each chamber of the Congress of the United States, and the chief executive and the presiding members of the legislature of each State comprising the United States of America.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

LBAO

11-0084

01/04/11

Another interesting bill introduced in New Hampshire HB 146.

This bill states that in all criminal proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its inherent right to judge the law as well as the facts and to nullify any and all actions they find to be unjust. The court is also mandated to permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right of jury nullification to the jury.

Next/Last Hearing:

01/27/2011 at 11:00 AM    LOB 208

Be there if to support this one if you can!

As covered earlier in A Gift from John Adams, CACR 4 has been introduced to committee.

This constitutional amendment-concurrent resolution requires that persons elected to the United States Senate and House of Representatives shall take the oath of civil officers prescribed by the New Hampshire constitution.

Whereas the Constitution for the United States does not prohibit this requirement; under the 9^th and 10^th amendments we have the right and the authority to require this. This bill is scheduled for hearing in the House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs on 1/27/2011 9:30 AM at LOB 203 Be there to support it! Be sure your State legislators know you support this!

If passed by the House and Senate of New Hampshire; voters will have a ballot question on the next general election that reads as follows:

(Bold and Underline added by me)

 “Are you in favor of amending article 84 of the second part of the Constitution to read as follows:

[Art.] 84. [Oath of Civil Officers.] Any person chosen Governor, Councilor, member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives, Senator, or Representative, military or civil officer, (town officers excepted) accepting the trust, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the State of New Hampshire, and will support the Constitution thereof and the Constitution for the United States of America. So help me God.

I, A.B. do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as …………………………………………., according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Constitution and laws of the State of New Hampshire. So help me God.

Any person having taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance, and the same being filed in the secretary’s office, he shall not be obliged to take said oath again.

Provided always, when any person chosen or appointed as aforesaid shall be of the denomination called Quakers, or shall be scrupulous of swearing, and shall decline taking the said oaths, such person shall take and subscribe them, omitting the word “swear,” and likewise the words “So help me God,” subjoining instead thereof, “This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury.”

View the entire text of the bill here.

New Hampshire; doing the job our Federal government just won’t do.

New Hampshire, restoring accountability to the Federal Senate! This bill was heard before the house election law committee today.

The general court, by an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of both houses voting separately, may submit the question “Shall Senator ___________ be recalled from the United States Senate?” to the qualified voters of the state. The question shall appear on the ballot at the next state general election. If a majority of those voters voting on the question vote “yes,” the office that is the subject of the question shall be vacant and shall be filled in accordance with RSA 661:5.

Full text of HB 73 – AS INTRODUCED

Introduced to committe today January 18, 2011.

Acting under the authority of the 9^th, 10^th, and 2^nd amendments to the Constitution for the United States; and the authority of articles 2, 2-a, and 7 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

Articles 2 and 7 of the New Hampshire bill of rights were established in 1784 before the Constitution for the United States was ratified; guaranteeing that New Hampshire citizens had the right to defend and protect life and property and that these rights would not be superseded by the powers granted to the Congress of the United States of America, such that when New Hampshire ratified the United States constitution these rights were clearly understood to exist in the State of New Hampshire.

Article 2 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, effective June 2, 1784; Natural Rights: All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

Article 7 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, effective June 2, 1784; State Sovereignty: The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, effective December 1, 1982; The Bearing of Arms: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The State of New Hampshire declares that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

A firearm manufactured or sold in New Hampshire under this chapter shall have the words “Made in New Hampshire” clearly stamped, inscribed, or otherwise marked on a central part of the firearm, such as the receiver or frame.

Any public servant of the state of New Hampshire that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

This shall apply to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in this chapter, and retained in New Hampshire after January 1, 2012.

You can read the text of HB 125 here.

*******

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)

*******

The New Hampshire Firearms Freedom Bill – HB125 is being heard tomorrow January 18^th at 10:30 am in room 206 of the Legislative office building.

You can read the text of HB 125 here.

                In the Federalist papers number 37 James Madison talks about the meaning of words, and the boundaries between the objects of government; it becomes clear as you read his thoughts on this subject that careful deliberation was taken by the founders as to which words were used in describing the power structure of our great republic.

                Key objects were defined such as “the people”, “the United States”, “the several States”, and “the States”. There is consistency throughout the Constitution for the United States for the definition of these words and the application of delegated power; for we find there is no ambiguity when power is being delegated as to which object receives such power. The Constitution for “the United States” declares in article V that any changes to this compact between the States must be ratified by three-fourths of the States.

                Consider this statement from article 3 section 1 “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court” Do we find ourselves left with any question about the object being discussed? It is clear “the United States” is the object and they are talking about “the judicial power” of “the United States” also known as “the Federal government”. Can there be any question if the founders really meant “the People” are to have the judicial power of the one Supreme Court? Nay, this is an obvious absurdity.

                The United States as an object exists “between” and surrounding “the States”; it is the borders of the States and Washington D.C. it’s self. To leave any one of the States you must cross the domain of “the United States”, Like an ice-cube tray the Federal government is the tray its self, not the contents. The phrase “the United States” occurs 55 times throughout the Constitution for the United States; each and every occurrence where a grant of delegated power is concerned there is no ambiguity as to the recipient of said power; “the United States” as an object does not share these grants of power with any other object, not “the People” and not “the States.”

                Why then do we find questions and ambiguity when restrictions are placed on “the Federal Government?” Consider the following:

                Article I section 8 “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

                The object called “the United States” is mentioned twice in this grant of power. The Constitution for the United States is talking about the “general Welfare” of the object known as “the Federal government”; as discussed earlier this object exists between and surrounding the States, it does not include “the States” or “the People”. This evidence is clear by the many grants of delegated power throughout the Constitution for “the United States”.

                When interpreting the general Welfare clause all three branches of the Federal government have expanded the definition of “the United States” to include “the People”; this merges the two objects into one. Why would the Federal government do this? The answer is simple; it gives the Federal government more power. Before this change of interpretation it was “the States” and “the People” who had the authority to create social programs for themselves; the power created by this changed interpretation is immense when coupled with the 16^th amendment (The IRS)

                Using rounded numbers in the year 2005 the Federal government took about 10 billion in taxes from the people of New Hampshire through the Federal income tax; about 8.5 billion was given back to the State of New Hampshire to run all of these Federal “general Welfare” programs for “the People”. As a condition of receiving that 8.5 billion of our own tax money “the United States” demanded New Hampshire spend 40 percent of its own 6 billion dollar State revenue on pet projects for “the United States”; these are called “unfunded mandates”, it is clear this is an usurpation of the sovereignty of “the States” as this is nothing more than extortion using our own money.

                Daniel Webster once argued before the Supreme Court “an unlimited power to tax involves necessarily, the power to destroy”; while he was arguing against the States taxing the central bank of the time his words still ring true today. Through the 16^th amendment and this interpretation of “the general Welfare” the Federal government has taken the financial power away from “the States” and “the People”. Think about it; New Hampshire can no longer raise enough money to provide our own “general Welfare” programs and MUST rely on the Federal government who tells us what to do because the combined Federal and State tax burden on “the People” is at the breaking point. The People have scarcely enough money for their own needs and charity suffers as a result. Seventy five percent of all State government spending in New Hampshire is directly controlled by “the United States” aka the Federal government.

                The only way the phrase in article I section 8 “general Welfare of the United States” can be construed to allow Federal programs for “the People” is to change the definition of “the United States” to include “the People.” When the definition of “the United States” is changed; it is changed for the object throughout the entire document, anything less is pure fantasy or trickery.

                As with any legal contract the objects of that contract have a definition that is consistent throughout the entire contract. “The United States” being the judge of its own powers has in effect altered the definition of “the United States” in one out of 55 occurrences in an attempt to usurp power from the other parties involved in the contract; “the States” and “the People.”

                If the Federal government wants to include “the People” in the general Welfare clause to expand its power, it must include “the People” in the grant of power; this new definition seems to be “the United States and the People” thus merging two objects from the Constitution into one; this is a dangerous game that brings in “the butterfly effect” which ultimately destroys the very fabric of the Constitution for the United States for we can now argue with certainty that if the Federal government defines “the United States” this way in article I section 8 we can apply their new definition the supremacy clause and claim new powers for “the people”.

                “This Constitution, and the Laws of [the United States] the United States and the People which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of [the United States] the United States and the People, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

                Is the Federal government really prepared to bring their dangerous game redefining the words of the Constitution for the United States to its logical conclusion? Redefining “the United States” as an object to mean “the United States and the People” is clearly a change to the Constitution for the United States and needs to be proposed as an amendment and ratified by the States. Was this change ratified by the States? The answer is clearly no; it is time for the Supreme Court of “the United States” to strike down this false definition and end this perversion.

                The Federal government seems to think that if they do not offer up an amendment and simply change the meaning of words through the Judicial branch, then without an amendment there is no document to ratify and the states are powerless to refuse it; this situation is not mentioned in the Constitution for the United States and therefore we are in uncharted waters; and events fall under the 9^th and 10^th amendments. The States have not been prohibited by the Constitution for the United States from finding a suitable remedy for this situation so it stands the test of reason to turn to the closest article in the Constitution for the United States for guidance.

                Article V requires a three-fourths majority of the States to ratify any amendment or change to the Constitution for the United States; therefore, when the Federal government makes changes and never proposes an amendment the rightful remedy in addition to nullification is for the several States to ratify an explicit rejection of this unwritten power grab and when the number of States ratifying this rejection equals the sum of one-fourth of the several States it will be clear this change has no hope of ever becoming part of the compact between the States, and the States themselves will strike down this perversion.

The repeal amendment states “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Today a two-thirds majority of State legislatures is required for a Constitutional Convention. We are talking about requiring the same majority needed for a Constitutional Convention to repeal a law the Federal government makes with only a fifty-one percent majority? The same super-majority would be required for a regulation created with no representation or vote by an unaccountable agency of the Federal government?

When put into perspective all States already individually have the authority to ignore laws or regulations that are unconstitutional; this is called Nullification. If the repeal amendment was to be proper in its role without diminishing the power States already have then consider this:

Three-fourths of the States are required to ratify an amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America; so only one-fourth is required to prevent ratification. We saw repeal in action with the real ID act; Nullified by many States and put on the shelf by the Federal government, it’s already there. The repeal amendment would allow in effect one-third of the States to abolish Nullification and hold the other two-thirds of the States hostage to anything the Federal government decides to do.

The biggest problem we face today is the Supreme Court changing the definition of the words used in the Constitution for the United States of America, the Federal legislative branch writes new laws according to these twisted definitions. For example: who among us really believes that “commerce between the States” includes activity and personal choices that never cross State lines? But that is what the Supreme Court ruled, and the Federal legislative branch uses it like a ratified amendment.

The makeup of the Supreme Court is controlled by the Federal Senate which has the power to approve and remove Federal Judges. This was by design because the Supreme Court was created to resolve disputes between the States and the Federal government. The Senate was essentially comprised of ambassadors from the States; this gave the States representation as to the makeup of the Supreme Court and Justice was served by representing the parties involved.

Today the Federal Senate does not represent the States at all; therefore the makeup of the Supreme Court does not have representation from the States, it only represents the Federal government. Is it any surprise that it’s stacked with Judges who favor the Federal government?

Before the 17^th amendment the State legislatures had the power to remove their Senators if they did not follow orders; you heard me correctly, before the 17^th amendment the States could ORDER their Senators to remove Supreme Court Justices who tried to change the meaning of the US Constitution. The States don’t care who picks the Federal Senators it is irrelevant compared to the power of removing them and forcing them to follow orders. If you really wanted to restore the balance of power then leave selection of Federal Senators with the people, but return the power to recall Senators to the State legislatures. Ask yourself when the last Federal Senator was removed from office for abuse of power? Do we really think that none have been deserving of this?

If the balance of power is to be restored then instead of wasting time on this repeal amendment which actually weakens the States lets instead focus on restoring the power of the State Legislatures for both removing corrupt Senators and Federal Judges.

Even without touching the 17^th amendment it would be good to transfer the power of removing Federal Judges from the Federal Senate to the State legislatures directly.

I was sipping my coffee with my morning re-read of the Constitution for the United States of America and I stumbled across this thought, and decided to share.

Notice this whole paragraph is talking about the people:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While this paragraph is talking about the States as a collective or the “United States”:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

To change this part of section 8 to mean “provide the general welfare of the people” the entire sentence would read like this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the people; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

This hardly makes sense and contradicts the very first paragraph which clearly says promote the general Welfare when talking about the people, and provide when talking about the States. How do we let the Federal government get away with changing parts of a sentence without re-reading the changed definitions as a whole? It’s obvious that before the 16^th amendment Federal taxation had to be through apportionment so obviously article 8 did not give the Federal government the power to collect taxes on the people or even lay Duties and etc on the people; nay, the subject of this paragraph is clearly the States of the Union.

And these people on the Supreme Court are supposed to be educated? I think not, more like political hacks! It just makes me want to go up there and honk one of their big red clown noses.