7 lies? It took me just moments to come up with these. That means there are way more than seven.
Even though there are few tough ones, I’m pretty sure you can smash these lies as easily as I can.
(1) The Constitution’s “general Welfare” clause means Congress can pass whatever it wants to supposedly “help” people around the country.
(2) A President is authorized to get involved in a foreign war without authorization from Congress, as long as it’s for no more than 60 days.
(3) Nullification is code word for “supporting slavery.”
(4) The government can conduct surveillance on anyone as long as they are doing so to protect “national security.”
(5) States are required to help the federal government enforce or enact federal “laws” or regulatory programs.
(6) James Madison opposed nullification, in every situation.
(7) Alexander Hamilton is the founder we should pay attention to more than anyone else.
Ask yourself, can you really give a strong answer to all of these?
If you can, I’m sure you know someone else who can’t.
Either way, we’ve published over TEN THOUSAND articles, blogs, news reports, podcasts and videos to smash these kinds of lies to bits.
That’s a ton of information that we’ve shared over the last 11 years.
We work to educate people on the proper role of government under the Constitution, and activate them to reject, resist and nullify all unconstitutional acts.
Nothing helps us get this work done more than the support of our members. And now through Monday night, we’re taking up to 50 percent off the price of our annual, 5-year and lifetime memberships.
We’ve got a LOT of work yet to do, but with your help, we can build a strong foundation for the Constitution and Liberty.
Join us:
http://shop.tenthamendmentcenter.com
-Michael Boldin, TAC
213.935.0553
This blog is featured in today’s Tenther newsletter, which everyone in the nullification movement gets daily or weekly. Be one of them – and Become a member here to support the TAC.
Didn’t realise this was a right-wing libertarian blog…
I personally would not care if it was right or left as both are proving themselves to be the enemies of the US Constitution, our LEGITIMATE government. Remember political parties (factions) were not supposed to be here BECAUSE the allow the influence of foreign nations/foreign entities into our politics. Because they cause division. Because, my reason, they gave themselves the “authority” to SELECT our candidates that we then get to choose from – very unAmerican and domestic enemish of them, don’t you think?
Alexander Hamilton: “We are attempting, by this Constitution, to abolish factions, and to unite all parties for the general welfare.” (Debates in the Convention of the State of New York on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Tuesday, June 25, 1788. In: Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton (Federal Edition), Vol. 2, New York, 1904, p. 57.)
John Adams: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
James Madison: “A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” (Federalist #10)
James Madison: “So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.” (Federalist 10)
John Adams: “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”
James Madison:”Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness…. No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys; the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.” (Federalist 14)
Alexander Hamilton: “Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” (Federalist 1, October 27, 1787)
George Washington on factions in his farewell presidential speech: ‘The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
You guys are liberal until it involves helping the poor with welfare? Here’s an idea, have a solution instead of complaining.
Welfare is state OR the peoples power, as it was NOT delegated to the federal government. But then the feds use much that they do not have delegated to them. Wars that are NOT declared by the Congress; foreign aid/foreign military aid/foreign aid to the arts/etc/etc (yeah, trillion or so when one tracks it down too long to list here) which instead could be used for the poor, for retirement, etc.
Remember that taxes on foreign trade was supposed to support our LIMITED (not ever expanding) federal government.
BTW, what are you doing in your own state regarding the color of law in lots of states that prevent one giving food to the poor, etc?
Food and housing, you people can’t do more than the state, if you did there would be no need for the state. So stop complaining.
Another brainwashed low information troll heard from.
Anyone who has actually read the US Constitution, the debates concerning its creation, the writings of the framers know those answers to the lies being fostered and enforced by those Domestic Enemies that SERVE WITHIN our governments – state and federal (general).
“The Constitution’s “general Welfare” clause means Congress can pass whatever it wants to supposedly “help” people around the country.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Congress (has) not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but (is) restrained to those specifically enumerated.”
James Wilson: “I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the enumerated powers are not as accurately and minutely defined, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language…nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, WHEN IT IS SAID THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER, THOSE WORDS ARE LIMITED AND DEFINED BY THE FOLLOWING, “FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS”, it is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given (enumerated), shall be effectually carried into execution.”
Gov. Samuel Johnston, North Carolina Ratifying Convention of the U.S. Constitution,1788: “When Congress makes a law in virtue of their constitutional authority, it will be an actual law. I do not know a more expressive or a better way of representing the idea by words. Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.”
Archibald Maclaine, North Carolina’s ratifying convention: “If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’”
Roger Sherman, early American lawyer and politician, and a Founding Father of the United States, moved to have the phrase added to the Constitution (his words here clarifies this modernly misunderstood clause. so it could be connected with the clause for laying taxes and duties. Sherman wanted to make it very clear
that taxes could only be collected for the enumerated powers, that the “objects of the Union” are “few”; and he listed them as “defence against foreign danger,” defense “against internal disputes & a resort to force,” and “regulating foreign commerce & drawing revenue from it” as the specified powers of the general (federal) government. It is imporant to know that this is consistent with Madison’s words from The Federalist and other of his written sources, plus was the absolute understanding that the other representatives held in the Philadelphia Convention and the state conventions afterwards.
Madison wrote regarding the General Welfare Clause’s plain meaning when objecting to a 1792 bill which called for subsidized fisheries. The General Welfare Clause was cited as justification to pass such a bill. Madison responded: “I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived – that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms.” By these words he made it clear that the phrase reiterated that the written specified powers were tied to “general terms.”.
One of the worst and most treasonous lies perpetuated today by our military “brass” so that they could remain in powerful postiions, for money, for status, etc.
“A President is authorized to get involved in a foreign war without authorization from Congress, as long as it’s for no more than 60 days.”
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, the Congress shall have the power: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 (the Congress shall have the power): “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.
Article 2, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Nay of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES;…”
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What,
Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” (caps are mine)
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS.“ (caps are mine)
[Duties that those that serve wtihin the state and federal governments have to the Militias of the several states] US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, THAT THE TOTAL STRENGTH OF THE COUNTRY MIGHT BE CALLED FORTH AT SHORT NOTICE ON ANY VERY INTERESTING EMERGENCY.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)
Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace AND FOR THE FIRST MOMENTS OF WAR, TILL THE REGULARS MAY RELIEVE THEM” and ALSO A GUARANTEE OF “THE SUPREMACY OF THE CIVIL OVER THE MILITARY AUTHORITY; [and] ECONOMY IN THE PUBLIC EXPENSE.” (Notice that the biggest expense is the US Military which is always expanding their demand for money, YET we have not been in a LAWFUL war sicne WW2 (if that one really was). But instead have been used to keep and grow the miltiary power structure – money, prestige, etc; defense corporations, banking, all UNLAWFULLY as all Oath takers should know.
Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”
Tench Coxe, ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal
Gazette, June 18, 1789: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our
country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
Editorial on Gage’s proclamation stressed that an ARMED and TRAINED in the use of those arms POPULACE must keep government in check: “The opposing an arbitrary measure, or resisting an illegal force, is no more rebellion than to refuse obedience to a highway-man who demands your purse, or to fight a wild beast, that came to devour you. It is morally lawful, in all limited governments, to resist that force that wants political power, from the petty constable to theking…. They are rebels who arm against the constitution, not they who defend it by arms.” (“A Freeman,” PA. EVENING POST, June 27, 1775, at 2. [Vol. 7:2])
Nullification is code word for “supporting slavery.”
No, it is how we are to keep those who serve within our governments in check until they push it so far that we must remove and replace them in whatever manner is necessary – charges and arrests as constitutionally required if recalls, etc do not work.
James Madison, Federalist 45: “The POWERS DELEGATED by the proposed constitution OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ARE FEW AND DEFINED. Those which are to remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite. The former (federal government) will be exercised principally on external objects, a war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.”
KrisAnne Hall: “Nullification is a constitutional solution not because it is enumerated per se, but because the Constitution is a contract (technically a compact) among the States that created the federal government. The States are the parties to the Constitutional Contract and the federal government is the PRODUCT of that contract. Inherent in EVERY contract is the right of the parties to that contract to control the product of the contract. The States are the representatives of the people in this contract and have a DUTY to keep the federal government within its constitutional boundaries and thus protecting the rights of the people. It is inherent in the very nature of the Constituion. Nullification is that act of the PEOPLE through their States to keep the federal government within in its “limited and defined” boundaries and should be as regularly carried out as an oil change in your car.
Madison states this principle again in Federalist 49: “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived; it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government; but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of theothers.””
Then there is also jury nullification;
1st Chief Justice, John Jay, said to the first jury in Georgia v. Brailsford, on the occasion of the first Supreme Court trial held in the new USA: “It may not be amiss, here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court; for, as on the one hand, it is presumed that
juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.”
Thomas Jefferson defending jury nullification, wrote that “if the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.”
United States v. Moylan, the Supreme Court yet again acknowledged the “undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence.” (1969)
“The government can conduct surveillance on anyone as long as they are doing so to protect “national security.”
Preamble to the United States Constitution: “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.”
No where will you find that those who serve within our governments were delegated the authority to create any professional governmental law enforcement. Instead it is in writing that those who serve within both the state and federal governments are REQUIRED to use the Militias of the several states to
— Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this nation, and the supreme contract for all who serve within our governments) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state except in the rare instances of conflict with the supreme Law),
— Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. (summarizing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15)
St John Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”
4th Amendment: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, BUT UPON PROBABLY CAUSE, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Definition of surveillance – (Websters) “close watch kept over someone or something”. (Wiktionalry) ” Systemic observation of places and people by visual, aural, electronic, photographic or other means'”. (Legal Institution Institute) “Electronic surveillance is defined in federal law as the nonconsensual acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or electronic communication, under circumstances in which a party to the communication has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The “contents” of a communication consists of any information concerning the identity of the parties, or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of the communication.1 Examples of electronic surveillance include: wiretapping, bugging, videotaping; geolocation tracking such as via RFID, GPS, or cell-site data; data mining, social media mapping, and the monitoring of data and traffic on the Internet. Such surveillance tracks communications that falls into two general categories: wire and electronic communications. “Wire” communications involve the transfer of the contents from one point to another via a wire, cable, or similar device. Electronic communications refer to the transfer of information, data, sounds, or other contents via electronic means, such as email, VoIP, or uploading to the cloud.”
Thomas Jefferson, a firm believer in property rights for individuals, and that those who would serve within the American governments were to protect those rights. By the term “property rights” he did not just mean
land, homes; but the natural rights all humans have, all items and thoughts are theirs and to be protected from such things as the NSA, all the spying (and it is called spying for a reason) on everything every single American does. That the earnings of the work the people did, and created belonged entirely to the people, and not to those who serve within our governments. In his words: “The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.”
Thomas Jefferson: “There are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing; the right of free commerce; the right of personal freedom.”
Thomas Jefferson: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” And he also said: “The legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions.” Also:”The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.”
Thomas Jefferson: “The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” And “A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.”
“States are required to help the federal government enforce or enact federal “laws” or regulatory programs.”
Hamilton, Federalist 33: “But it will not follow from this doctrine that laws passed by Congress are the Supreme law of the land] that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts ofusurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”
Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”
Thomas Jefferson: “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, THE residuary mass of RIGHT TO THEIR OWN SELF-GOVERNMENT; AND THAT WHENSOEVER THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ASSUMES UNDELEGATED POWERS, ITS ACTS ARE UNAUTHORITATIVE, VOID, AND OF NO FORCE: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that 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 (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
James Madison: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
They’re called the ‘implied powers’ clauses. Hamilton, one of the main architects, noted that the ‘general welfare clause’ and the ‘necessary and proper clause’ gave ‘elasticity’ to the constitution. Couple that with the ‘commerce clause’ and you get unlimited power. (The commerce clause is the one generally used to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.)
The Founding Lawyers’ system didn’t even survive the first generation. See Whiskey Revolution or McCulloch v. Maryland.
Is Alexander Hamilton also Alexander Levine?
Was Alexander Levine working for the Rothschilds in Europe before arriving in the U.S?
Why did he change his name after arriving in the U.S?
‘Communitarian’ / ‘Collectivist’ tenets are key to the Statist Agenda.
The problem of course being;
Who’s deciding the ‘greater good’.
Who’s synthesizing ‘consensus’.
They’ll keep making ‘problems’.
So they can employ Hegel’s Dialectic:
Problem / Reaction / Solution.
All our problems owe their lineage to the dark ones.
Globalists, and their manipulations.