- What gives you the authority to prevent me from meeting with others?
- Aren't you violating my Constitutional rights?
- What are you going to do if I don't comply?
By now, nearly everyone in America has been told they are under a state and/or county executive fiat to stay within their homes or to avoid assembling in groups of 10 or more. Some of you are in a health situation where this makes sense for you and your family, and you have voluntarily complied. Many others have simply complied because they are unsure of their rights and are afraid of what might happen to them if they violate the order...
...and then there is the rest of us who ask:
Recent threats of gun control by those in both major parties, as well as the President of the United States, have once again thrust the 2nd Amendment into the spotlight. While observing many of the debates around this topic, it has become apparent to me that many (on both sides of the argument) have been unduly influenced or distracted by the various Supreme Court decisions. But it is more than that: they are under the false impression that the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter of the Constitution, even if their opinions are contrary to the actual text.continue reading
Although to most it is considered common sense, the concept that well-defined and protected borders keeps our nation secure is still lost on some. Protecting American lives, property, culture, sovereignty, jobs, and resources are just some of the obvious benefits. Yet, as the anarchy-leaning, foreign and domestic enemies to our Constitution see the resurgence of effective law enforcement across America, the tired cries of Federal Supremacy versus State Sovereignty arguments begin to rear their ugly head.continue reading
"That violates the 'separation of church and state'!"
How often do you hear this phrase screamed across the airwaves in a news program or a heated debate about the role of religion in our government?
Do you ever give it a second thought?
Do you know where the phrase originated?
If you said, "The Constitution" or "the 1st Amendment", you're wrong! This phrase does not appear once in any of our founding documents--even though, the proponents of a "separation of church and state" would have you believe just that, or that it was a founding principle of this nation.
Let's explore the history of this phrase and look at the words of the Founders and our government documents that will arm you with the true history of Christianity in our government's history.continue reading
It is called by many names: Constitutional Convention, Con-Con, Convention of States, Article V Convention.
But just because we can have one, doesn't mean we should have one. In fact, the opposite is true.
Fox News recently published an article in their Politics section entitled "States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution." As the title implies, the article discusses the efforts by what they refer to as "States' Rights advocates" to call for a "convention of states." Right out of the gate, the deception begins--be it intentional or simply due to ignorance and lazy reporting.
With all of these references to the states, you would think that an Article V Convention (as it is most precisely called) is controlled by the states. However, this is not the case.continue reading
Every so often, the question is raised whether the United States should grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens. These children are more commonly known as "Anchor Babies" because they are used as an anchor to secure their family to this country illegally.
The most common justification for allowing this practice of granting citizenship to anchor babies is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which reads
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." (Emphasis added)
That pesky phrase underlined above somehow has been ignored for decades when applied to anchor baby cases.continue reading
One of the rare, positive effects that has come out of Congress recently is the introduction into the Rules of the House of Representatives the requirement to cite "as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill..." (113th Congress, House Rules, Rule XII, paragraph 7c).continue reading
Sometimes it is so frustrating scrolling through all of the social media out there full of the latest unbelievable act of this politician or that branch of government.
It is frustrating because recounting and underscoring the wrongness of these acts, or testifying to how angry it makes you, or spending time creating memes about them does nothing to solve the problem. While sharing news stories and commentaries with your fellow citizens is important, we have far too many of these social media "pundits" out there and not enough analysts, planners, and principled leaders.continue reading
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
These were the words Dr. Benjamin Franklin replied on the final day of deliberations at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when asked about the type of government the delegates had created. Franklin was clearly alluding to the fact that a republic does not stand on its own; rather, it can only be maintained by an involved and informed citizenry. Only recently, more than two centuries later, does the largely apathetic population of the United States recognize the magnitude of Dr. Franklin’s sage words.continue reading
Progressive groups and leaders are working hand in hand with "conservative" groups to promote a rewrite of our federal Constitution. Some "conservatives"[i] like Mike Farris and Kris Kobach deny this reality, but other "conservatives" flaunt it. Backing both sides are the Progressive and “conservative” billionaire boys’ clubs. What does this tell us and what does it tell us about those who deny it is going on? It appears what is in the works is a Progressive/moderate-establishment Republican compromise.continue reading
Our Republic is in serious trouble. The Framers would not recognize our government and they would not have tolerated the current level to which our fundamental rights have been derogated.continue reading
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional federal law. There are only unconstitutional federal enactments which constitutional officers(i), state and federal, unlawfully support and/or enforce in violation of their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
This principle is a fundamental principle of constitutional law, a principle which existed long before our current Constitution came into existence.(ii) This principle is however, codified in our own federal Constitution(iii) and has been recognized by the federal Supreme Court for over two hundred years.(iv)continue reading
House Joint Resolution (HJR-50) The Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) should be called the Parental Privileges Amendment. Michael Farris, the Convention of States Project Director doesn’t like talking about the specifics of his proposed amendments to grassroots groups when he is wearing his Convention of States Project director hat, but when Mr. Farris dons his ParentalRights.org hat he’s been vigorously promoting the PRA in testimony to Congress , and “encouraging state legislative resolutions” which would grant the federal government control over your kids. Yes, he sells it as a protection of parental rights, but don’t let the title fool you. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism, and the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with making healthcare affordable.continue reading
(INDIANAPOLIS, June 16, 2014) State legislators from across the country converged on Indianapolis last week for the second formal meeting of the Mount Vernon Assembly at the Indiana State House to advance efforts to trigger an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” to the U.S. Constitution.
After theatrical performances that rivaled Shakespearean theatre, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was passed by Congress late last week (315-107) in the House, and (81-14) in the Senate. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law despite threats to veto over various provisions.
Of concern to many Liberty watchdogs are certain provisions in last year’s NDAA that violated numerous clauses in the Constitution, including over half of the Bill of Rights. Various amendments were proposed to the 2013 NDAA in both the House and Senate alleging to address those concerns, none of which did anything.continue reading