Sheriff Mack: The Untouchable Bill of Rights

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sheriff Richard Mack will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get your tickets online here – – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS


Former Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, addresses the sheriffs Monday morning and covers, among other things, his lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center, how the 8th Amendment’s forbidding excessive fines and cruel punishment was his big awakening, (He asks if we think the $7BILLION collected annually from radar gun tickets is excessive enough.), the oath of office, the Bill of Rights and its origin, EPA fines, federal over reach, SWAT team abuses, the 10th Amendment, Nullification, Federal Judge John Roll, and much much more.

“We swear an oath, can’t take our job unless we do. But, then we don’t have to keep it. Really, that’s what we’re gonna decide… is if we do.” Mack explains that he was fortunate to have support from a national organization to take and win his case before the Supreme Court but that “90% of the people in America cannot even touch that system. They don’t have the time nor the money to reach, even think about reaching that system. And so you want to tell the citizens, for their rights to be secure, go to the courts. To a completely unreachable system.” And when the people go to their sheriffs, they’re told, “Go get a good lawyer. And there’s your justice system America. Go get a lawyer and go ask the courts to take care of you. Do any of you really think that the founding fathers intended for our American system to be based on freedom, individual liberty decided by the US Supreme Court? And that’s the only place you can get it? I hardly think so.”


Kevin Gutzman and his new book, James Madison and the Making of America

Add to iTunes

Kevin Gutzman discusses his new book, “James Madison and the Making of America.”  Gutzman states his view on Madison’s biggest achievement, “Early in his career, Madison was responsible in the Virginia House of Delegates for adoption of the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom.  We often credit Thomas Jefferson with that, but Jefferson merely wrote the bill and failed to have it pass.  It was only Madison nine years later who go it enacted into law and made Virginia the first society in the history of the world that was secular.”

Gutzman gives us his view about Madison being known as “Father of the Constitution.”  He points out, “Well, when it comes to the idea he is the Father of the Constitution, they will have this misconception corrected.  Madison famously went to the Philadelphia Convention were the Constitution was written with a draft of the Constitution which is called, ‘The Virginia Plan’ in mind, but in the Philadelphia Convention, this plan was rejected.”  Gutzman continued to make his case by pointing out, “It is inaccurate to call him the Father of the Constitution. This is best captured in a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson soon after the convention which he predicted that because Madison’s favorite idea, the federal veto of state laws have been defeated, it was likely that this government would fail within a few years.  So Madison was unhappy with the Constitution.  Far being it’s father, he was unhappy with it.”


Our Cause is Liberty and our Time is Now

On Thursday, February 23, 2012, the Tenth Amendment Center, in partnership with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Demand Progress, held a joint media conference to brief journalists about national momentum against NDAA detention powers. The following is what was introduced at the start of that conference: My name is Blake Filippi. As the…


Food Freedom for New Hampshire?

The mood of  New Hampshire’s  legislature concerning an overstepping federal government is clearly illustrated in NH HB1650. In no uncertain terms, the representatives of the people of New Hampshire have made clear their thoughts on the role of the United States Government,  declaring that Uncle Sam is bounded by the U.S. Constitution, and that when it decides to step outside these limits, it is unlawful  and of no effect. The bill has provisions which would make it a criminal act for its violation:

439-A:5 Penalty.

I. Any public servant of the state of New Hampshire as defined by RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a federal act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation upon a foodstuff labeled “Made in New Hampshire,” that is produced commercially or privately in New Hampshire, and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.


Establisment of Tenth Amendment Commission considered in Iowa

House File 419 was introduced by Wagner, Huseman, De Boef, Klein, Paustian, Chambers, Pearson and would establish a commission to monitor federal actions affecting the … “state that require or would require this state or a state officer to execute or enforce a provision of federal law that violates the Constitution of the State of Iowa or that lies outside the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution of the United States and intrudes on the sovereignty reserved to the states …”

The proposed bill points to numerous objections to unconstitutional actions by the federal government, here are just a few:

The Constitution of the United States enumerates certain specific powers delegated to the federal government.

The Ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”


Seventh state steps into ring to fight NDAA kidnapping

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 23, 2012) – On Wednesday, Missouri became the seventh state considering legislation the would nullify detention provisions without due process in the National Defense Authorization Act.

Sen. Brian Nieves (R-Washington) introduced the Missouri Liberty Preservation Act. SB819 prevents Missouri from, “participating or providing material support for the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”

The Missouri bill contains some of the strongest language against NDAA detention yet.

“The enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is inimical to the liberty, security, and well-being of the people of Missouri, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to, those listed in subsection 2 of this section.”

The law would not only prohibit the State of Missouri from providing any support for NDAA kidnapping provisions, but would also make it a class B misdemeanor for any agent of the state to assist the federal government in enforcing sections 1021 or 1022, and a class A misdemeanor for any federal agent attempting to enforce the provisions in the Show Me State.


USPS: Stuck With the Government Business Model

The U.S. Postal Service has released a new five-year plan for congressional consideration that it says would get the beleaguered government mail monopoly on sounder financial footing and thus avoid a taxpayer bailout. The plan repeats previous suggestions (i.e., workforce reductions, postal network consolidations, elimination of Saturday delivery, elimination of the retiree healthcare benefit funding requirement) and proposes an increase in the price of a first-class stamp from forty-five to fifty cents.

Whether or not it would achieve what the USPS hopes, it probably doesn’t matter given that asking Congress for greater operational flexibility is like asking a two year old to stop playing with their food. That’s why the focus should be on completely transitioning the USPS from a government-run business to a privately-run business (or perhaps businesses).

Over at the Courier Express and Postal Observer blog, Alan Robinson says that “just like all plans that came before, [the new USPS plan] started with the assumption that the Postal Service remains a quasi-governmental entity.” As a result, Robinson notes that the plan is missing two key ingredients for success that foreign posts have utilized: private capital and an expanded range of products and services.


Virginia NDAA Nullification Bill Passes Senate Committee 8-4

About an hour ago, Virginia House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which recently passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 96-4, was approved by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee. The vote was 8-4 with 3 abstentions.

The legislative goal of HB1160 is to codify in Virginia law noncompliance with what many are referring to as the “kidnapping provisions” of section 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). The official summary of 1160:

“A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

HB1160 is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall, who recently told The New American – “They say this law [the NDAA] is designed to fight terrorists. You don’t defeat terrorists by adopting their tactics. I will be faithful to my calling to stand against these predators who would sell their birthright for a mess of pottage.”


Kentucky, West Virginia considering firearm freedom legislation

West Virginia and Kentucky lawmakers will consider legislation nullifying federal gun laws applying to firearms made and kept within state borders.

Under the auspices of the “commerce clause,” the federal government places all kinds of restrictions on firearms and ammunition.

Although the Constitution grants the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce, the ratifying conventions insisted on the Bill of Rights, making it clear that Congress and the other branches of the federal government may not infringe on certain rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, even when exercising legitimate powers. But federal courts have done nothing to protect individual rights, choosing instead to broaden the scope of federal “authority.” Furthermore, the Constitution grants absolutely no authority for regulation of intrastate commerce.