The Original, Legal Meaning of the Constitution vs What They’ve Given us Today

Some people – including the former law instructor who now serves as President of the United States – believe that it is impossible to reconstruct the Constitution’s original meaning. As this book demonstrates, that view is substantially incorrect.

The Original Constitution fills a void that has existed for a long time—the need for a clear, complete, easy-to-read guide to what our Constitution really means.

Using evidence overlooked by nearly all other writers and assessing it with scrupulous objectivity, The Original Constitution tells you the truth about the Constitution. The Constitution the Founders gave us, that is, instead of the distorted version of it foisted upon us today.

In The Original Constitution you will learn:

Details

Sheriff Mack to Missouri Sheriffs: Support the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act!

CSPOA/Sheriff Mack Press Release:  Dated Sept. 10, 2013

Today the CSPOA learned that the Missouri Sheriff’s Association “Board” voted to oppose a strong and correct piece of legislation (HB436) in an effort to override the Governor’s veto of a bill already passed by a substantial majority of MO legislators. The MO legislature was absolutely correct in doing so and was actually doing their job to keep unlawful federal gun control statutes off the backs of Missourians!

James Madison said, “We can safely rely on the disposition of State Legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 

We should be able to depend on Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, County Commissioners, and all other local officials to do the same; erect barriers against tyranny and DC corruption. The federal government is out of control and local officials have no obligation to go along with it, quite the contrary. If we do oppose federal usurpations then the feds might just retaliate by cutting federal funding for local programs. What does that make local leaders who compromise liberty to keep federal grants coming in? 

Details

Missouri Action Alert: Help Override the Veto and Nullify Gun Control!

HB436, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, passed by a wide veto-proof majority. But, Jay Nixon vetoed the bill. If passed into law, it would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – past, present and future. There’s a veto-session starting this Wednesday, September 11. Your action is needed today to pressure state legislators to do what they said they would – override that veto!

In recent weeks, the establishment has been coming out very aggressively to stop the bill, and torpedo any effort to override the veto. Mainstream media from the New York Times, to Fox News, the AP and Huffington Post have all slammed HB436 as crazy, unconstitutional, or just plain wrong.

Things seemed to hold strong among Missouri republicans against the media attacks. Those are expected.

But now, there are cracks in the armor and your help is needed to give these politicians the courage needed to override Jay Nixon’s veto on HB436. The last-minute opposition to the bill came from what some consider to be a very surprising source – Missouri Law Enforcement.

The great concern is that Missouri sheriffs and police would be banned from assisting the federal government in carrying out all federal gun laws.

That’s not a concern, that’s the GOAL!

As James Madison said in Federalist #46, this is exactly what states are supposed to do when faced with unconstitutional – or even just unpopular – federal acts. He called it a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.” Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees, and recently said on Fox Business that doing so across an entire state would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”

Details
CA-AB351-Senate

California Senate Votes to Reject NDAA “Indefinite Detention.” 37-0

SACRAMENTO, Cal. (Sept. 3, 2013) – Today, the California State Senate voted to approve a bill that will help render toothless the federal “indefinite detention” powers under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The bill, by Assemblymember Tim Donnelly, was previously passed by the state assembly by a vote of 71-1 (roll call here)

California residents are strongly encouraged to contact Governor Jerry Brown, urging him to sign AB351.  (contact info here)

If passed into law, AB351 would make it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government.   It reads, in part:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]

This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else.  Donnelly’s legislation broadens the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it.  Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

This would make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.

Details

An Impeachable Offense

by Jacob Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation

Make no mistake about it: President Obama’s 90-minute telephone conference call with a group of congressional “leaders” to consult about his plans to initiate a military attack on Syria does not comport with the U.S. Constitution, the higher law that the American people have imposed on federal officials.

The Constitution is clear: The power to declare war lies with Congress, not the president. Like it or not, under our form of government the president is prohibited from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress. If someone doesn’t like it, he’s free to start a movement to amend the Constitution to enable the president to both declare and wage war.

From a legal standpoint, it makes no difference that previous presidents have waged wars without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. Prior violations of the Constitution do not operate as an implicit amendment of the Constitution. If Obama proceeds to carry out his threat to initiate war against Syria, he will be committing a grave constitutional offense.

The Framers did not want President Obama or any other president to have the omnipotent, dictatorial authority to send the entire nation into war on his own initiative. They knew that rulers inevitably embroil themselves in things like “saving face,” “maintaining credibility,” and “showing toughness.”

Details

The Supreme Court as Accomplice: Judicial Backing for Executive Power

Lecture presented by Marshall DeRosa at the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s “Reassessing the Presidency” seminar. This lecture series addresses the much neglected reality that the executive department of the U.S. government has always been the sum total of the American welfare-warfare state. Event held at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, October 16-17, 1998. http://mises.org

The Dictatorial Power to Punish a Dictator

by Jacob Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation

President Obama is considering what military action the U.S. government should take against Syria in retaliation for its purported use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. At the risk of asking an indelicate question, where in the Constitution does it authorize the president to undertake such action?

When our American ancestors were calling the federal government into existence, they had two basic ways to go: (1) give the president unlimited authority to do whatever he deems is right or (2) limit the authority of the president to undertake only certain actions.

The first option would obviously have vested dictatorial powers within the president. That’s what a dictatorship is all about — the ability of a ruler to undertake whatever actions he wants and whatever he deems is in the best interests of the country.

That’s not the type of government our American ancestors desired to bring into existence. Instead, they chose the second option — the one in which the ruler’s powers are limited in nature.

That’s what the Constitution was all about. At the same time it brought the federal government into existence, it also limited the powers of the president (and other federal officials) to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. The idea was that if a power wasn’t enumerated, the president was not authorized to exercise it.

Details

Mike Maharrey Talks Patriot Act and NSA Spying with the Forgotten Men

Podcast: Play in new window | Download Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey spent an hour talking with the Forgotten Men about the Patriot Act, NSA spying, the specter of indefinite detention, government secrecy and other threats to liberty flowing out of the “War on Terror.” As you’ll hear, the subject stirred a…

Details