No, I do not have a law degree... but I want my country back. I want states rights to trump unconstitutional powers imposed by a top heavy and tyrannical Federal Government. I want anyone who destroys my Constitution to be held accountable...I want the Patriot Act, and the NDAA abolished, the socialism of Obama-care demolished completely, and I want no more debt from the Federal Reserve. In fact, I want the Federal Reserve to be disemboweled. I also want the Supremacy Clause to be understood by the general populous, and intelligently discussed.
As an Oath Keeper, I am looking for a peaceful means of accomplishing this, by rule of constitutional law. I want my civil liberties to be returned to me and my country to again be the light of Liberty. A government who imposes its will on an unwilling populous is an oppressor, and I will resist this with all of my might. In fact, I would willingly die for this.
On April 26th, of 2013, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, wrote a letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. It informed Governor Brownback that the Obama administration considers any attempt to protect the Second Amendment an unconstitutional act, and that federal officers and agents will “continue to execute their duties,” no matter what any State Constitution indicates. It was a reply to a recent law enacted by the governor that declared:
Our right to bear arms
“It is unlawful for 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 to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule of regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony.”
Governor Brownback’s letter is referencing a long standing debate called nullification. His take on the subject of nullification was rejected by Obama, as it has been historically rejected repeatedly by the courts.
According to Wikipedia:
“The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws, including the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s ruling in 1854 that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.”
Governor Brownback, however, does not deny this debate, but makes reference to what he considers a misreading, or wrong interpretation of Article VI of the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.
Attorneys, and students of law, have an obligation to step forth at this time, to define this reinterpreted meaning for the good of Liberty once and for all. I have highlighted several words and phrases below, key words that can be used as bricks to rebuild our Constitutional Republic, without violence. Our Revolution, as promoted by Ron Paul, is one of intellect.
Governor Brownback suggests that federal laws are not the supreme law of the land without qualification, (the key word), and using the article’s description as reference, "In persuance there of." It does not state a violation, but that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” is in effect the law of the land. This indicates that when the Federal Government passes any mandate, bench-law, or any measure not provided for in the “limited rooster” of its “enumerated powers,” those acts do not take precedence over our State Constitutions. In other words, an unconstitutional mandate from the Oval Office, or any external force like the UN, should be regarded as “merely acts of usurpation’s” and in effect be disregarded, disobeyed, even ignored, as they do not qualify to be the supreme law of the land.
In an article by Joe Wolverton II. J.D., he mentions several reference to the Federalist Papers in his discussion of this issue. One such letter, and subsequent clarification, came from Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist, No. 78, : “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore contrary to the constitution shall be valid.”
James Madison continued along this thread in a speech he gave in 1789: : “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.”
It seems evident by these writings, just a small portion to the Federalist Papers, that these men had a crystal clear understanding of the chain of command, and they saw State’s Rights trumping Federal Rights when the Constitution was originally drafted. This is why the Federalist Papers are so important to know. If there is any doubt posed, the true and directed meaning of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments, can be understood.
And know this from history, once our rights are diminished, it is indeed a stepping stone for more, incrementally, and getting them back peacefully next to impossible. From an historical perspective, once lost, only the dismantling of that government will return it, by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Hopefully, there is enough of our Republic’s rule of law remaining to curb this coming clash, as there are some who will stop at nothing to abolish all unconstitutional mandates.
Jefferson said it well: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” -Ron Paul