Tag Archives: Constitution

Presidential Executive Orders and the Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?


David Schultz

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them?
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto). Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch.
Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law. These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy.
The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources. The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1,which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973. This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision.
Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders.
With the exception of President William Henry Harrison who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally.
From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama fill in. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php maintains a list of all executive orders.
In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., ;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility company, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, ___ U.S. ; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.
While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Pikard able simply to say “Make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward , any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.
Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.

Follow David Schultz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProfDSchultz

CONTINUE READING…

Presidential Executive Orders and the Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?


David Schultz

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them?
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto). Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch.
Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law. These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy.
The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources. The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1,which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973. This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision.
Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders.
With the exception of President William Henry Harrison who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally.
From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama fill in. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php maintains a list of all executive orders.
In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., ;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility company, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, ___ U.S. ; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.
While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Pikard able simply to say “Make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward , any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.
Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.

Follow David Schultz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProfDSchultz

CONTINUE READING…

Presidential Executive Orders and the Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?


David Schultz

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them?
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto). Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch.
Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law. These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy.
The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources. The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1,which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973. This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision.
Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders.
With the exception of President William Henry Harrison who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally.
From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama fill in. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php maintains a list of all executive orders.
In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., ;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility company, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, ___ U.S. ; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.
While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Pikard able simply to say “Make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward , any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.
Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.

Follow David Schultz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProfDSchultz

CONTINUE READING…

Alito: Obama besieged Constitution with ‘unprecedented challenges’


 

 

Image result for Justice Samuel Alito

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com

 

Alerting fellow Americans, United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Samuel Alito revealed that the nation’s constitutional structure has undergone “unprecedented challenges” in recent years under the Obama administration, warning that citizens’ religious freedom is in “greater danger” today than perhaps ever before.

While addressing conservative litigators for 45 minutes Thursday at the Federalist Society’s 2016 National Lawyers Convention, Alito stressed what a great impact the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had on the bench and America’s justice system.

U.S. Constitution under attack

His speech also highlighted the threats to constitutional rights that Americans face under the Obama administration – including attacks on their religious liberty and freedom of speech – noting how the constitutional principle of the separation of powers has been in jeopardy for years.

“When Nino [Scalia’s nickname] spoke to students, he would often ask them what is most important about the Constitution and – more times than not – the answer would refer to the Bill of Rights,” Alito pointed out, according to The Christian Post. “Nino would say, ‘Wrong. What is most important is the structure, the separation of powers at the federal level and the division of sovereignty between federal government and the states.’ Human rights guarantees are worthless without a governmental structure to protect them.”

The 66-year-old judicial expert impressed the fact that President Barack Obama has consistently bombarded the nation’s founding principles in order to impose his own agenda on America.

“In recent years, we have seen unprecedented challenges to our constitutional structure, [as] the executive has also claimed the power to make out-in-out changes in the laws enacted by Congress,” Alito impressed.

Bringing up the 2014 SCOTUS case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environment Protection Agency, Alito shared how the Obama administration used it to take unilateral actions so it could skirt around Congress, adding how the White House also refused to enforce specific laws enforced by the legislative body.

The outgoing president has used his allegiance to the green agenda’s so-called climate change policies to push his big government regulatory plans through.

“The case stems from Obama’s EPA disregarding of air pollution regulations established by Congress in the Clean Air Act and effectively creating its own stiffer pollutant regulations that also regulated greenhouse gas emissions,” The Christian Post reports.

Stating his case and point against the president, Alito talked about the dealings between the EPA and Congress.

“Congress wrote certain numbers into an environmental statute – numbers pertaining to pollutants,” said the justice, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006. “Now at the time, Congress had in mind conventional beliefs. It was only there that the Supreme Court held that pollutants under the Clean Air Act refer not just to the kind [of pollutants Congress had in mind] when enacting the statute, but also greenhouse gases. Now, if you apply those numbers to the conventional pollutants, they made perfect sense. But if you apply them to greenhouse gases, you get crazy results, as the EPA recognized.”

Alito went on to emphasize that the Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is an expert at manipulating variables to work to its advantage – an unlawful approach that was overlooked and approved by his colleagues on the bench.

“So, what does the EPA do?” he posed. “Well, the EPA had an eraser and had a pen. So, it took the statute and erased the numbers that Congress wrote and wrote in numbers that were more to its liking. Nino’s opinion for the court held that this was illegal, but four of our colleagues thought what the EPA did was just fine.”

Forgetting faith …

Moving onto the issue of religious liberties, Alito noted his regret about a recent post-Scalia determination SCOTUS made this year, when a majority of his fellow justices agreed not to review a case that involved serious implications to the way Americans can or cannot live out their faith.

“After the state of Washington enacted a law requiring all pharmacies to sell contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs – like Plan B – a Christian pharmacy owner sued the state and argued that selling the drug would violate his family’s religious convictions,” The Christian Post’s Samuel Smith recounted. “After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the pharmacy’s argument, they appealed to the Supreme Court.”

Alito filled the audience in that he and his fellow SCOTUS Justices reviewed local pharmacist associations’ amicus brief informing the bench that “the practice of referring customers to other pharmacies is standard because no pharmacy could possibly stock every single drug that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The conservative justice reaffirmed his disagreement with his colleagues decision not to review the case, pointing out some of the arguments he mentioned on his written dissent about SCOTUS passing the case up.

“In this case, there was strong evidence that the law was enacted to rid the state of those troublesome pharmacists who objected to these drugs on religious ground,” Alito asserted. “But, the Ninth Circuit sustained the law and the Supreme Court didn’t think that was a case that deserved to be reviewed.”

He then restated his belief that Americans of faith had better brace themselves because of the extreme progressive lean of the justice system that has drastically shifted Left under the Obama administration.

“Freedom of religion is in greater danger [today],” Alito alarmed the crowd. “I am reminded of a song by the latest recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature [Bob Dylan] –  ‘It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.'”

Education … or Leftist indoctrination?

When moving on to the condition of higher education in America, Alito condemned the intolerance demonstrated by students, faculties and administrators from college campuses from coast to coast.

“Consider this … Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote that ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official – high or petty – can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism or religion,'” Alito quoted from behind the microphone. “But on college campuses – both public and private – a new orthodoxy rules.”

He then presented the crowd with a hypothetical.

“Suppose a student were to test Justice Jackson’s proposition today by wearing an article of attire supporting a political candidate who is unpopular among the students and the professors by proclaiming that the United States is a great and good country, and by expressing certain conditional religious beliefs,” Alito posed before introducing his follow-up question. “How would that go over?”

The conservative judge indirectly answered his own question by referring to recent injustices that took place on college campuses, where zero tolerance was afforded to those holding Right-leaning views and stances on the 2016 election and LGBT issues.

“Just ask one black student at Queensborough Community College in New York City, who was attacked for wearing a Donald Trump hat,” Alito advised. “Or ask the professor at Marquette University who was suspended and had his tenure revoked after he wrote a blog post that was critical of another professor who refused to let a student with traditional beliefs on gay marriage discuss his opinions in her class.”

CONTINUE READING…

A prayer for Election Eve 2016


 

mj feasibility study

 

May a “Higher Power” be with Us,
On this, the Eve of Our Election,
We must pick a Leader for the USA,
“In God We Trust”!

Let us not forget how hard we fought to get here,
And the Men, Women and Children who suffered and died,
So that we may have the Freedom,
To choose Our way from here.

It is not only Our Right,
It is Our Patriotic Duty,
To fight to keep the Constitution alive,
Lest we loose Lady Liberty’s bright light,
Lest we forever lose Our right to a free life.

Lord, be with us as we make our decisions,
Keep us strong and focused,
And let us not be pushed into a Political trap,
Lest we forever lose Our right to a free life.

And Lord, be with our Leaders as they must make decisions that could kill us,
Make them see clearly Lord,
Not to take away the food and medicine that sustains us,
Beseech them Lord, to free the Cannabis!

Lest we forever lose Our right to a free life.

reoeal

SB 13, Kentucky Cannabis Freedom Act continues to sit in committee since January 7th


KY CANNABIS

 

sb13

There has been no activity on the “Kentucky Cannabis Freedom Act” since January 7th when it was forwarded to “Licensing, Occupations and Administrative Regulations“…

 

Whose members include:

 

Please take time to click on the links and send them a message to work on this Bill!

 

IT IS a crucial time for Kentuckians to stay in close touch with their lawmakers and offer feedback on the issues of the day. Citizens can see which bills are under consideration and keep track of their progress by visiting the Kentucky Legislature Home Page at www.lrc.ky.gov. Kentuckians can also share their thoughts with lawmakers by calling the General Assembly’s toll-free message line at

 

800-372-7181

.

 

LINK TO PDF OF SB13

My Grandson came over the other day


 
Jimmy D Lawson

1 hr ·

How Will You Answer?
By J. L. (Max) Brewster

My Grandson came over the other day
He’s grown up now and I’m old and gray
Asking Grandpa, why did you give my freedom away?
With a trembling voice, this is all I could say
I tried my hardest, I protested, I wrote
To my Congressman, Senators, and I did always vote
I learned about issues, the Constitution, and more
I thought of your brother and cousin, I’ll stop this I swore
I found like minded people but our numbers were few
We gathered together, got involved, we all knew
That our republic was dying the Constitution was dead
Put down by elitists and those who wore red
I did all I could and I’m sorry my son
Tears rolled down my face, I wish we had won
He gave me a hug, said I’m proud Grandpa to know
That you tried your hardest, wouldn’t let freedom go
I thought of his question I wished would have been
Grandpa what saved the republic? How did you win?
You had no money, connections or clout
How did this happen? What was it about?
I told him how corruption had swept over the land
People gathered together, they marched hand in hand
To the Capitol in Washington, then their state, then their town
Once involved and informed no one could keep them down
We chose principled leaders to take up the fight
Against power, corruption, and to do what was right
Things started to change rather quickly at first
Freedom flooding the land like a dam that had burst
Government shrunk smaller and smaller, it was amazing to see
Bureaucrats getting their pink slips instead of you and me
Businesses started to prosper and many came back
The reason? No magic, just much lower tax
I came back to reality my heart sank like a stone
Back to reality, no freedom, I’m chilled to the bone
The government runs everything they knock on my door
Inspecting my thermostat, my light bulbs and more
I still keep on thinking and remembering a time
When I was truly free and my property was mine
But my Grandson knows one thing that he is not free
No, not like I was and he is beginning to see
That maybe its possible to once more light that spark
Of freedom and liberty that will light up the dark
And maybe his generation will turn the spark to a flame
That went out under my watch, I still am to blame
So when your Grandson comes to you a generation from now
What will he say? Will he ask how
Did you lose my freedom? Why didn’t you fight?
Or will he say? I love you Grandpa, thank you for protecting my rights

WWII Veteran: 90% of Congress are Traitors to Our Country


World War II Veteran Warren Bodeker from Plains, Montana is no stranger to controversy. He was a war hero who was involved in the saving of 2,000 American prisoners from execution by the Japanese, only to return home to have the federal government intimidate him and threaten to take his home and land, which were fully paid for. Bodeker sat down with Cliven Bundy in 2014 to talk about government tyranny, but shortly before that, he took time to point out that much of our problems lie with those who are supposed to serve us.

According to Bodeker, ninety percent of Congress are traitors to our country.

That might seem like a harsh statement to many, but consider that their oath binds them to limited tasks, of which is to "uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

This oath is to the Constitution, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, not a party nor a political figure.

Bodeker took time to speak of his own oath and how Congress has failed miserably in upholding their own.

This man was a true treasure to America. Though he died in September 2015 at the age of 92, Bodeker had many words of wisdom, if only we would heed them. Take a listen.

CONTINUE THRU LINK TO VIDEO (WORTH WATCHING)!

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/wwii-veteran-90-of-congress-are-traitors-to-our-country/#mri4dD4ZTHmTAR02.99

Washington DC vs. America: The Federal Land Grab


What a mess. For generations, Washington D.C. has attempted to grab our guns and state legislatures follow its lawless example. It occupies 640 million acres of America. But having our guns and our land taken by D.C. thugs isn’t about the Second Amendment. It is about Washington D.C. and its allies in multinational and foreign corporations, waging war against us.

The war is Washington D.C. vs. America

Every time Congress or a federal court takes up any issue of us vs. them, they rule for themselves. Our side is split up into countless small groups, each fighting for our single issue. How can we ever win this war and restore rule of law?

The Founding Fathers made provision for that. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution, We The People authorize Congress to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions…". Then in Clause 16 we authorize Congress to, "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia…reserving to the States…the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia". That’s the Law in plain English. It’s clear, simple, and non-negotiable.

See? The Second Amendment is the wrong battle because 80 million Americans already own over 250 million firearms. The problem is, few of them are military-grade arms suitable for Citizen Militia. Also, few citizens are trained to execute the laws or protect their community in a crisis or attack, because no American belongs to a constitutional Citizen Militia. Not a single state has a constitutional Militia law. Pulling together a bunch of gung-ho guys in ‘unorganized Militia’ doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it. We need to exercise our power and duty over the Constitution by "execut(ing) the Laws of the Union", not arguing with liberals and tyrants in the White House or in our statehouse about ‘gun rights’. Sovereigns don’t argue with their lawless servants about rights; we execute the laws!

Notice how this ties into land-grabs by the BLM, EPA, NFS and other illicit alphabet agencies. To execute the highest law, we need to make our State legislatures shut down the federal bureaucracies occupying our states’ sovereign public lands in violation of the Constitution. Our legislators don’t have the backbone to do it, so we need to force them to obey the Constitution, too. I will explain how, in Part 3.

But here’s the federal land-grab in a nutshell. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, We The People give Congress permission to "exercise exclusive Legislation…over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)…and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards…".

THIS MAP depicts land that Washington D.C. lawfully acquired from the states by that section of the law. Compare that to THIS MAP depicting the over 640 million acres of state lands being occupied, claimed or controlled by Washington D.C. in direct violation of the Constitution!

This began when the West consisted of ‘territories’ that Washington D.C. grabbed from the Indians, Spaniards, French and Mexicans. Once a State entered the Union, its land became its own sovereign property and every State had to treat its co-sovereigns equally; this is a republic.

But you know how politicians are; Washington D.C. wanted to keep all that land, minerals, timber and water for itself. Congress and the federal courts have been citing Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 as Washington D.C.’s right to steal public lands belonging to the States: "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

See that last sentence? It means that neither Washington D.C. nor any sovereign State can win a court battle over a State’s land. It is the duty of the State Legislature to put its foot down on federal occupation of our land in violation of the highest law. And it is the duty and power of the Citizen Militia to make the law stick!

America can win this war against lawless Washington D.C., but only by first enacting a constitutional Militia statute in each state.

Remember, in the Constitution, We The People created, defined, and limited our servant government in Washington D.C., including the U.S. supreme Court. In any contest between America and Washington D.C., We The People are the highest authority. If something is clear in our Constitution, We The People – not federal courts – are the final word on what the law says. This powerful principle is explained in the book, The People Themselves, by former Stanford Law School dean Larry Kramer.

This isn’t rocket science. Every State legislature needs to enact a constitutional Militia statute, set up training and appoint Militia officers; that’s the law. Then when the State legislature passes its law to expel every lawless federal bureaucrat, agent, and thug from the State, the Citizen Militia of that State can "execute the Laws of the Union".

We The People gave no authority or jurisdiction to Washington D.C. of one square inch of land in any sovereign State on earth, except in that passage about military bases and forts purchased from the States with approval of the State Legislature. Everything else that Washington D.C. thugs and bureaucrats are doing in ‘federal lands’ or a ‘federal possession’ is criminal activity.

Thousands of Americans have horror stories about tyranny by federal bureaucrats, agents, and operatives. This was out of control generations ago, and it’s our fault. We The People have work to do, to turn this long war back in America’s favor.

Stay tuned for Part 3 to see how we will do that. I had originally planned five articles, but I think I can finish this series in three parts.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/01/washington-dc-vs-america-the-federal-land-grab/#tCf5Mw2k3XliBbvx.99

Because the feds rely heavily on state and local law enforcement assistance to enforce federal measures, passing a state law banning such assistance will make federal gun control “nearly impossible to enforce.”


(Please follow the links below for information)…(each pic is a link as well)…

Andrew Napolitano: Federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce without state assistance

 

Nullify Gun Control

Virginia vs Feds

2nd Amendment Preservation Act

TAKE ACTION: Contact your state rep AND senator – and urge them to introduce this legislation for your state.

Find your legislators’ contact info at this link.

BILL TRACKINGat this link.

STEP 1: LINE IN THE SAND ON ANY NEW GUN CONTROL (pdf here)

All states (except Alaska, Idaho, and Tennessee) should pass this legislation.

STEP 2-3: Ban enforcement of specific current federal gun control, expanding to all in the future.

Idaho and Alaska should pursue these steps

LOCAL: City and County Resolution/Ordinance Banning Local Assistance to Federal Gun Control Measures (pdf here)

All local communities can begin this process immediately. With some sheriffs already announcing that they will not participate in the enforcement of new federal gun control, the time is now to get that on the books – so that a future sheriff (or police chief) can change course.

Tenth Amendment Center

SOURCES of Information:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/2nd-amendment-preservation-act/

http://shallnot.org/andrew_napolitano_federal_laws_nearly_impossible_to_enforce_without_state_assistance/

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/12/virginia-bill-would-effectively-nullify-future-federal-gun-control-in-the-state/

http://openstates.org/ky/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-moves-on-guns-with-executive-actions-that-circumvent-congress/2016/01/05/97f23336-b3bc-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands  (President speaks at 42 minutes into the video)

Obama moves to further regulate gun sales with executive actions that circumvent Congress