What’s the real agenda behind red-flag confiscations and gun controls?

By Joanna Martin, J.D.

When a person makes threats about killing others, the only constitutionally acceptable course of action is to treat that particular person in accordance with the existing criminal laws of the State. To instead subject everyone to red flag confiscations shows that the real agenda is to disarm “The People”. But the US Constitution doesn’t permit that.

State Legislatures have no constitutional authority to enact into Law whatever a majority of them may happen to believe is a good idea. To the contrary, State Legislatures are mere “creatures” of the State Constitution which created them – and it is that Document, together with various provisions of the US Constitution, which define and limit their authority to make laws. State Legislatures have only limited constitutional authority to make laws restricting arms. ¹

A Transcendent Principle of our Land has always been that The People have the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of this Right is – as James Madison recognizes in Federalist No. 46 – to protect us from government.

And because the leading cause of unnatural death in this world, particularly since the beginning of the 20^th Century, is murder by government – democide; we must have the ability to defend ourselves from government.

Before governments can murder great numbers of people, they must disarm them first: As lawyer and philosopher Stephen P. Halbrook shows in Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, the NAZIS used gun control to disarm and repress their enemies and consolidate power, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless.

That’s what gun control and red flag confiscations is really about. It has nothing to do with protecting children. People who want to protect children oppose abortion, the injection of children with experimental substances, and sex change surgery on children.

1. Global government, eugenics, and “sustainable development”

Powerful people seek to move the United States into global government – the New World Order – the North American Union – the Great Reset. But the American People oppose global government.

Yuval Noah Harari of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset says you and I are “useless”, “meaningless”, and “worthless”. They don’t need us anymore. Prince Philip of England said during 1988 that if he were reincarnated, he “would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”

Kelleigh Nelson shows that work to rid the World of “inferior” or superfluous people has been going on in America: America’s Medical Guinea Pigs, Depopulation and Eugenics, Part One; Blood Lust: Covid Vaccines, and Culling the Population, Part Two; and The Demonic Carnage of Vaccines, Part Three.

The United Nations claims that population growth interferes with “sustainable development”. Pro-abortion US Vice-President Kamala Harris wants to reduce the population so “the children” can have cleaner air and water. Former US Secretary of State John Kerry wants to destroy the farming industry because “Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world. And we can’t get to net zero—we don’t get this job done—unless agriculture is front and centre as part of the solution.”

How will Americans eat when the farms are shut down? There will be hundreds of millions of starving Americans. The globalists must disarm us before they cut off our food supply.

Their “final solution” to the above “problems” is to kill us. But first, they must disarm us.

 

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee isn’t the only “conservative” who is pushing for gun control and red flag confiscations.

President Trump said, respecting red flag laws, “Take the guns first, go through due process second”, thus showing his total lack of understanding of the concept of “due process”.

Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, who has been on Mark Meckler’s “Convention of States” Legal Advisory Board since its inception during 2014, has already co-authored a new Constitution which provides constitutional authority for gun control and red flag confiscations. ²

Professor George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR seeks to move the United States into global government – the North American Union. Americans don’t want to be moved into the North American Union. So we must be rendered powerless to prevent it [link].

2. What is “due process”?

“Due process of law” is a term with a precise technical import going back to the Magna Charta; and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property cannot be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! See Professor Raoul Berger’s masterful work, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment”, at Part I, Chapter 11 “Due Process of Law”.

The 5^th Amendment to the US Constitution says:

“…nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law…”

The 14^th Amendment says at § 1:

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

 

But US Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019”, provided that if a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does NOT pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill put the burden of proof on the Respondent! For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT. But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.

All versions of red flag legislation are based on taking peoples’ property away from them based on a Judge’s speculation that they might in the future commit a crime with the gun. As in Tom Cruz’s movie, “Minority Report”, we can be accused of and punished for gun crimes we haven’t committed.

And even if Respondents in a red flag proceedings were afforded their due process right of a trial before their peers before their arms were confiscated; I am unaware of any State Constitution which permits a person to be disarmed for the reason that others speculate that the person might in the future commit a crime with the gun. Certainly, the US Constitution forbids such pre-crime confiscations.

Red flag laws are “pre-crime confiscations”. They violate the due process clauses of the US Constitution; as well as a host of other federal and state constitutional provisions.

3. Don’t invite political abuse of psychiatry into America

Advocates of red flag confiscations may claim that they only want to confiscate guns from mentally ill people. And since you are not mentally ill, red flag laws won’t affect you, right?

Not so. Just as the US Department of Justice denounced as “domestic terrorists“ Moms who spoke out at School Board Meetings against porn in the schools, mask mandates, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory; red flag laws which purport to permit seizure only from mentally ill persons will result in application of the definition of “mentally ill” which prevailed in the Soviet Union. There, political opposition or dissent was defined as a psychiatric problem.

4. We have a moral problem, not a gun problem

I began first grade during 1949. At that time, the Ten Commandments were posted in public schools. I could already read and saw every day the Commandments, “Thou shall not kill” – “Thou shall not steal” – “Thou shall not bear false witness”. We had prayers and Bible readings. America was a safe place: people didn’t lock their doors and children played outdoors unsupervised by adults.

But beginning in 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the US Supreme Court commenced its war against Christianity by banning prayers in the public schools. During 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court banned the posting of The Ten Commandments in the public schools.

Even though these Opinions were clearly unconstitutional [link], State Legislatures failed to do their Duty to nullify these unconstitutional decisions. They should have passed laws directing their public school teachers and administrators to ignore the Opinions. ³

But State Legislatures failed to act. So God’s Moral Laws were replaced by Moral Relativism – where moral judgments and values are not based on Transcendent and objective Principles [e.g., The Ten Commandments] but on one’s personal feelings and desires. THAT is the root problem in our Land – We forgot God. See also Ideas That Are Destroying America by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero.

Endnotes:

¹ In this paper, I focus on “due process” and red flag confiscations. In a subsequent paper, I will show how extremely limited is the constitutional authority of the Tennessee Legislature to restrict arms.

² Robert P. George, a law professor, apparently understands that our existing US Constitution prohibits state or federal gun controls and red flag confiscations; and that a new federal Constitution is needed before we can be disarmed.

³ Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton pointed out since the States created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution; they are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other. And when the federal government usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.

Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses

By Publius Huldah

Someone asked me why I write on the US Constitution when the US Supreme Court won’t enforce it.

This is why:  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the self-evident Truth that Rights come from God, and that they are unalienable.  Accordingly, there are certain areas of your life which are off-limits to government regulation – you have an “immunity” from governmental regulation of these areas.

But since the federal and state governments are refusing to recognize our Rights, it falls on us to boldly step up to the plate and insist that our Rights be respected.  You have no lawful, moral, or religious duty to submit to a government when it violates our Constitution and seeks to take from you the rights God gave you.

Governments do not have constitutional authority to force you to take the COVID JAB.

And in this paper I show that the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses of the US Constitution prohibit the federal, state, and local governments from requiring you to be “jabbed” or putting you into a concentration camp if they assert that you are at “high risk” of getting infected [i.e., those who are 65 years of age or older].

So Americans are going to have to man-up and assert their God-given rights.  But before you can do that, you must understand what your Rights are and what the Constitution says.

Our Constitution of 1787 is a glorious Document. But we didn’t read it, we didn’t adhere to its genuine meaning, and we permitted judges to redefine its terms. We must put a stop to that. The following draft ¹ Resolution for State and local governments shows how, by restoring the genuine meanings of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses, we can defeat “COVID” tyranny.

Right to Freedom from “COVID” mandates – Model Resolution for State and local governments

I. The Law

WHEREAS, our Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding and part of the Organic Law of our Land, and recognizes that our Rights come from the Creator God; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; and further, that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is one of enumerated powers only; and We The People did not grant to the federal government power over the Country at Large to interfere in medical or health matters; to dictate that injections be administered to The People; to impose quarantines or “lock-downs” for real or pretended diseases; to establish internment (concentration) camps for the purpose of confining whomsoever the federal government wishes to confine; to require that The People wear devices such as face masks, or to obtain and carry internal passports; or to exercise any other such control over the sanctity of our persons; and

WHEREAS, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides,

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”; and

WHEREAS, the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” (Article IV, § 2)

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” (§1 of the Fourteenth Amendment); and

WHEREAS, the due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:

At the Fifth Amendment, that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and

At §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and

WHEREAS, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England set forth at Book I, Chapter I, pp 128-140 (J.B. Lippincott) [link] the common law definitions of “privileges” and “immunities”; and shows that “immunities” refers to those areas of personal liberty which are free from regulation and control by civil governments, to-wit:

• The God-given Right of Personal Security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation – and specifically that a person has the Right to preserve his health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it [p. 132 at 4.];

• The God-given right of Personal Liberty consists of an individual’s right of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving his person to whatsoever place his own inclination may direct; that no person may be imprisoned or confined except pursuant to the lawful judgment of his equals; the right of habeas corpus; and the prohibition against excessive bail; and

• The God-given Right of Property consists of the absolute and inherent Right of an individual to the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of his acquisitions; and that no person may be divested of his property, but by the judgment of his peers; and

WHEREAS, “due process of law” is a term with a precise technical import going back to the Magna Charta; and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property cannot be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! [See Raoul Berger’s masterful work, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment”, at Part I, Chapter 11 “Due Process of Law” link]; and

WHEREAS, it is a fundamental Principle of Anglo/American Jurisprudence that when Framers of a Constitution or Statute use a term which has been defined at the Common Law, that is the meaning to be assigned to the term in the Constitution or Statute (United States v. Smith (1820) link) & Raoul Berger’s chapter on “Due Process” at p. 222]; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Ohio declares at Article I: Bill of Rights that

“Section 1: Inalienable rights. All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.”

“Section 3: Right to assemble. The people have the right to assemble together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good; to instruct their Representatives; and to petition the General Assembly for the redress of grievances.”

“Section 20: Powers reserved to the people. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.”

II. Violations by the federal government of The Law

WHEREAS, under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the federal government has been involved in the development and administration of a so-called “vaccine”; but that there is considerable evidence that such are not “vaccines” in the traditional sense of the word – but are injections designed to alter human DNA and replace it with a man-made DNA, and to destroy our God-given immune systems; and further that “COVID vaccines” have resulted in many deaths and disabilities among injected persons and are expected to result in a great many more deaths among injected persons in the coming years; and

WHEREAS, also under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has made plans [here & here] to relocate selected Persons against their wills to internment (concentration) camps which are now, with the connivance of certain State governments, being set up throughout the Country; and

WHEREAS, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is an unconstitutional federal agency which is not authorized by our Constitution to exist; accordingly all of its actions are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and

WHEREAS, by these above-described acts, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated, and hence its acts are not law, but are altogether unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and

WHEREAS, such acts are also unconstitutional as in violation of the right of free assembly within the meaning of the First Amendment to the US Constitution; and

WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of their God-given Immunities from civil government’s regulation of their Persons and Personal Liberty, and deprive them of their God-given Right to the free use and enjoyment of their Property – all in violation of Article IV, §2, US Constitution; and

WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

III. State and local governments

WHEREAS, certain “private” businesses have been seeking to bring about the forced injections of Citizens with the so-called “COVID vaccine” by threatening to fire such Citizens unless they submit to the injection; and further, that for State and local governments to permit such tyranny violates that Principle, set forth in our Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us (which governments are to do by protecting us from those who seek to take our rights away from us); and that just as civil governments may not lawfully deprive The People of their God-given Rights and Liberties, neither may private persons or businesses; and

WHEREAS, for the State or any local government to impose lock-downs, mandate social distancing, order the closures of churches and selected businesses, and impose limitations on crowd sizes, would unlawfully restrict the Rights of The People to freely assemble; and that in the State of Ohio, such would violate Article I, Sections 1 and 3 of the Declarations of Rights set forth in the State Constitution; and

WHEREAS, for the state or local governments to cooperate with the unconstitutional federal agency known as the “Center for Disease Control and Prevention”, in its unlawful and tyrannical plan to incarcerate in internment (concentration) camps, Citizens against their wills, would unlawfully deprive the Citizens of Ohio of their Rights of free association and free assembly; and would also trespass on their Immunities against civil government’s control of their persons within the meaning of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and would also deprive Ohio Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law, also in violation of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

For the state or local government to mandate the wearing of face masks also violates the God-given Right of Personal Liberty.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That all acts of the federal government described hereinabove in Part II are unconstitutional and are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

2. That all acts of State and local governments described hereinabove in Part III would also be unconstitutional and unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and that this body [identify whether it’s the State legislature or a County or municipal governmental body] will vigorously oppose all such unlawful acts.

3. That this body intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be free from the requirement of forced injections, mask wearing, social distancing, lock-downs; and will not permit Ohio Citizens to be relocated against their wills to the internment (concentration) camps now being planned by the unconstitutional federal agency known as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

It is so RESOLVED, this ________ day of _____________, 2021.

Signatures, etc.

Endnote:

¹ This is a draft Resolution suggested by me for consideration by State and local governments – I used Ohio to illustrate that States must consult their own State Constitutions in addition to our federal Constitution.

Searching for “Marriage” in the Fourteenth Amendment

By Publius Huldah.

During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are: ¹

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex?

2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state? ²

Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment says:

“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” [emphasis mine] ³

Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?

Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.

And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:

“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:

“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1^st para under II)

“…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …” (3^rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14^th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept. ⁴

And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14^th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.

I’ll show you.

The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!

 The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.

Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

1. Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

2. Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and

3. Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].

Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8^th para):

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” [emphasis mine]

If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.

Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14^th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:

“…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2^nd para) [emphasis mine]

“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”

Do you see?

So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?

The answer any competent 8^th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”

Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.

So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” which they claimed were to be found in §1 of the 14^th Amendment so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!

But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large. ⁵

The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification. ⁶

It is time for The People and The States to man-up and smack down the supreme Court. Scrape the Court’s barnacles off Our Constitution! State Legislatures must make laws directing all State and local governments and Citizens to ignore such usurpatious opinions of the supreme Court.

Endnotes:

¹ The briefs of the parties are HERE. The Questions Presented are set forth on pages 2 & 3.

² If a same-sex marriage is contracted in one State pursuant to the laws of that State, are other States obligated, under the “full faith and credit clause”, to acknowledge the marriage as valid? Article IV, §1 states:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” [boldface mine]

At the time of our Framing, “marriage” does not appear to have been encompassed within “public Act or record”. In Federalist No. 42 (next to last para), Madison comments on the clause in connection with criminal and civil justice. An Act of the First Congress (May 26, 1790) prescribed the mode in which the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings in each State, shall be authenticated so as to take effect in every other state.  An amendment to the 1790 Act (March 27, 1804), addresses “records” which may be kept in any public office of the State. But this cannot have included marriage records because a number of the original 13 States recognized common law marriage. And even for States which required formalities (e.g., Virginia), marriages could be accomplished by publication of banns and subsequent recordation in church and parish records – which were not “public records”. Marriage licenses issued by the States were a later development. The meaning of the clause which prevailed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified remains until changed by formal Amendment to the Constitution. So the full faith and credit clause does NOT require States to recognize marriages contracted under the laws of other States.

³ Professor Raoul Berger shows in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of §1 of the 14^th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves, and provide constitutional authority for the federal Civil Rights Act of 1966 which protected freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights.

Professor Berger shows in Chapter 11 (page 222 of his book) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta.  It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice.  It does not involve judicial power to override State Laws!

In short, the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago and codified into their own State Codes.

Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment is badly written, uses vague terminology, and violates the “expressly contained” rule. One has to read, as Professor Berger did, the discussions in Congress and the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to know what § 1 is about. But our moral and spiritual decline began in the early 1800s; from there, intellectual collapse quickly follows.

⁴ They even claim the right to keep on redefining “liberty” to include additional practices they might in the future want to force everyone to accept. They said in Lawrence v. Texas:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (majority opinion, next to last para) [emphasis mine].

⁵ Because Congress has “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the federal enclaves described at Art. I, §8, next to last clause; Congress may make laws addressing these objects for those limited geographical areas. See also Art. IV, §3, cl 2. And pursuant to Art. I, §8, cl. 14, Congress may make laws addressing these objects for active duty military personnel.

⁶ The short and clear paper HERE proves that nullification of unconstitutional acts of the national government is the remedy advised by our Framers. One cannot honestly dispute this. PH

May 11, 2015