Liberty

Restore and Preserve the Constitution Event Video

Dangers of the Article V Convention of States

Article V Convention - Publius Huldah & Paul Broun

Media Contacts
Jane Yandow,  janeyandow@gmail.com, 770-815-5599
Field Searcy,  info@indefenseofliberty.tv, 678-525-7072

For Immediate Release February 6, 2015

Dangers of the Article V Convention of States and Understanding the Facts Public Forum: February 12th

Most people are not aware that the Georgia Legislature adopted legislation in the last session calling for an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of amending the U.S. Constitution. The recently formed Committee to Restore and Preserve the Constitution will host their second public forum on Thursday, February 12th at 6:30 p.m. at Taylor Farm Pavilion on 201 Lucas Rd., SW in Cartersville, Georgia 30120.  The Committee is a strong supporter and defender of the U. S. Constitution.

Guest Speaker Publius Huldah, a retired attorney and renowned lecturer on the Constitution, will give a discourse on the “Dangers of the Article V Convention of States and Understanding the Facts.”  Her documented information will provide attendees with an insight on how the States and citizens can peacefully restore Federalism, the Rule of Law and the individual rights of American citizens.  Included are the concerns of calling for an Article V Convention and the multiple reasons it is not advisable to do so at this time.

Former U.S. Congressman, Paul Broun, will share his plan on how Americans can best work together to restore Constitutional principles.  Prior to the Forum, he will be available at 6:30 p.m. to meet and discuss various issues the public may have on this volatile subject.  Attendees are also invited to come at the same time for coffee, light refreshments and to check out the vendors’ booths which will have an assortment of related material  for sale.

Debbie Harris-Staver, the organization’s founder said “the goal of the event is for attendees to leave with an increased understanding of the dangers involved with a convention called by Congress and also recognize that there are safe solutions the states can utilize to rein in the Federal Government’s continued violations of our Constitution.”    (For information call 770-435-4558 or 770-815-5599)

For more information visit the Restore and Preserve the Constitution Facebook page.

Permission granted for reprint and distribution. Please forward.

########

Sent on behalf of the Committee to Restore and Preserve the Constitution, an all-volunteer grassroots group dedicated to defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Our goal is have the states assert and implement their right and duty to contain the federal government within its constitutional bounds.

Freedom of Speech is Not Politically Correct

ARC Public Comment Policy Falls Short

By Field Searcy
September 28, 2014

Last Wednesday, twelve private citizens addressed the Atlanta Regional Commission about the adoption of a more friendly public comment policy at the monthly board meetings. For some on the board, the comments were not welcomed. Maybe they were offended by the tone or the political correctness. Maybe the words cut to close too home. Or, maybe they’ve forgotten the price that was paid to secure the right.

The very foundation of the First Amendment was the right of political speech of the people to petition their government or challenge its authority. The ARC receives federal, state and local money. Its existence is the creature of government legislation at the state and federal level even its structure violates the republican form of government. In every way, it is bound by the Constitution for the United States and the Georgia Constitution. In fact, the board members all swear an oath of allegiance to the same.

While all the ARC board members have busy lives and political careers, they should never be too busy to hear from the people that have delegated representative authority to them.

Indeed, the policy adopted is more liberal than the previous policy which required a 10 day notice, a motion by a board member, a second and a 2/3rd’s vote. The new policy on public comment remains inadequate for the following reasons.

  1. For a regional commission for 10 counties and a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) of 20 counties representing more than 5 million people, allowing a total of only 10 minutes with up to 2 minutes per person is not sufficient. Even Cobb County, which has recently been under fire for limiting public comment, has a more liberal policy.
  2. Given the limited amount of time allotted for public comment, safeguards should have been included to allow time for all points of view to be heard. Witness the backlash that was caused in Cobb by stacking of the deck with supporting voices against the citizens with opposing views. A true consultative approach of allowing differing opinions should be protected. A wise person once said “The shining spark of truth, cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”
  3. Public comment should be guaranteed directly in the ARC governing bylaws rather than a policy that can be changed “from time to time.”

The ARC Board passed the new policy with a vote of 19-7. We don’t believe the 7 that voted “no” are against free speech. Quite the contrary, we believe they wanted the sounding committee to rework the policy with some of the reasons cited above in mind. We salute them for their courage to not vote in lockstep with the rest. This was really the significant event since rarely is there ever a dissenting vote on any ARC Board decisions.

For too long, the people have been asleep and silent; not paying attention to what our elected representatives have been doing. We were too busy or too trusting to notice that authority was being subverted to unelected persons that cannot be held accountable to the people.

That is no longer the case. All across the spectrum, a political awakening is taking shape. The citizens are coming together, rediscovering that “We The People” are the sovereigns’ of the government and are reclaiming our rightful place to keep the government accountable and safeguard our liberties.

Field Searcy, a Cobb citizen, represents RepealRegionalism.com an education campaign by the Transportation Leadership Coalition, LLC which led the grassroots effort against the Regional Transportation Tax (TSPLOST) in 2012.

Permission to reprint is granted with full attribution.

Cobb County Board of Commissioners Blocks Opportunity for Dissent

Read the stunning rebuke of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners by the Atlanta Journal & Constitution as well as Chairman Tim Lee’s continued excuses for the process.  These are behind the pay wall.  You can comment here or on AJC if you have access.

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Saturday, June 14, 2014
Atlanta Journal Constitution

Recently, the Cobb County Board of Commissioners ratified a series of agreements between the county and the Atlanta Braves obligating Cobb taxpayers with $397 million in revenue bonds. Braves President John Schuerholz has publicly stated this deal would not have been completed if more time had been allowed for public scrutiny.

What the commission allowed on the night of the vote was a sickening display of affection as 12 supporters showered praise and admiration on the board for negotiating the public financing of a private sports stadium. This shows a lack of leadership and a serious breach of the public trust.

Knowing the contentious nature of this transaction and the magnitude of the obligation from the taxpayers, the commission should have made every effort to hear dissenting opinion. The AJC later reported that 3 of the commissioners were open to amending the rules to allow additional comment from the public. Any one of them could have made a motion. Once seconded, the chairman would have no choice but put the motion to a vote.

Chairman Tim Lee claims rules were followed. Yet the board’s Rules of Procedure were violated by releasing the agenda on Friday after 5 p.m., less than 5 days before a scheduled vote. Chairman Lee seems more concerned with getting the agenda of the Chamber of Commerce passed than he is with transparency and upholding the citizens’ rights.

Under the Georgia Constitution, the people have a right to petition those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances. Based on that principle, the board of commissioners has a higher obligation to hear from those that disagree with the funding for the Braves stadium. Instead, they chose to disenfranchise the citizens of their right to speak.

From the very beginning, this deal was done in secret, rushed to a vote after only 12 days, and now the commission has blocked public comment.  These are the actions of an oligarchy.  Ironic that this was pushed through following Memorial Day.  The Braves deal is just a symptom of a larger political disease running rampant through our governments.

Whether taxes are raised or money is shifted from other priorities, the fact remains this kind of public-private partnership is nothing more than corporate fascism, a merger of state and corporate interests benefiting the elite. That’s money that could be going to the general welfare of the county to fund schools, roads or other public services.

We elected the board of commissioners to represent the people, not the Chamber of Commerce and a multimillion-dollar media empire. No wonder public trust in government has deteriorated.

We’ve come to expect large document dumps after hours on holiday weekends from the federal government in Washington. Is this going to be the “Cobb way” of doing the peoples’ business? As usual, the deal is touted as a great model of public-private partnership that creates jobs and grows the economy. Isn’t it really another PPP that’s more about private profits, power, and politics than anything benefiting the public?

Field Searcy, a Cobb County resident, represents RepealRegionalism.com, an education campaign by the Transportation Leadership Coalition.

Source:  http://www.myajc.com/news/news/opinion/cobb-board-blocks-opportunity-for-dissent/ngJxc/#b5a50c00.3471904.735399

Light this field

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Saturday, June 14, 2014
Atlanta Journal Constitution

It is a long-held tenet of good governance in this country that the inherent power in any political subdivision resides firmly and ultimately with the people — and not those they elect to represent them. Or it should.

This non-negotiable truth has been cast aside and utterly ignored in Cobb County. The board of commissioners there badly needs a refresher course in this essential lesson of civics. This realization is based on the commission’s ongoing conduct around the matter of relocating the Atlanta Braves to new digs north of the ‘Hooch.

Cobb officials’ behavior thus far has drawn to mind images of questionable-at-best backroom deals forged in secret by political kingpins who believe their positions are beyond, or impervious to, public oversight and accountability. The process thus far as this deal clanks along has heavily tarnished the reputation of a county that, not long ago, was widely spoken of as an example of forthright, open government.

No more can that be said. Which is a profound shame, both for that county and the region it is part of.

In our view, there is no reasonable reason why a proposal of such importance to Cobb, this entire metro area and, arguably, much of the Southeast, had to be sprung upon the public and raced to done-deal status in scarcely two weeks’ time start to finish. Such a breakneck, reckless really, pace may have safeguarded vague business interests, but it has heavily damaged the public’s trust in government — in Cobb and beyond, we believe. Both this fractured region, and Cobb itself, should not have to bear such inflation in the price of civic distrust.

With hundreds of millions of public dollars now linked to this deal, taxpayers are fully justified in demanding that they have a right to know just what is, or was, going on much earlier than they did. And these same citizens are correct in questioning why this agreement could not have been conducted to a much-larger degree in the clean light of day. To do otherwise, as Cobb has done, frankly stinks.

Yet, the commission has been maddeningly consistent in its lockout of those who might dare criticize its maneuverings. During a commission meeting last month, opponents or skeptics of the proposal were barred from stating their case. Bureaucratic reasons feebly offered for this outrageous affront of the right to petition government also badly fail the smell test.

Cobb’s mulish insistence on keeping the public as far away from, for as long a period as possible, the decisions around the Braves’ move also unfairly call into question, if not impugn, the merits of what, at its core, is simply a business deal. Albeit a big one that moves an Atlanta — and Southern — institution from the central city to a new OTP home.

It’s worth stating here that this newspaper is not opposed to the team’s move. This Editorial Board has no position on where the Atlanta Braves ultimately play America’s pastime. In our view, the team, as a private-sector entity, is to be expected to seek the deal offering the best possible upside — wherever that may be around this great town.

Yet, Cobb County government’s behavior to this point has done no favors for a proposal that is best considered dispassionately — and openly. That would have been the best way to reach the best deal for all concerned, we believe.

And it should be the way forward from this point on for Cobb’s county commission.

Andre Jackson, for the Editorial Board.

Source: http://www.myajc.com/news/news/opinion/light-this-field/ngKYG/#1e1d7d57.3471904.735399

Cobb rightly seized fast-moving opportunity

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Saturday, June 14, 2014
Atlanta Journal Constitution

When the Atlanta Braves approached us about building a new stadium in Cobb County, it was a tremendous opportunity for our community. And like most opportunities, it was only going to exist for a short time.

The team wanted to move from its old stadium. Cobb County had the infrastructure, the capability and the ideal location for this to happen. We were the best choice­ — but we were not the only choice.

Even metro Atlanta was not the team’s only choice.

With discussions of moving the franchise out of downtown it was a priority for me to get the team and their planned $400 million private development here in Cobb. Thousands of new jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars in local investments and new economic growth are now on the horizon. Thanks to our community and their support, this move will benefit metro Atlanta and boosts the region’s economy with every game.

The necessity for a fast process frustrated some, even as most residents celebrated. We were aware of our critics’ objections. We held meeting after meeting after meeting to discuss everything with the public. We posted details to the Internet and shared it with the media.

We held almost a dozen public meetings between the announcement and last month’s vote. Opponents routinely attended and detailed the reasons they felt we should not help bring the Braves here. We listened. And though we do not believe they are correct, we respected their concerns.

Individual Cobb County commissioners held their own public meetings to hear from both sides. Commissioners kept a careful tally of those who called and emailed their offices with opinions both for and against the stadium agreement. The numbers were overwhelmingly in favor of this deal.

We worked to ensure residential property taxes would not rise as a result of this project. Businesses near the new stadium will bear a substantial portion of its construction costs and the team itself will invest $280 million upfront and another $6.1 million annually for 30 years. These figures exclude the estimated $400 million the team plans to spend by creating an entertainment district around the new stadium.

Cumberland area businesses are willing to help support this agreement because they understand what it means for them. It means customers. The Board of Commissioners understands what it means for the county. It means jobs. It means visitors. It means an unparalleled economic boost that will benefit the entire county. It means funds that will help keep our tax rates low.

We could have held a year’s worth of meetings on this topic with the only result being that the team would go elsewhere. The fundamental objections of critics would remain, the huge support would remain, but the opportunity would be lost.

Instead, this will be a successful project for the public and the region, because we made the right choices for Cobb.

Tim Lee is chairman of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners.

Source: http://www.myajc.com/news/news/opinion/cobb-rightly-seized-fast-moving-opportunity/ngKYM/#031fafaf.3471904.735399

Traitor or Patriot? You decide.

See the exclusive interview of Edward Snowden by German Television Channel NDR. He reveals the real nature of the public/private surveillance state.

To quote a recent article, “Computers and networks inherently produce data, and our constant interactions with them allow corporations to collect an enormous amount of intensely personal data about us as we go about our daily lives. Sometimes we produce this data inadvertently simply by using our phones, credit cards, computers and other devices. Sometimes we give corporations this data directly on Google, Facebook, [or] Apple’s iCloud … in exchange for whatever free or cheap service we receive from the Internet in return. The NSA is also in the business of spying on everyone, and it has realized it’s far easier to collect all the data from these corporations rather than from us directly. The result is a corporate-government surveillance partnership, one that allows both the government and corporations to get away with things they couldn’t otherwise. There are two types of laws in the U.S., each designed to constrain a different type of power: constitutional law, which places limitations on government, and regulatory law, which constrains corporations. Historically, these two areas have largely remained separate, but today each group has learned how to use the other’s laws to bypass their own restrictions. The government uses corporations to get around its limits, and corporations use the government to get around their limits. This partnership manifests itself in various ways. The government uses corporations to circumvent its prohibitions against eavesdropping domestically on its citizens. Corporations rely on the government to ensure that they have unfettered use of the data they collect. ”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-31/the-public-private-surveillance-partnership.html

Is he a traitor or patriot? You decide.

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151#lajdTeJ8f5XEVHch.99

How the Democratic Party Went from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx

By Daniel Greenfield (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, May 12, 2009   Canada Free Press

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior

“That brought us to our essential difference, the difference of the Evolutionary Collectivist and Marxist, the question whether the social revolution is, in its extremity, necessary, whether it is necessary to over throw one economic system completely before the new one can begin. I believe that through a vast sustained educational campaign the existing Capitalist system can be civilised into a Collectivist world system;” – H.G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows

This quote comes from H. G. Wells’ conversation with Vladimir Lenin. Wells was highlighting the difference between Lenin’s radical revolutionary program and Wells’ own “Open Conspiracy” evolutionary collectivist program.
What that means is that Lenin and H. G. Wells didn’t disagree on the final destination, a collectivist world system… socialism on a global scale applied to everyone and every single country. What they disagreed on was how to get there.
Lenin favored a violent overthrow of the existing free market capitalist systems, putting an end to democracy and individual freedoms by armed force, and replacing them with a revolutionary people’s government that would administer social justice.
As a Social Liberal, Wells favored a slow gradual takeover from within, using every cultural and political tool available to shift society over to a socialist system. He called this the “Open Conspiracy”, because social liberals would openly work to end capitalism and replace it with socialism.
Bill Ayers, Obama’s close associate, is a good example of Lenin gone Wells, or a revolutionary socialist becoming a social liberal. The difference is that the revolutionary socialist plants bombs, the social liberal works from within the system to achieve the same ends over a longer period of time.

The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power

In the United States, Social Liberalism took over the Democratic party in the early 20th century. That fundamental shift can be seen by comparing Grover Cleveland to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
As the last Classical Liberal Democratic President, Grover Cleveland was a firm believer in controlling the size of government, cutting taxes and vetoing most spending bills. He worked to reform the Federal government when needed, had little liking for unions or socialists and believed the Federal government should stay out of most affairs. This did not make him unusual, but in line with classical liberals all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
A mere twenty and forty years later, the next two Democratic Presidents, Wilson and FDR, were enthusiastic about expanding government and using its power to bring about social justice. The newly transformed Democratic Presidency believed that government should be in the business of regulating everything and poking its nose in everywhere. By the time FDR was using government regulation to control the price of meat and putting unions in the driver’s seat, socialism was well and truly here.
The Democratic party had gone from being classically liberal to socially liberal. Where the classical liberal thought that big government should leave people alone, and treated rights as freedom from government tyranny… the social liberal thought that government should control people to enforce social justice and disdained rights as “negative freedoms”, instead favoring “positive freedoms” that would involve government abridging rights to create social and economic equality.
The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power. Where classical liberals saw government power as a tyrannical force that needed to be controlled, social liberals saw government power as a benign tyranny that could be used to check the greater danger of unregulated social and economic systems.
Classical liberals believed freedom came from ending government intervention that created inequality. Social liberals believed that equality was more important than freedom, and that it could only be achieved by curbing anything that prevented equality.

FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society

The Social Liberal takeover of the Democratic party was not complete with Wilson or FDR. It isn’t complete today either, as there are Classical Liberal Democrats still in Congress and in various state governments. But with Obama, the Social Liberal takeover has reached almost revolutionary proportions.
The two great Social Liberal moments in the 20th century came as political opportunities resulting from crises. FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were agile exploitations of an economic and social crisis that enabled them to push through a Social Liberal agenda that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the Federal Government.
Obama’s ascension to power represents the Third Wave of Social Liberalism in America, exploiting the so-called economic crisis to execute an equally far reaching Social Liberal program. What the Marxists in Russia or Latin America have tried to do in a matter of years, Social Liberals in Europe and America have waited decades and even over a century to push through.
With a free market economy and a long tradition of stubborn individualism, America represented the Social Liberal’s greatest challenge. The Open Conspiracy has slowly worked to undermine that, emphasizing the security of government collectivism, pushing community over country, class and race over citizenship, and collectivization based thinking over individualism. Meanwhile America’s cultural values and national standards have been chipped away at, making it possible for the vulgar adolescent charade that was the 2008 election to take place.
By embracing social liberalism, the party of Jefferson broke down the “wall of separation” between government and the individual that served as the Constitutional guarantee of civil liberties against a tyrannical government. Social liberalism meant the end of individual rights and the beginning of civil rights with government authority placed above all else. And by doing so the Democratic party replaced individual freedoms with an all encompassing bureaucracy, and liberty with socialism, and now with Obama, America stands on the verge of closing the gap between Wells and Lenin, between the Evolutionary Collectivist and the Marxist.

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior are just some of the building blocks of the emerging “Great Society”, the socialism with a human face that Social Liberals have aimed at for well over a century. Unlike Lenin’s revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, our transition to a Marxist system was meant to be gradual and seamless. Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, the temperature was being turned up slowly and gradually. Even now when banks are being nationalized and major automakers turned over to union ownership, it is mainly people over 40 who are even noticing that anything is wrong.
The Revolution as it turns out will not be brought to you by Coke, but by Pepsi. Flags will be waved, even though they are no longer American flags. A new symbol has been created, a new seal has been set and a new America is being planted over the protesting remains of the old. But the struggle remains the same.
The question is, will we choose to be free or slaves. Will we protect our freedom from government, or give up our freedom to government. Will we come out of the shadows of Obama and the Social Liberal revolution of 2008, or will a new Iron Curtain rise over the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

NSA Spying on Americans

Do you think your phone calls are private? Watch this short set of videos and learn how all digital communications: phone, email, chat, web surfing, etc. have been systematically collected for at least 10 years by the NSA.  The first video is from CNN (approximately 1.5 minutes).

This second video is from AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein.  He explains the secret room at AT&T only accessible by NSA cleared personnel. (Approximately 5.5 minutes.)

Read the transcript of an interview with Mark Klein on PBS back in 2007. The interview explains how splitters have been installed at all peering links on the backbone of the Internet.  The splitter siphon’s off a copy of all phone and Internet traffic?  Where does it go and what do they do with it?  Watch the next video as William Binney, an NSA whistle-blower and participant in the Steller Winds Project, explains how all the data is collected and used. (Approximately 8.5 minutes.)

William Binney is among a group of N.S.A. whistle-blowers, including Thomas A. Drake, who have each risked everything — their freedom, livelihoods and personal relationships — to warn Americans about the dangers of N.S.A. domestic spying; A top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans’ personal data.

If all of that is not enough to convince you, watch this interview with NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice as he explains that the NSA was spying on Supreme Court Judge Alito and then Senator Barrack Obama. You have to ask yourself, who is really running this country?

Read more about N.S.A. domestic spying: http://invisibler.com/the-program-interview-with-william-binney/
This is a very disturbing video about how our governmenthas been spying on US citizens.

As reported by Wired Magazine in March 2012, CIA Director/General Petraeus said we’ll spy on you through your dishwasher. See http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/. This is how the new smart meter technology will be utilized. It’s a gateway to communicate with your smart appliances.

In addition, the FBI will be spending $1 Billion on face recognition technology which can be enhanced with images from Facebook and other social media see article here: http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/.

The Patriot Act allows government agents to write their own search warrants without review by a judge and it’s illegal for you to even discuss with your attorney.  (Search YouTube for video presentation by Judge Andrew Napolitano regarding natural rights and the Patriot Act parts 1, 2, &3.) And again, under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, the provisions of the NDAA allow the federal government to arrest and detain U.S. citizens without ‘due process’ until the ‘end of hostilities’ on the order of the Executive Branch.  Without due process means, no judge, no jury, no lawyer.

When you combine the above you will see that we are losing our God given rights under natural law and under the Constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.  The right to freedom of speech and thought; the right to privacy and to be secure in our persons, houses, and papers; and the right to due process.  We are losing our system of checks and balances. We are moving away from the rule of law to the rule by men.

So, considering all of the above, there are two approaches.  We can either retreat and allow the controllers to continue
to implement a surveillance/police state tyranny.  Or, we can make a stand for liberty and use their own social media tools against them to make more people aware of what’s happening.  I for one will do the latter.  If we don’t stand up for our rights and freedoms, we will lose them.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

It’s My Constitution


 

“It’s My Constitution” is a lively, educational video that provides an entertaining overview of this founding document, and its importance to us today. Through a lively discussion, Travis, Christiana and Michael Loudermilk uncover the true intent of our Constitution, clarify some common misunderstandings and reveal its relevance to us today. Their father, Georgia Senator Barry Loudermilk, chimes in to provide insights into some of the key provisions of the Constitution.
 
Firm Reliance, Inc. was commissioned by the Georgia Department of Education, in recognition of the 225th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention. It was produced by Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Memorandum of Law – The Authority of the County Sheriff

By: hawkiye; a member of AboveTopSecret.com

It is amazing to me that so many important laws and rulings have fallen into such obscurity that when you tell people about them they scoff or even  try and ridicule you. We wonder why the constitution is ignored so much it is simply because of a lack of knowledge by the people and even  the officers of the law and courts.

So I have put together this memorandum of law on the Authority of the County Sheriff where it derives from and why the county Sheriff could save America if he understands his oath to uphold the constitution and rises to the occasion. They could be the heroes of America if they do so.  Anyway without further delay here it is:

Memorandum of Law – The Authority of the County Sheriff

The County Sheriff is a long established icon for keeping the peace and administering the law. Not only in American Jurisprudence but also in English and UK jurisprudence and in history along with many other European nations and even India.

The Sheriff is the only Officer of the law that is duly Elected by the people and thus answers to them and no one else as will be shown by this memorandum. He is not appointed and therefore is directly chosen by the people as their duly elected representative and defender of their rights. This is a very important point that has been forgotten and largely lost in these modern times.

Therefore it is the Sheriffs duty to serve and protect those who have entrusted him with their delegated authority to keep the peace and protect their rights. This is a great responsibility and not to be taken lightly. It is the hope that this memorandum of law citing the law and Rulings of the Supreme court that we can reestablish the importance of this Sacred office and educate the people and the county Sheriffs to the awesome responsibility the office of Sheriff holds in protecting the freedoms of the people of his county.

Let us look at the law and some supreme court rulings on the matter:

U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

Here we have the US Constitution established as the supreme law of the land and the Judges in every state are bound by it. This is very important. All the state constitutions also very closely resemble the US Constitution. This means the Bill of Rights applies in every state and Judges and officers are bound by it and obligated to uphold these rights and take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”,“Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:

“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”

Here in Marbury v. Madison with Norton v. Shelby corroborating the supreme court has ruled that if any law is passed that comes into conflict with the Constitution it is null and void from the minute it has been passed and  there is no obligation to obey nor power to enforce and it is as if it had never existed. This is very important for Peace officers to understand and adhere to. These rulings have never been over turned and are landmark cases in American Jurisprudence.

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:

Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.

Title 18, US Code Sec.2381:

In the presence of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you
fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of
office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.

This is very important for all officers of the law to understand for their oaths of office are to uphold the Constitution. This is explicitly to protect the people and their rights from being abused. It is hoped that all officers think and ponder deeply on this especially in this information age when errant officers whose actions have reflected badly on the rest have been broadcast nationally. Further more officers should reflect on  any acts they enforce and whether they are constitutional. As we shall see  in more rulings it is not just for the courts to decide as many now believe.

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:

“That the constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”

Bary v. United States – 273 US 128

“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of
the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”

We the people are the express beneficiaries of  the US Constitution.

Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 1051943)

“A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution
… No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

This is another land mark case. We see here the supreme court as ruled that no state can charge a fee to exercise a right nor can it convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it. This is violated daily now in America. This ruling has not been overturned. Violation of this provision happens largely because both the people and officers are unaware of this ruling and its daily violation has become a matter of routine therefore tolerated as a necessary evil so to speak. One wonders how such an important Supreme court ruling could fall into such obscurity?

And further:
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 2621962)

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Here the supreme court has ruled that such acts can be ignored with impunity. Again how does such an important landmark case fall into obscurity? Isn’t it time for Americans to rediscover their history and rights?

Now let us look at a specific landmark Case brought by two County Sheriffs against the Federal government and the important implications of this case in regards to the County Sheriff’s Authority and who he answers to. These Sheriff’s were Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana and Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona.  This was in regards to the enforcement of the Brady Bill by Local Sheriff’s and their refusal to do so however its rulings extend far beyond just that. This clarifies where the Sheriffs authority is derived from and that its the people who elected him and his duty to use his authority protect their rights.

Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

“We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: “The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule.”

“Not only do the enactments of the early Congresses, as far as we are aware, contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States’ executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization, they contain some indication of precisely the opposite assumption.”

Here the court clearly states the Federal government has no authority in the County Sheriff’s Jurisdiction and even states that the opposite of having any authority is the case. This is significant as we will see in further rulings.

…the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Here the Court upholds the Sovereignty of the States and the people reaffirming the tenth Amendment  and even quoting part of it and that there are rights the people have that are not listed and they are every bit as binding as those listed in the Bill of Rights.

And now for perhaps the most important part of this ruling:

***”The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576-577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) (“the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]“). As Madison expressed it: ” The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]“***

Read that again if you will!  Local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy and are not subject to the General authority any more then it is subject to them within its own sphere. Did you hear that? The Sheriff is not subject to the state authority nor the federal Authority within his own sphere anymore then they are to him!!! That means the Sheriff is the highest officer of the law in his jurisdiction and the only authority he answers too is the People! That means he has the authority to protect his county from federal encroachment and enforcement of unconstitutional acts statutes and polices.

Now to any Sheriffs who may be reading this do you see your awesome responsibility of the authority that has been conferred on you? Will you protect the people of your county from Federal agents who enforce unconstitutional laws now knowing your authority? Especially since the Supreme court has ruled in several cases (and none of them have been over turned) that an unconstitutional law is null and void from inception and is as if it had never been passed? Please dear Sheriff’s think and ponder long and hard on this and resolve to uphold your oaths! We are either a nation of laws or we are not!

let us look at a few more provisions of this Land mark ruling

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory, supra, at 458. To quote Madison once again:  “In the compound republic of America, the power [delegated] by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” The Federalist No. 51, at 323.

***”When a “La[w] . . . for carrying into Execution” the Commerce Clause violates the principle of state sovereignty reflected in the various constitutional provisions we mentioned earlier, supra, at 19-20, it is not a Law . . . proper for carrying into Execution the Commerce Clause,” and is thus, in the words of The Federalist, “merely an act of usurpation” which “deserves to be treated as such.”***

Again we have reiteration that any unconstitutional act is not law and should be treated as such from inception. There is no need to wait for a court ruling on the law we already have the court rulings many of which our listed in this memorandum.

“Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.”

www.law.cornell.edu…

Obviously the point is now made with no room for misunderstanding. A link is provided to the case if one wishes to read the entire case. Also Sheriff Richard Mack has written a book on his experience and discovery of the importance of the office of Sheriff called  “County Sheriff Americas Last Hope” which everyone is strongly encouraged to read especially Sheriff’s. sheriffmack.com…

In conclusion here is a partial list of Sheriffs who have exercised their authority in their counties and prevented the federal government from enforcing unconstitutional statutes:

Sheriff Jay Printz Montana
Sheriff Richard Mack Arizona
Sheriff Dave Mattis Wyoming
Sheriff Gary Aman Idaho
Sheriff Tony DeMeo Arizona

There are more and one can do an internet search on any of their names to learn more.

Sheriffs who know and understand their authority really are Americas last hope and it is gratifying to see more and more of them speaking out and affirming our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms  during this time. It is our hope that this memorandum of law affirming that they have authority to prevent federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional acts will embolden them to rise to the occasion. Please forward to any and all Sheriffs nation wide and let them know the law and the People are on their side if they are willing to uphold their oaths of office!

Source: hawkiye; a member of AboveTopSecret.com