Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:02pm

The courts were NOT given the power to decide what Constitution means, to “interpret” it. They were given the power and duty to decide if the case in question follows the US Constitution, if it is in Pursuance thereof it. The US Constitution defines the standard that all laws must meet, that they MUST be in Pursuance thereof it to be lawful here in the USA.

That is what the judges must decide, is it in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. If it is, then it is lawful. If it is not then it is NOT lawful and no one is bound by it. When they are performing that duty, then, and only then are they using “Good Behaviour” and keeping the contract that they are under.

Why is it important that “We the people” understand the difference between judges who use “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms and those who do not?

So many believe only those in the government decides what happens and if they – in all three branches are good or bad. But here in America, the people are supposed to decide directly and indirectly through various means – though the last few decades it has been much ignored even in the courts. Many have also forgotten that the courts were to be an independent branch enforcing the US Constitution, under no type of coercion from either the executive or the legislative branches.

The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people's unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.

Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it's guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.

In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite any belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged.  The jury nullifies a law that it believes is either a bad law.

Once a jury returns with a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court, plus the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors:

"You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law."

And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine:

“I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams:

“Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

John Adams:

“It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

“though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else? This is the duty assigned to the people of the United States of American BECAUSE they are the only "group" that would have the concept of what is good for the people always in mind unlike many other of the treasonous scum and domestic enemies of the USA currently serving - including Bush 1 and his admin, Clinton and his admin, Bush 2 and his admin .. etc.

WE are the ones who allowed this to happen, and only WE can stop it LAWFULLY.

Samuel Chase:  “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

Patrick Henry:  “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off…This gives me comfort, that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.”

Thomas Jefferson:  “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

James Madison, Federalist 46, 315-23:  “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes... They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”

(Next: Emergency Powers.)

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:09pm

Governmental Emergency Powers

"Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence…Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

There's NO such thing as “emergency powers” that anyone serving or working within either of the state or federal governments in the USA that they can “evoke”, not lawfully. Those within the federal or state governments can claim “emergency powers” for anything they want and the ONLY thing they do is make criminals of those who are too ignorant or are domestic enemies of the USA and actually try to enforce these “pretend” “laws” when they should have immediately arrested those who wrote and gave those orders. They fooled the people who never bothered to learn what part they themselves play within our nation what powers they actually were granted to use, and now the people are paying for it.

Which means that the Militia of the several states will need to press charges and arrest them for their crimes; along with the domestic enemies or traitors who created it under the “color of law” which has no LAWFUL basis or authority behind it here in the USA. Why the Militia of the several states? Because the Militia is THE Constitutionally assigned lawful body to:

• Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution,

• Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),

• Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and

• “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

• Insurrections can be those who are in governmental offices working together to destroy our legitimate government – state or federal.

Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60 excluding those in either the state or federal governments.

Definition of the words “lawful” and “legal” first since they are used interchangeably though they have different meanings.

“Lawful”: in accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. Ex: Constitution of the United States of America, state Constitutions

“Legal”: the “color of law”, “appearance of law”, “pretense of law without the substance of lawfulness”, “misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state”. Ex: Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, NSA, Warrantless spying/tracking/searches/etc, “giving' authority over the US Military to the UN, using UN and foreign laws, etc

Because there's no “emergency powers” given within the US Constitution to any or all of the branches of the federal government; or any powers that are not defined and remedies allowed put forth, Anything done in the name of “emergency powers” is criminal in action. Worse, those unlawful enforcement actions makes them criminals; though they might have done this misdeed with no knowledge that they were committing criminal acts. Yet, they still must be held accountable for those actions because they were REQUIRED as part of the contract agreed to when they took the office or position they occupy to take this Oath and keep it, or one similar to it:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Notice that the most words describe exactly what they are to do for the US Constitution before anything else, including following orders of US presidents and/or orders of those above them or the duties of the position or office they will be occupying. Also notice that “obey the orders of the President of the United States” is joined in the same sentence with “and the orders of the officers appointed over me”, that is how low on the priority scale those presidential orders are compared to the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it. Plus that the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” is mentioned because it requires ONLY lawful orders to be followed. So as many in the US Military found out before, THEY are held accountable for their actions following orders or not because they are REQUIRED to know what the oath says and MEANS.

(con't)

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:10pm

Dr. Edwin Vieira:

“This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides...

The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights...

The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

... the famous case Norton v. Shelby County... The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution...”

What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment... What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.

If we go to the doctrine of “Emergency Powers,”... what was the foundational case that put that doctrine on the constitutional map? It was Knox vs. Lee, the legal tender cases brought after the Civil War.

...

... read a dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Field, the only Justice on the Supreme Court who had the integrity to dissent in every legal tender case that he heard. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Dooley vs. Smith, in 1872. He wrote, “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.”

You notice he was not talking specifically about the monetary powers. He wasn’t saying that these arguments would lead to the monetary powers being unrestrained. It was destroying the concept of limited government. “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress.” How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government...

The Federal Reserve System was there when the greatest banking collapse in American history occurred, in 1932-1933, and in what was called the Great Depression of the 1930s. In that period what happened? The Roosevelt New Deal. What were the powers they were screaming for? Emergency powers. You’ll find that written into many statutes, e.g., The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. You should pay attention to the title, The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, and the “Aggregate Powers” doctrine. It’s been all downhill since then.

... 

How should that have been done? Well, Americans would have had to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? [holding a copy of the Constitution] It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “we the people.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the people. We the people are the principals.

The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers...

The Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy, their knowledge unequaled by any today. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly here in the United States. What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”

We the people are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters. (Dr. Edwin Vieira, http://www.constitution.org/mon/vieira_03225.htm )

Notice that it was the Supreme courts “gave” “emergency powers”, though it was not, and still is not, a power granted to them to give or use.

(con't)

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:14pm

James Madison proposed the Bills of Rights to the new Congress on June 8, 1789. It was finally created after much arguing and discussion in the respective State legislatures which were debating the ratification of the new Constitution.

Madison said,

"That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution."

And that

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor for applying to the legislature by petitions or remonstrances for redress of their grievances...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Madison also stated,

"The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized."

He included,

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The Bill of Rights was unequaled in its time in the limits it put upon those who would serve within the federal government and the state governments and the protections of the people's natural rights; and is still surpassed by none today. This is what made the rulers of other nations hate America and Americans for being upstarts, going against what they considered the normal flow; different classes of people lower then one another. How dare Americans be equal, not bowing their heads in servility to their “betters” when in different nations, instead speaking to them as their equals.

Constitutional Enforcement has been the problem in the USA. Caused by the slow progressive (name your “ism”) takeover of all media – now a cartel, schools, and even religions – which does not say there is a fault with religions, the faults lie with the those in higher positions within the religions who sold-out for earthly goods. The non support and training of the Militias of the several states being ridiculed as not needed, stupid, activists, etc left us pretty much defenseless against the traitors and domestic enemies that began to hold office within both the federal and state governments. Remember, law enforcement and the military are governmental agencies – they work for the government - though are paid for by the people whom they and those within the governmental agencies are lawfully required to protect. It is only the Militia's of the several states – made up of the people themselves – that would / will / and SHALL keep the well-being of the people at the forefront and not “just follow orders” or “just do their jobs”, unlawful though those orders or demands be from their superiors making the enforcers criminals.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChurchVState/TestOath/su...

The US Constitution does not allow for those elected or hired to implement or install “emergency powers”. It is not in their job description, the contract they agreed to when they took the governmental office or position they occupy – elected or hired, military or nonmilitary. The Bill of Rights is a list of further restrictions put upon those who serve or occupy governmental positions; the US Constitution defining exactly what they can do, which restricts, forbids anything else that is not specifically listed there. It does not allow for “executive orders” or “judicial orders” rather it forbids them in Article I, Section. 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Nor does it allow “emergency powers” under whatever pretext those in governmental positions would like to pretend they can use against us.

The word “All” in Article I, Section. 1 is all inclusive, meaning no one in the executive branch or within the judicial branch nor their “minions”, may create laws, executive orders, emergency powers, etc. (“All”: the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of). That “power”, “authority” is denied to those who serve within any capacity in those two branches: executive and judicial.

The entire concept of "emergency powers" was repudiated by the Supreme Court, in Panama Refining Corp. v. Ryan and then again in A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.(Roosevelt's New Deal legislation)

In Schecter, "the NRA attorneys, led by General Counsel Donald Richberg, strongly advocated the use of the 'emergency powers doctrine.'"

The Justices did not accept the government's arguments. . . .

Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Hughes also dealt a death blow to the emergency powers doctrine. Counsel for the government's opponents relied on [Ex Parte] Milligan, arguing that an "emergency does not increase constitutional power nor diminish constitutional restrictions." Yielding to their appeal, the Chief Justice retreated from the near-endorsement he had given the emergency powers doctrine in [Home Building & Loan Association v.] Blaisdell. "Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power," he declared. The Court conceded that such conditions might well require extraordinary remedies, but that did not "justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority." Those who acted under authorization of the Constitution, the Court said, were not free to transcend the limitations upon the power that it granted merely because they believed that more or different power was necessary.

After Schecter ( A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.) the Supreme Court's attitude started shifting. It went from making sure that ALL laws, etc were in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution as the duty was assigned to them until National Labor Relations Act, when the Supreme Court began to uphold every piece of New Deal legislation that it considered. This was NOT “Good Behaviour” being practiced by the courts and the people should have removed them immediately.

Then the case of U.S. v. Macintosh, which overruled the case of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. contributed greatly in transforming America from basically a Christian nation into more of a "government controlled State."

Senate Report 92549, which was written in 1973, says that the USA has been in a state of declared national emergency since 1933, which means that we have been - and still are - are living under “emergency rule” an unlawful state here in the USA. A multitude of “laws” have been put on the books since 1933 that have unlawfully, but steadily, increased the power of the federal government.

Supposedly, now a US president could even institute Martial Law under these “new socialist” pretenses of law. Under martial law, travel can be restricted, and all forms of communications can be controlled. Martial Law is unlawful here in the USA, it is treason being committed by all involved; from those that initiate it, to those who “just do their jobs” and “just follow orders” and implement it

The Constitution is a Document that (allegedly to some) was inspired by God. Obviously the Founding fathers had enough insight to include provisions within it for emergencies, along with their allowed remedy’s. http://groundzeromedia.org/archives/dis/control/control.html

Emergency Powers (http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/constitutional_p... )

In times of crisis presidents often lay claim to extraordinary powers to preserve the nation. Such emergency powers are neither granted expressly to the president nor delegated to Congress by the Constitution. Instead, they are judged to reside purely in the need for leaders to protect national sovereignty and domestic order. The mandate in Article II that the president “preserve, protect and defend” the US Constitution and uphold its provisions is considered (by those who want those powers) to contain implicitly the notion of emergency powers. Yet that cannot be true since they are required to “PRESERVE”, not only “protect and defend” the US Constitution. In actuality all US Presidents are held to a higher standard then everyone else as they are the ones charges with implementing the “laws of the land” - all that are IN Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”’

Notice that the Framers placed the presidential Oath of Office after the beginning clauses which set forth the organization of the executive department, and before the ending clauses that specify the contours of the President's assigned power. The President is required to take the oath after he assumes the office but before he can lawfully execute it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting - the clause limits how the President's "executive power" is to be exercised.

Both the state and the federal governments get their powers from the people. From those who would know:

Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

Alexander Hamilton: "Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

James Madison, Federalist 46, 315-23: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes... They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”

James Madison: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.”

Federalist Number 57, James Madison wrote that Congress "can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Abraham Lincoln: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.”

Madison, Federalist 39: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." 

Alexander Hamilton: “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”

WE are the enforcers of the US Constitution and each state's Constitution. LAWFULLY.

WE are the ones who decide if judges are using "Good Behaviour" in the courtrooms. LAWFULLY.

WE are the ones to enforce the "laws of the land" (laws in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution).  LAWFULLY.

It is PAST time to train our state's Militias, ourselves.

Next, some good news

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:16pm

CSPOA Resolution, CSPOA Jan 2014 Resolution

The following was drafted at a meeting of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) on Jan 24, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada and approved by the members present.  We encourage all sheriffs, peace officers and those in public office to sign with us. We also welcome the signatures of all other U.S. citizens.

To add your name, download a printable version, print it, sign it, scan it and submit it here.

Resolution Of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

Pursuant to the powers and duties bestowed upon us by our citizens, the undersigned do hereby resolve that any Federal officer, agent, or employee, regardless of supposed congressional authorization, is required to obey and observe limitations consisting of the enumerated powers as detailed within Article 1 Section 8 of the U S Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

The people of these united States are, and have a right to be, free and independent, and these rights are derived from the “Law of Nature and nature’s God.” As such, they must be free from infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches and seizures, capricious detainment’s and every other natural right whether enumerated or not, pursuant to the 9th amendment.

We further reaffirm that “The 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.” (10th amendment)

Furthermore, we maintain that no agency established by the U S Congress can develop its own policies or regulations which supersede the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, nor does the executive branch have the power to make law, overturn law or set aside law.

Therefore, in order to protect the American people, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:

1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.

2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

3) Audits or searches of a citizen’s personal affairs or finances without probable cause, and due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.

6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.

7) Domestic utilization of our nation’s military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.

8) Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the undersigned Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and other Public Servants, do hereby denounce any acts or agencies which promote the aforementioned practices. All actions by the Federal Government and its agents will conform strictly and implicitly with the principles expressed within the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

There is no greater obligation or responsibility of any government officer than to protect the rights of the people. Thus, any conduct contrary to the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights will be dealt with as criminal activity.

---

(con't)

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:17pm

TOTAL SIGNERS AS OF 2/3/2014: 51

Signers are listed alphabetically by state, then by County/Agency. Click the date to see the actual signature.

ST	Agency	Title	Name	Signed
AZ	CSPOA	Founder	Richard Mack	1/24/2014
AZ	Arizona	State Committeman	Rick Dalton	1/24/2014
CA	San Bernadino County	Campaign Manager	Lawrence Hebron	1/24/2014
CA	Riverside County	Candidate for Governor of California	Robert C. Newman II, PhD	1/24/2014
CA	Los Angeles County	Deputy Sheriff	Paul Schrader	1/24/2014
CA	Trinity County Sheriff's Office	Deputy Sheriff	Mark Potts	1/30/2014
CA	San Bernardino County	Individual, Republic for the uSA	Daniel Mahnke	2/1/2014
CA	Fresno	Mr.	Steven Rahn	1/30/2014
CA	Modoc County	Sheriff	Mike Poindexter	1/24/2014
CO	Mesa	Administration of Justice Graduate	David Zulian	1/30/2014
DE	Sussex County Sheriff's Office	Sheriff	Jeff Christopher	1/24/2014
FL	Florida	Citizen	Michael Alvarez	1/30/2014
FL	Liberty County	Sheriff	Nick Finch	1/24/2014
ID	ADA	Retired CSRS	Robert Penner Sr	1/31/2014
ID	Benewah County	Sheriff	Dave Resser	1/24/2014
IL	Chicago Fire Department.	Lieutenant	Mike Horist	1/31/2014
IN	Elkhart County	Sheriff	Bradley Rogers	1/24/2014
KS	Sherman County Sheriff's Office	Sheriff	Burton Pianalto	1/24/2014
KY	Jackson County	Sheriff	Denny Peyman	1/24/2014
KY	Kenton County	Sheriff	Charles Lee Korzenborn	1/24/2014
MD	The Institute on the Constitution	Esquire	Michael Peroutka	1/24/2014
MD	DHS Federal Protective Service	Supervisory Special Agent (Retired)	Christopher Fiora	1/24/2014
MI	Barry County Sheriffs Department	Barry County Sheriffs Auxillary	Douglas Hull	1/30/2014
MI	Barry County Sheriff's Office	Sheriff	Darin Leaf	1/24/2014
MI	Benzie County	Sheriff	Ted Schendel	1/24/2014
MO	Old Monroe	Chief of Police	Larry Kirk	1/24/2014
MO	Platte County	Citizen	Timothy Norris	2/1/2014
MO	Christian County	Sheriff	Joey Kyle	1/24/2014
MO	Osage County	Sheriff	Michael Dixon	1/24/2014
NH	Coos	Citizen	Alvah Brown	1/31/2014
NM	Jemez Springs Police	Chief	Shane Harger	1/24/2014
NM	Valencia County	Sheriff	Rene Rivera	1/24/2014
NV	Clark County	Candidate for Sherriff	Gordon Martines	1/24/2014
NY	Society for the Preservation of our American Reubl	Founder and President	Robert Laity	1/29/2014
OK	Okmulgee County, OK	Citizen and former City Councilman	Jim Lonsdale	1/30/2014
OR	Morrow County Sheriff's Office	Sheriff	Ken Matlack	1/24/2014
PA	Clymer Law	Attorney	James Clymer	1/24/2014
PA	Office of Constable for the 9th Ward	State Constable	Ed Quiggle, Jr.	1/24/2014
TN	Fentress County Sheriff's Office	Deputy Sheriff	Larry Crabtree	1/24/2014
TN	Fentress County Sheriff's Office	Deputy Sheriff	David Oppenheim	1/24/2014
(con't)

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:17pm

TX	Dallas County	Candidate for Sherriff	Kirk Launius	1/24/2014
TX	Ellis County	County Commissioner	Paul Perry	1/24/2014
TX	Shackelford County Sheriff's Office	Deputy Sheriff	Donovon Boyett	1/24/2014
TX	Archer City Police Department	Officer	Terry Madison	1/31/2014
TX	Edwards County	Sheriff	Pamela Elliott	1/24/2014
TX	Shackelford County Sheriff's Office	Sheriff	Edward Miller	1/24/2014
TX	Dallas Police Department	Sr. Cpl.	Thomas Haney	1/24/2014
TX	Texas	SSG	Joel Viertel	1/31/2014
UT	Beaver County	Sheriff	Cameron Noel	1/24/2014
UT	Utah County Sheriff Department	Sheriff	James Tracy	1/24/2014
WA	Cowlitz County	Deputy Sheriff	Nathan Hockett	1/24/2014

Permalink Reply by T Stirhen on February 12, 2014 at 8:18pm

You can train by volunteering at a Constitutional Sheriff's office - list of those are at CSPOA (cspoa.org)

Permalink Reply by Central Scrutinizer on February 12, 2014 at 9:07pm

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page