News of Interest.TV
politics

A Summary of the Booklet ”Restoring the Rights of the States and the People”


The 38 page booklet ”Restoring the Rights of the States and the People” explains how the political system of the United States has migrated away from following the structure which has been specified in the U.S. Constitution, and it explains how elements of the current political system could be moved toward being restored to their original Constitutional principals.

The governmental system of United States was originally designed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to be a union of independent States, with most of the power belonging to the individual States, and with the federal government being intentionally very limited in it’s powers.

The political configuration of the United States currently consists of much of it’s power resting in a centralized federal government, which is a configuration that the Framers of the Constitution were strongly opposed to and went to great lengths to limit through the laws they created in the Constitution.

The booklet explains major points in the history of the U.S. government’s migration from it’s originally designed configuration in 1787 to how it is configured now, explaining the rationalized excuses and illegal methods that have been used by elements of the political system of the United States in order to implement legislation which is contrary to the laws and intentions of the framers of the Constitution.

Methods are then described that can be used by citizens and politicians to move the government toward restoring key elements of it’s originally planned configuration as laid out by it’s founders.

This booklet has been written by John McManus, and is distributed by The John Birch Society.

[Editor's Note, October 7, 2011— This booklet is very informative about the differences between how the U.S. Constitution has been specified and how American society is structured today. Major socialist agendas have been implemented in the United States during the past two centuries which exist contrary to the specifications of the Constitution. Many of such agendas are pointed to as being helpful for society, and it is true that many have been helpful, however those agendas have been implemented by making use of dishonest interpretations of the Constitution at the expense of such goals being reached by better methods. Often it is shown that such implementations contain deceptive and dangerous ulterior motives which are designed to ultimately destroy the sovereignty of the United States in favor of establishing an Oligarchical one world government. Also, it should be noted that a surprising omission from this booklet is a description of the reductions of liberties of rights which have occurred due to the implementation of recent legislation such as the Patriot Act.]

Also view the documentary video Overview of America.














Introduction

This section introduces the subject of the Federal Government of the United States being involved in the lives of citizens in unconstitutional ways which is creating problems such as incrementally creating an out of control national debt.

Following are some key points from the section:


— The Federal Government is involved with the lives of citizens in many unconstitutional ways at a cost of creating a national debt of $12 trillion which rises to $100 trillion when unfunded obligations such as Social Security and Medicare are figured in. This places a tremendous burden on the shoulders of today’s and future generations of Americans. If the rules laid out in the Constitution were actually enforced, the Federal Government would be at most only 20 percent of it’s size and 20 percent of it’s cost. [Note that a possibility of a coming planned collapse of the Unites States economy also exists, which may be in the process of being engineered in order to cease the sovereignty of the United States altogether in order to form a ”North American Union,” as a part of a worldwide consolidation of Nations to be controlled by an unelected global elite through their private banking systems. See Endgame Part 2 - How the Bilderberg Group is Secretly Merging the North American Continent]








The Tenth Amendment

This section describes the Bill of Rights being the first ten amendments to the Constitution which are meant to be prohibitions on government power. The Tenth Amendment states that if the Constitution does not specifically authorize the government to engage in some activity, then the government is not allowed to do it; however Congress has a long history of violating the Tenth Amendment by implementing types of agendas that the Framers of the constitution specifically intended to guard against, such as centralizing control of the federal government over the States through the creation of government programs, and engaging in overseas conflicts since World War II without formal declarations of war.

Following are some key points from the section:


— The ”Bill of Rights” is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and those amendments are actually ”prohibitions” on the government’s power rather than definitions of ”rights” for people which are assumed to already be God-given.

— The tenth amendment states ”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.”— which means that if federal officials haven’t received specific authorization to have the government engage in some activity, then they cannot do so.

— Examples of violations of the Tenth amendment include Congress supplying foreign aid to other countries in ways that are not constitutionally legal ( also aid is given to the governments of those nations and it does not always properly reach it’s intended recipients, often politcal corruption is a factor ), as well as the unlawful establishment of the Federal Reserve banking system and federally supplied housing, medicine, education, transportation, and energy. Despite these programs being unconstitutional, the States are currently required to carry out these Federal Mandates which need to then be paid for with local taxes. [Note— Benefits resulting from these programs can be pointed to by proponents, however the issue is the structure of the programs and the manner in which these programs are implemented. Often it is shown that such programs exist for ulterior motives such as incrementally moving to dissolve the sovereignty of United States in favor of a world government, when in fact the same benefits of those programs can be directly supplied through other means which would be Constitutionally legal.]

— The Constitution has delegated only to Congress the ability to ”declare war,” but despite no such declaration being issued since World War II, the United States has continually been involved in overseas conflicts which usually have been authorized by the United Nations Security Council— which is a huge departure from the Constitution.

— Tens of millions of undocumented Immigrants are living and working in the United States, and it is unconstitutional for the government to support them doing so. [Note— The Immigration issue is often distorted by the media by not accurately reporting the realities of the situation, which results in immigrants potentially being victimized, as well as creating other problems. Much of the media implies that any mention of the immigration issue is potentially ”bigoted,” even if the goal is to give immigrants a path to citizenship. A globalist agenda exists to allow for immigrants to be in the country to be used as an inexpensive source of labor and well as being a step toward the establishment of a North American Union— where the populations and monetary systems of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will be merged together, with oppressive international laws imposed that will supersede the Constitution altogether. See Endgame Part 2 - How the Bilderberg Group is Secretly Merging the North American Continent]

— From the text: ”... Generally speaking, what our federal government is supposed to do, it doesn’t. And what government is Constitutionally prohibited from doing, it does with reckless abandon. Simply stated, the nation cannot continue along this suicidal path. What has occurred, of course, isn’t a conservative or liberal issue. All Americans should be vitally concerned, both about distain for the Constitution and disregard of the oath to adhere to it. ... How do our federal officials explain their widespread circumventing of the solemn oath? Actually, most don’t bother to explain, counting on the public’s lack of familiarity with the Constitution’s provisions. ... ”








The Legacy of John Marshall

The section describes the activities of the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who authored many dangerous innovations and interpretations of the Constitution during the first part of the 19th Century which have since been used to circumvent many of the the original intentions of the Framers who designed it. Marshall’s activities shifted power from the States to the federal level in a way which the Framers of the Constitution specifically sought to block.

Following are some key points from the section:


— Chief Justice John Marshall had been the longest serving Justice on the Supreme Court, serving from 1801 to 1835, and during that time he authored many dangerous innovations to the Constitution that opened the door for serious circumventing of it’s laws.

— In 1816, Marshall presided over the case McCulloch v. Maryland, where a State bank sued a federal bank within it’s borders to pay taxes to the State, but Marshall found in favor of the federal bank, saying that the Federal Government can do anything the Constitution does not specifically bar it from doing. From the text: ”.. the new Marshall-created interpretation sanctioned the usurpation of a vast array of powers never envisioned by 1) the men who created the Constitution, 2) the various State ratifiers who approved it, 3) the people of the time who understood it, 4) constitutional scholars then and today who have never found what Marshall claimed to see in its carefully written pages.”

— From the text: ”Constitutional scholar Edward Albertson reported in his 1975 monograph, The Sabotage of the Tenth Amendment, that Marshall relied on the absence of the word ”expressly” in the Tenth to completely gut this most important portion of the Constitution.”

— The framers of the Constitution sought only a loosely constructed Union of the States with only enough central authority to assure mutual defense and orderly conduct among the States.

— James Madison who was known as the ”Father of the Constitution,” wrote that the greatest reservoir of power should be at the State level rather than the Federal level, and also the Founders wanted ”competition” amongst the States, which would allow for States to make their own mistakes in order for the best way of being to derived over time, rather than all power being placed in the hands of a central government.








The Constitution Circumvented

This section explains that the laws of the Constitution are illegally being circumvented with false excuses being given such as claims that ”the government of the United States can do whatever it wants as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution,” with an example given of the unconstitutional existence of the Federal Reserve banking system, along with other examples.

Following are some key points from the section:


— In 1944, during a strike of workers at the Montgomery Ward Company, Chairman Sewell Avery was picked up by his office chair and placed on the sidewalk outside the building by soldiers, with Attorney General Francis Biddle saying: ”The government of the United States can do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.”— which is a serious misinterpretation which would justify such activities as ones partaken by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung. From the text: ”The possibilities of advancing federal power are endless if a specific need to bar every claim of such activity is required.”

— In 1993, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sent a letter to then-Congressman James Greenwood of Pennsylvania saying that ”the federal government is not limited ion what it may designate as legal tender,” despite the existence of several monetary initiates in the Constitution such as ”Article I, Section 9.”

— From the text: ”Sadly to say, the Marshall-Biddle-Greenspan attitude is commonly held by many of our nation’s legislatures, judges, media personalities, teachers, and others. Ask a congressman where authority is granted for federal involvement in a host of areas and be prepared for a response that effectively states, ‘We’re not prohibted from doing [such-and-such], and federal activity is certainly needed.’”








Additional Marshall Mischief

This section describes additional methods that are used to circumvent the laws of the Constitution as first implemented by Chief Justice John Marshall, who reinterpreted the Constitution based on any excuse possible such as claiming significance of the absence of the word ”expressly” in a particular passage, and also he stated that the original intent of the Framers is not a factor that needs to be taken into consideration in interpreting what they wrote, despite Thomas Jefferson specifically stating that the original intent must be honored.

Following are some key points from the section:


— In addition to John Marshall re-interpreting the meaning of the Constitution due to the absence of the word ”expressly,” he also challenged the need for adhering to the original intent of the authors, as he did in a 1824 decision when he wrote: ”The instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said that these powers ought to be constructed strictly. But why ought they be so construed? Is there one sentence in the constitution which gives countenance to this rule?”

— From the text: ”.. But If the words in the basic law of the land are not understood to mean what the framers meant when they wrote them, and can be given newer meanings to meet newer desires, then why bother recording them in the first place? Original intent has to be honored or a law is subject to any kind of change one can devise. This was certainly the attitude of the Founders, though few expressed it because the concept was so generally accepted at the time. Even so, Thomas Jefferson felt the need to address the issue soon after assuming the office of President in 1801. He stated:”

”The Constitution on which our Union rests shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption — a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it ... These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time. [Such as in the Federalist Papers]”


— Later Jefferson would write about the need for a ”strict construction” or ”original intent”:

”On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which is was passed.”









Erroneous Reliance on the ”Elastic Clause”

This section describes the use of what is improperly thought of as an ”elastic clause” based on the incorrect interpretation of the phrase ”foregoing powers” in one of the passages, which Congress uses as an excuse to be interpreted as being an ”open-ended” clause to allow them implement whatever they would like.

Following are some key points from the section:


— John Marshall also made use of an ”elastic clause” in the Constitution as it appears at the end of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 which states that Congress shall have power ”To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [emphasis added], and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” He used the phrase ”foregoing powers” in combination with his intention of ignoring the original meanings of the framers to interpret it as meaning that Congress could anything whatsoever as long as Congress deemed it ”necessary and proper.”

— Edward Albertson wrote about the issue: ”In effect, what he is saying is: ‘Congress may do anything it wants, and the only restriction is on the way it does it.’ And by extension: ‘You may rob a bank, but you may not go through the front door to do it.’”

— The framers listed 17 previous specific ”foregoing powers” that are authorized, and they did not intent for the 18th being ”necessary and proper” to be open-ended to mean whatever Congress wished it to.








The ”General Welfare” Clause

This section describes a misinterpretation of the phrase ”provide for the general Welfare” from a passage which is used as justification for the federal government to centralize power over the States and implement many socialist programs, despite the Constitution being designed to stop the federal government from having such authority.

Following are some key points from the section:


— Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to ”provide for the common Defense and general Welfare,” but the word ”welfare” is interpreted differently today than it was when the Constitution was written, with the definition then only being ”Happiness; success; prosperity,” referring to the entire nation’s condition of tranquility in order to prosper.

— From the text: ”It was not Congress’s place to provide government handouts to people, or to any local or state government. Yes, there would be some Americans who would fall on hard times and need help. But providing the kind of help they needed was to be the responsibility of relatives, friends, neighbors, church and community groups, ect. The federal government was given no role in providing what is currently known as ‘welfare.’” [Note— Many of today’s government welfare programs could be pointed to as examples of being beneficial and such programs are a political reality that have evolved over time along with American society. Perhaps if the formation of such social services were re-routed from originating via the government in favor of alternative sources from the onset many decades ago, then major alternative forms of assistance would have taken hold in their place. In any event, the practical replacement of currently existing government social services by the private sector would be a difficult task.]

— The ”general welfare” phrase has also been interpreted to mean issues related to religion, education, and federal highways. James Madison, who is known as ”The Father of the Constitution” was critical of the inclusion of the phrase ”general welfare,” and even predicted it’s future uses in a speech at the initial session of Congress:

”If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the ‘general welfare,’ and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the nation; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything from the highest object of the State legislation, down to the most minute object of policy, would be thrown under the power on Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, in Congress pleased, provisions for general welfare.”


— Early Presidents followed the framer’s interpretation of the term ”general welfare” and vetoed government programs accordingly up until as late as President Harding in 1921, who stated that ”Just government is merely the guarantee to the people of the right and opportunity to support themselves.”

— Daniel Webster said ”Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power... it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”








Judicial Usurpation

This section describes the true task of the Justices of the Supreme Court being to uphold the Constitution rather than interpret it in order to forward political agendas, and also described is the fact that the Supreme Court should not even be ruling on many cases that it does because those cases are matters of individual States and not the business of the Federal Government.

Following are some key points from the section:


— Many decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and lesser federal courts should actually result in no decision at all because the matters reaching them are often not business of the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution.

— The true task of Justices is only to uphold the Constitution, not to overly interpret it for their own agendas. From the text: ”Swearing an oath to the Constitution is akin to singing a contract. After a contract is completed, does either party possess power to interpret it beyond it’s original agreed meaning? All of it’s stipulations must be honored, not reinterpreted. If a contract can be altered (reinterpreted) at whim by either party, it is worthless and one party has been defrauded. ... Interpret the Constitution? No! Claim that the meanings of its words have evolved into something not understood when written and agreed to .. Again, No! If the Constitution is determined to be deficient and in need of repair, amend it.”

— Thomas Jefferson wanted the basic law to be interpreted exactly as they had specified, and insisted that no new meaning be ”squeezed out of the text.”

— Nineteenth Century Chief Justice Roger Taney agreed with Jefferson, saying ”Any other rule of construction would ... make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.”

— Two well known examples that show how the Constitution has been interpreted by Judges would be social security being sanctioned in 1937 and the legalization of abortion via the Roe Vs. Wade decision in 1973.

— Most Americans are led to believe that the judges are allowed to ”squeeze” any meaning they want out of the Constitution via their interpretation, and such an attitude by Judges dates back as far as 1803 in a ruling by John Marshall in the case Marbury v. Madison, where Marshall proclaimed the Supreme Court having the final say on what is constitutional and what is not, and his ruling became known as ”judicial supremacy.”

— Constitutional scholar Edwin S. Cowin wrote about judicial supremacy: ”What was once vaunted as a Constitution of rights, both State rights and private rights, has been replaced to a great extent by a Constitution of powers. The Constitution has shifted base in the direction of a consolidated national power.”

— Thomas Jefferson saw the potential for abuse by unelected justices who served for life while possessing the power of ”judicial review.” In 1821, he expressed his concern as follows:

”It has long, however, been in my view and I have never shrunk from its expression ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided by one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”


— Thomas Jefferson also sounded an alarm about the dangers of relying on politicians and judges to do what is right:

”.. free government is founded in jealously and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those who we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go ... In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”


— Alexander Hamilton wrote that it was the duty of judges ”to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” Unconstitutional acts of Congress can be declared null and void by the Supreme Court. However, an unconstitutional edict issued by the Supreme Court cannot be be nullified by Congress.

— In 1954, the Supreme Court advanced federal power into education with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which set an unconstitutional precedent for much increased federal government involvement in education which has since often been instrumental in advancing detrimental federal agendas into the education systems of the States. [Note— Despite the "Brown v. Board of Education's" ruling being unconstitutional, the ruling was a case that helped to end racial segregation in the United States. The John Birch Society’s stance has always been that they are opposed to forced segregation as well as opposed to forced integration, and they have often been misunderstood about such issues over the history of the organization.]








The Constitution’s First Sentence

This section talks about the Constitution not actually giving the Executive or Judicial branches law making powers despite the currently common practice of them doing so, such as Presidents making use of ”executive orders” to create federal agencies and bureaus despite such orders only actually applying to federal employees under their direct jurisdiction.

Following are some key points from the section:


— The first sentence of the Constitution states ”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,” which makes no mention of the judicial branch or executive branches which have usurped the law-making powers that have been granted only to Congress.

— Despite not having the authority to do so, Presidents have made use of executive orders in order to create laws, with an example being President Nixon issuing an executive order to create the Environmental Protection Agency, and many other regulatory agencies and bureaus have been created via the executive order rather than being established through Constitutionally legal means. Presidents have the right to issue an executive order, but the order should bind only the federal employees under his jurisdiction, such as specifying paid holidays for his employees.

— The only legislative powers granted to the federal government by the people appear within the pages of the Constitution, and no mention is made in the Constitution of education, housing, medicine, energy, labor, foreign aid and more.








Treaty Law and the Constitution

This section describes how international treaties may not replace the Constitution’s power and limitations, despite many doing so. Quotes by founders are shown explaining their concern that treaties must not be able to alter constitutional powers.

Following are some key points from the section:


— Treaties can be entered into by the President and approved by two-thirds of the Senators, but treaties cannot replace the Constitution’s powers and limitations.

— Alexander Hamilton said: ”The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution...”

— James Madison said: ”I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.”

— Thomas Jefferson said ”I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

— Treaty power cannot be over the powers of the Constitution, but it can be over State Constitutions.








No Constitutional Convention

This section explains that a ”Constitutional Convention” (con-con) is a legal method for creating drastic changes to the Constitution which would include potentially completely nullifying it, which could have great potential to be abused by corrupt political elites.

Following are some key points from the section:


— In recent years, various movements have attempted to correct federal abuses via a ”constitutional convention,” which is allowed for in article V of the Constitution. A ”con-con” would allow the Constitution to be modified in unlimited ways and even potentially be completely abolished.

— People try to initiate a ”con-con” with an excuse of wanting to change only one aspect of the Constitution, but it would be dangerous to do so because there would be no restraint on a ”con-con” once it is created. The only time it has ever occurred was in 1787 when the Articles of Confederation was revised to be turned into the current Constitution. The delegates exceeded their mandate, completely abolished the Articles, and then produced the entirely new Constitution which still exists today.








What Can Be Done

This section describes many steps that can be taken in order to help restore the United States government to a system which more closely follows the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. Suggestions made include the establishment of non-governmental associations to help create change, citizens voting for proper candidates who will support the Constitution, the importance of congressmen introducing new legislation which undoes laws and programs which are unconstitutional, impeaching corrupt politicians, restoring the original method of Senators being chosen by state legislatures, the importance of members of the House not voting to fund unconstitutional mandates, unconstitutional rulings made by the Supreme Court being overturned by Congress, as well as many other suggestions.

Following are some key points from the section:


— Thomas Jefferson commented on the importance of an informed electorate. He wrote to a colleague in 1820: ”I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of the abuses of Constitutional power.”

— A non-governmental educational association formed by concerned citizens would be helpful. A government-run organization would not be sufficient to make the necessary changes due to the fact that it would only maintain and enhance government power.

— Following are steps that people can take to help to make a difference:

1. The ballot box— Presidents, Senators, and members of the House can be voted out of office and replaced with more suitable candidates that will follow the Constitution more closely.

2. New legislation can undo unconstitutional laws and programs such as abolishing the Federal Reserve banking system.

3. Presidents, Vice Presidents, and civil officers including judges can be impeached, tried and removed from office if necessary.

4. Amendment XVII should be nullified by new Amendments. This amendment changed the method of selecting Senators from their being chosen by the state legislatures to being chosen by popular vote. The Founders created one body of Congress to be the voice of the people ( the house of Representatives ) and the other to be the voice of the States ( the Senate ). For more than 100 years a main task of Senators was to protect the rights of the States against the power of the federal government. If Senators were still chosen by State legislatures to be the guardians of State sovereignty, then many usurpations and encroachments carried out by the federal government would not have occurred.

5. If a majority of the House votes from Congress refuses to initiate funding for unconstitutional agendas, then those projects will cease. This power could be employed to terminate many programs.

6. A majority in each house can remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction regarding any particular matter.

7. The Constitution can be amended to correct perceived definitions, and amendments can be employed to cancel previous amendments. Amendments should never be employed in place of legislative action, but rather only to address defects in the body of the Constitution.

8. Restore the true meaning and limitations defined in Amendment XIV, whose purpose is to guarantee further that no citizen could be deprived of ”life, liberty without due process,” nor could anybody be denied ”equal protection of the laws.” This Amendment has been used to inject federal power into areas of government that were never sanctioned by the federal-government-limiting bill of rights. The amendment has been used to create nation-wide mandates concerning many issues which should instead be decided only by the states as specified by the Constitution, such as legislation banning prayer in public schools, legalizing abortion, forced bussing of children, overturning flag burning laws, and dictating legislative appointments. The amendment has been used by the courts to build enormous federal power, and it is shown that the amendment had never even received the proper number of votes to be ratified. [Note— Wether one agrees with the mandates that have been implemented with this Amendment or not, it is important to realize that the issue is the fact that the Amendment dissolves the independence of the rights of states, which is entirely contrary to the structure that the Framers of the Constitution had designed. This amendment removes local decisions about important matters and puts those decisions into the hands of often corrupt federal and global political elites.]

9. State legislatures should pass resolutions to reinforce the strictures [limitations imposed] in the Tenth Amendment. While these amount to significant attention-getters when they are delivered to Congress, they carry no force of law and should not be considered to be the only recourse open to elected state officials. Should a state’s congressional delegation ignore these resolutions, the recourse is to replace them at the next election.

10. All state officials should realize that there is no such thing as federal aid without federal string attached to it. In some cases, courts are forcing federal aid on states that refuse it in order to implement the associated federal controls which come with the aid. If state government officials would refuse this type of funding along with the associated control that it always brings, state independence could be reestablished.


—In early 2009, the state of Montana had passed a measure showing the federal government that it had not power to regulate firearms within the State— as long as the words ”made in Montana” appeared on the products. The federal government has pointed to the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to justify intervening with the state’s authority, however Montanans state that their bill deals with intrastate commerce, and court challenges are expected. Similar legislation has been introduced in Utah, Tennessee, Texas, and Alaska.

— All citizens and legislators should demand needed changes. Since politicians want to be reelected, they will listen to the wishes of their constituents if the voices are loud enough.












politics
A Summary of Cynthia McKinney
A Summary of Cynthia McKinney
updated September 14, 2010
Alex Jones speaks with Len Horowitz about issues of the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak
Audio: Alex Jones speaks with Len Horowitz about issues of the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak
recorded April 29, 2009
running time 45 minutes 34 seconds
other articles
A Reexamination of Climate Change Issues
A Reexamination of Climate Change Issues
updated December 30, 2013
Tony Robbins Quotes
Tony Robbins Quotes
brainyquote.com
You Are Beautiful
You Are Beautiful
updated June 8, 2007
Copyright (C) 2017 News of Interest.TV, A/V material and quoted information are copyright of their sources.