Great Call on the Sovereignty Resolution, J.T.

[donnay]

You should be a guest on Alex's show to educated some people on Sovereignty.

Good call J.T.!

[Geolibertarian]

Good call J.T.!

+1

Though it would have been nice if he had said:

"I'd like to give a shout-out to all my homies at Prison Planet Forum!"

 

[donnay]

+1

Though it would have been nice if he had said:

"I'd like to give a shout-out to all my homies at Prison Planet Forum!"

 

Really!  *Sigh*   

[JTCoyoté]

You should be a guest on Alex's show to educated some people on Sovereignty.

Good call J.T.!

Thanks Donnay.

I was a little hot, and called in right after Representative Key made the statement that to his knowledge Oklahoma was the first... and like I said, back in 1994/95, I spoke with representatives Key on several occasions. Colorado passed it in both houses and it was adopted on April 21, 1994.

In any case once these things are passed and adopted, these sovereignty resolutions do not sunset. They are an affirmation that can be pulled out and dusted off for use with any new federal usurpation.

The fact that New Hampshire is making it's resolution more specific by including martial law and gun confiscation and the like, is all okay as long as they use the blanket language  "... against all federal mandates and/or usurpations including gun confiscation, martial law etc. and any and all other federal action deemed by the legislature of the state as federal encroachment on state power. The right to which is reserved to the states and the people, and are protected by the ninth and 10th amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

I will be a guest... and will lay it out.

JTCoyoté

"In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may
not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority."
~James Madison

[Elvis]

I will be a guest... and will lay it out.
JTCoyoté

Yeah! Go CO!

[donnay]

Thanks Donnay.

I was a little hot, and called them right after Representative key made the statement that to his knowledge Oklahoma was the first... and like I said, back in 1994/95, I spoke with representatives key on several occasions.

In any case once these things are passed and signed, these sovereignty resolutions do not sunset. They are an affirmation that can be pulled out and dusted off for use with any new federal usurpation.

The fact that New Hampshire is making this resolution more specific by including martial law and gun confiscation and the like, is all okay as long as they use the blanket language  "... against all federal mandates and/or usurpations including gun confiscation, martial law etc. and any and all other federal action deemed by the legislature of the state as federal encroachment on state power. The rights to which are reserved to the states and the people, and are protected by the ninth and 10th amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

I will be a guest... and will lay it out.

JTCoyoté

"In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may
not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority."
~James Madison

That's great because as a member of the FSP here, in New Hampshire, I will have a lot of people listening in to get better informed so we can do it right and watch our representatives closely.

I know we have butted heads in the past about succession and, after researching what you have stated, I will agree this is the best route to go--legally. 

For now it is in our best interest to do what we can, legally so, if the Feds choose to continue to impose their will against the will of people, the people will be on the moral high ground to resist.

[911aware]

damn, i missed it.

what hour, and time in?

[Geolibertarian]

damn, i missed it.

what hour, and time in?

About 90 minutes into the show.

[911aware]

Thanks Donnay.

I was a little hot, and called in right after Representative Key made the statement that to his knowledge Oklahoma was the first... and like I said, back in 1994/95, I spoke with representatives Key on several occasions. Colorado passed it in both houses and it was adopted on April 21, 1994.

In any case once these things are passed and adopted, these sovereignty resolutions do not sunset. They are an affirmation that can be pulled out and dusted off for use with any new federal usurpation.

The fact that New Hampshire is making it's resolution more specific by including martial law and gun confiscation and the like, is all okay as long as they use the blanket language  "... against all federal mandates and/or usurpations including gun confiscation, martial law etc. and any and all other federal action deemed by the legislature of the state as federal encroachment on state power. The right to which is reserved to the states and the people, and are protected by the ninth and 10th amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

I will be a guest... and will lay it out.

JTCoyoté

"In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may
not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority."
~James Madison

cant wait until you get a guest spot, man!

[Jackson Holly]

Yes ... great call JT! Very much look forward to your guest spot.

BTW I think you are the man to ask this question of ...

.... are the individual US "States" the same as individual "Countries"?

Does Colorado for instance have the 'same' sovereignty as, let's say France for instance, in the European Union?

[911aware]

heard the call on re-feed.

great job!

[911aware]

yea! i got my senior status!!!!      

[JTCoyoté]

Yes ... great call JT! Very much look forward to your guest spot.

BTW I think you are the man to ask this question of ...

.... are the individual US "States" the same as individual "Countries"?

Does Colorado for instance have the 'same' sovereignty as, let's say France for instance, in the European Union?

The short answer to your question is yes... but it is a bit more complex than that. We as states are  bound together for our mutual protection and security by a contractual agreement with the other states, called the Constitution for the United States of America and Bill of Rights. This contract also creates an agency called the federal government, which is set out to administer on the global stage, the affairs of these United States, and as designed, it functions within the constraints of those powers which are enumerated within the Constitutional agreement.

As history shows, this Constitutional union has been under constant attack by global interests since the very second the final signature was affixed to the Bill of Rights in December of 1791.

This contract has been fooled-with greatly since the Civil War however, done by way of the Amendment process giving greater and greater power to the federal agent... a small portion of which is arguably allowable, but the vast majority of this power consolidation is pure usurpation and unlawful extension of federal power.

The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Movement, as it is originally designed, is to rein in the federal government, pulling it back into its constitutionally circumscribed mode of operation, and allows the states to do what ever is necessary within the bounds of the Constitution, to accomplish this task.

The states themselves, prior to the 17th amendment, actually had representation within the federal system, since the Senators were originally selected not by a vote of the people but by a vote of the state assembly. Under this 10th amendment scrutiny, the chicanery and shenanigans of the globalists on the federal level as well as their infiltrators on the state level will be brought to light, and you will see many of the post-Civil War Amendments to the Constitution come under fire by the states and many will disappear.

This movement is NOT a de facto constitutional convention to change the constitution, because it uses the 10th amendment as its power and mode of operation restrained only by the Constitution itself, all law that precedes the 10th amendment remain intact. Any well thought out 10th amendment sovereignty resolution will reaffirm that the 1791 Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land as they stand, and will not be altered or changed in any way by this movement. Now the rest of the amendments, and anyone who's been studying this for any length of time knows that the ratified and documented original 13th amendment was unlawfully replaced by Lincoln's anti-slavery 13th amendment. Every amendment that follows has been specifically designed to concentrate more power at the federal level, at the expense of the states and the people.

JTCoyoté

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by
men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they
cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."
~James Madison

[Jackson Holly]

JTCoyote:

The short answer to your question is yes... but it is a bit more complex than that.

Thanks for responding ... and a very fine answer, too.

It seems that you would say that the individual State/Country has a Constitutional authority to defend it's citizens against unlawful Federal Employees in DC who are acting against their interests - and a Constitutional duty to throw off the yoke of oppression - by any means necessary?

How about secession - is it legal under the Constitution in your opinion?

[70983]

JTCoyote:
Thanks for responding ... and a very fine answer, too.

It seems that you would say that the individual State/Country has a Constitutional authority to defend it's citizens against unlawful Federal Employees in DC who are acting against their interests - and a Constitutional duty to throw off the yoke of oppression - by any means necessary?

How about secession - is it legal under the Constitution in your opinion?

I think technically secession is legal but would be absolutely an idiotic move by any state.  The Feds would repeat exactly what they did in 1861 and say that the state doesnt have that right.  Then they would have an excuse for martial law in said state.

[JTCoyoté]

JTCoyote:
Thanks for responding ... and a very fine answer, too.

It seems that you would say that the individual State/Country has a Constitutional authority to defend it's citizens against unlawful Federal Employees in DC who are acting against their interests - and a Constitutional duty to throw off the yoke of oppression - by any means necessary?

How about secession - is it legal under the Constitution in your opinion?

Even in contract law if you break a contract by whatever means for whatever purpose you loose all protection under the contract... For any state to secede from this Constitutional Union, is to break the contract with the other 49 states. It would be the thoughtless doing of unwitting, emotionally charged individuals, suffering from a lack of knowledge and patience... as was the case that led up to the Civil War.

Though the Constitution does not anticipate secession, the law of common law contracts as it reaches back into the dim dark recesses of time, gives a pretty good idea of what happens when you break a contract.

The Constitution contains remedy in situations of state grievances however, and when the grievance is against the federal power the protection from the federal power is contained within the Constitution at the 9th and 10th amendments. Why would you want to abrogate the protection of the other 49 states, just to satiate some desire to be seen as somehow unique. The state that abrogates the Constitution rather than working within this eternal contract... and if you read it you will see that it is probably one of the most ironclad and perfectly crafted pieces of legal equity agreement ever produced. In any case the act of secession and the forming of a separate union is what created the Civil War, and would be a repetition that would again lead to war.

Each individual within each of the states needs to ponder these questions. When deciding between using the Constitution as it was designed to be used to peacefully gain remedy, or throwing it away and take the chance of getting something akin to a slave document, or even worse.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights for the United States of America, was written at an eighth grade level of English composition and grammar, and understanding, yet it has taken the globalist bastards over 200 years to undermine it, and at that they are having to cheat. We, as these United States of America can stop them. and take it all back in one legislative session if we keep our wits, rein in our emotions, and stay the course -- at which point the Founding Fathers would stand in proud admiration of our desire to see their vision true, and would cease spinning in their graves as they have been, low this last 150 years since the Civil War.

--Oldyoti

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance;
and a people who mean to be their own
governors must arm themselves with the
power which knowledge gives."
~James Madison

[Jackson Holly]

JT - thanks sincerely for your eloquent remarks.

We have witnessed in recent times the breakup of the USSR - and I believe the same is about to happen with the EU as the ELITE NWO plan is played out.

Perhaps some EU member citizens will respond here.

I am sorry to say, I for one can not see the light at the end of the tunnel for the United States of America. I think the end is near for the US as we have known it.

Does anyone here believe the FEDS are acting Constitutionally? It's gone.

We can resurrect it, hopefully, State by State - but the pit of vipers in DC will resist with force as they further implement their agenda. And I believe we must insist that our State governments and 'militias' protect us from them.

[mr anderson]

What's the link to what you were referring to JT?

Thanks.

[JTCoyoté]

JT - thanks sincerely for your eloquent remarks.

We have witnessed in recent times the breakup of the USSR - and I believe the same is about to happen with the EU as the ELITE NWO plan is played out.

Perhaps some EU member citizens will respond here.

I am sorry to say, I for one can not see the light at the end of the tunnel for the United States of America. I think the end is near for the US as we have known it.

Does anyone here believe the FEDS are acting Constitutionally? It's gone.

We can resurrect it, hopefully, State by State - but the pit of vipers in DC will resist with force as they further implement their agenda. And I believe we must insist that our State governments and 'militias' protect us from them.

All we as Americans need to do is to rally around the Constitution, it is the states after all that by this agreement created the federal government. Who in the federal government is going to tell the 50 states they cannot interpret the Constitution in light of original intent, and then try to take on the 50 United States who stand United around the Constitution as ratified in December of 1791, exercising their lawful rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments... only a tyrannical enemy government would do that.

People have been so brainwashed into thinking that the federal government is THE power when in fact the states are the true power, all federal money and manpower comes from the states and the people in the first place so we are formidable when united by the Constitution... The present federal government is as rogue and unlawful a group of rascals as could possibly fit into one city... there is nothing Constitutional about most anything the feds have done over the last 150 years... from the 13th amendment on there has been a steady increase in federal power that steps all over the rightful power of the states and the people.

There is no reason to put it back together one state at a time, if the states stay together rallied around the Constitution. Then all we have to do is get rid of the rascals and we know who they are, the whole of Washington city is crawling with 'em... they even changed the name, to Washington District of Columbia, when they instituted their corporate rule government, created by the DC Organic Act of 1871. In a phrase there is little if anything constitutional about what we call the federal government today.

What's the link to what you were referring to JT?

Thanks.

mr_anderson... click on the first link in my signature block below...

--Oldyoti

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but
to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
--Abraham Lincoln

[donnay]

In all honesty, I don't think that states reaffirming their sovereignty under the 10th amendment is going to make a hill of beans to this corrupt illegitimate government.  However, it is legal and goes on the record. 

Each state has their Independent constitution.

In my state, New Hampshire, our 10th amendment reads:

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

[JTCoyoté]

It has nothing to do with each individual state reaffirming "their own particular 10th amendment." Since each state organizes their bill of rights differently, the "State 10th amendment" may not even coincide with anything close to what the 10th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, signed by the state governments to create the FEDS in the first place, is.

The United States as a union has a constitution, a contract... the 10th amendment in that contract is what we are concerned with here... each state is reaffirming THE 10th Amendment to THE Constitution for the United States of America, to stand together in a call to corral the rogue federal agency back into compliance with the constitution... Hell the Second Amendment equivalent in the Colorado State Constitution is actually the 13th article...

What you are saying is akin to, how I should try reading the contract I made with my mortgage company in order to negotiate with the gas station around the corner on my fuel charge bill... not even the same contract.  The State Constitution is an agreement directly between the State and the PEOPLE of that state. 

What we are talking about here is the 10th Amendment to the agreement that all of the states signed on to, in order to join the United States of America, namely the Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights, as ratified on December 15, 1791.

JTCoyoté

"This nation can never be conquered from without.
If it is ever to fall it will be from within."
~President Abraham Lincoln

[Elvis]

Even in contract law if you break a contract by whatever means for whatever purpose you loose all protection under the contract... For any state to secede from this Constitutional Union, is to break the contract with the other 49 states. It would be the thoughtless doing of unwitting, emotionally charged individuals, suffering from a lack of knowledge and patience... as was the case that led up to the Civil War.

The case could be made that the contract has already been broken and protection under the contract applies to all principle parties. The problem doesn't seem to be between one state and 49 states, it appears to be between 50 states and one district.

Not only do I think it will make a difference; I think it will ultimately be the deciding factor - if the states stand up and remind the federal government that the name is the United States of America - and that they intend to keep it that way.

[GoingEtheric]

ahh shit, that was you? looks like you might be a guest.
coolness

[donnay]

It has nothing to do with each individual state reaffirming "their own particular 10th amendment". Since each state organizes their bill of rights differently, the "State 10th amendment" may not even coincide with anything close to what the 10th amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, signed by the state governments to create the FEDS in the first place is.

The United States as a union has a constitution, a contract... the 10th amendment in that contract is what we are concerned with here... each state is reaffirming THE 10th Amendment to THE Constitution for the United States of America... Hell the Second Amendment equivalent in the Colorado State Constitution is actually article 13...

What you are saying is akin to, how I should try reading the contract I made with my mortgage company in order to negotiate with the gas station around the corner on my fuel charge bill... not even the same contract.  The State Constitution is an agreement directly between the State and the PEOPLE of that state. 

What we are talking about here is the 10th Amendment to the agreement that all of the states signed on to, in order to join the United States of America, mainly the Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791.

JTCoyoté

"This nation can never be conquered from without.
If it is ever to fall it will be from within."
~President Abraham Lincoln

Let me clarify:  Each State has their own Constitution

Reaffirm our 10th amendment sovereignty goes in accordance to our 7th amendment to out states constitution, it reads:

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled."  June 2, 1784

Nevertheless, The New Hampshire Constitution's 10th Amendment reads (which is self explanatory IMHO):

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." June 2, 1784

Now, I am not sure what your saying, but individual state's Constitutions are just a germane as the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

[JTCoyoté]

Let me clarify:  Each State has their own Constitution

Reaffirm our 10th amendment sovereignty goes in accordance to our 7th amendment to out states constitution, it reads:

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled."  June 2, 1784

Nevertheless, The New Hampshire Constitution's 10th Amendment reads (which is self explanatory IMHO):

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." June 2, 1784

Now, I am not sure what your saying, but individual state's Constitutions are just a germane as the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

The state constitutions, have no bearing outside of the state. The state constitutions must comply with the truths that are self evident in a free society, and must not conflict with the constitutional points of agreement the state entered into, and signed with the other states.

This agreement is the Constitution for the United States of America, entered into with the other states to create a federal power. That federal power, like the states, cannot of right go contrary to this agreement, nor can the federal court rule that the federal power can go against the Constitution. This is the fallacy of the Supreme Court's power. By the same token Congress, the federal Congress, has no power to pass laws that extend constitutional power, either to the states or to the federal government. And likewise, the states cannot go beyond their power, to extend into the federal powers.

As I stated before, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire extends only to the borders of New Hampshire. The Constitution of the State of Colorado extends only to the borders of Colorado, the Constitution of the State of New York extends only to the borders of the State of New York. However, the Constitution for the United States of America, the agreement that all states signed to create a federal power to represent them on the world stage, to protect our common borders, to ensure our common enterprise against foreign enemies, extends through all of the states. That is the 10th amendment I am talking about... all of the states need to reaffirm the 10th amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, to remain in the United States of America in concert, to defeat a rogue power that has overtaken and supplanted our rightful federal agent.

Why should the state's separate from one another to fight a shadow power that has unlawfully undermined the Constitution, and unlawfully, replaced our lawful agent with a draconian usurper.

The bottom line is that the State Constitution of New Hampshire has no bearing upon the contractual agreement made with the other 49 states to create the federal executive, judicial, and legislative powers.

JTCoyoté

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
 are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite." ~James Madison
The Federalist Papers, No.45

[donnay]

The state constitutions, have no bearing outside of the state. The state constitutions must comply with the truths that are self evident in a free society, and must not conflict with the constitutional agreement of the states who entered into, and signed with the other states.

That agreement was the Constitution for the United States of America entered into with the other states to create a federal power. That federal power cannot of right go contrary to this agreement, nor can the federal court rule that the federal power can go against the constitution... this is the fallacy of the Supreme Court's power. By the same token Congress, the federal Congress, has no power to pass laws that extend constitutional power, either to the states or to the federal power. As I stated before, the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire extends only to the borders of New Hampshire. The Constitution of the State of Colorado extends only to the orders of Colorado, the Constitution of the State of New York extends only to the borders of the state of New York... however the Constitution for the United States of America, the agreement that all states signed to create a federal power to represent them on the world stage, to protect our common borders, to ensure our common enterprise against foreign enemies, extends through all of the states. That is the 10th amendment I am talking about... all of the states need to reaffirm the 10th amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, to remain in the United States of America in concert to defeat a rogue power that has overtaken and supplanted our rightful federal agent.

Why should the state's separate from one another to fight a shadow power that has unlawfully undermined the Constitution only lawful federal, with a draconian usurper.

The bottom line is that the state Constitution of New Hampshire has no bearing upon the contractual agreement made with the other 49 states to create the federal executive, judicial, and legislative powers.

JTCoyoté

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
 are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are
numerous and indefinite." ~James Madison
The Federalist Papers, No.45

Okay, I gotcha.  Thanks for the clarification.   

[JTCoyoté]

I want to reiterate a point that I believe must be stressed. The fact that New Hampshire is making it's Sovereignty Resolution more specific by including martial law and gun confiscation and the like, is all okay as long as they include the broader language as well.  Like this...

"The state reserves the right to review all federal mandates, including gun confiscation, martial law, Real ID, etc. and any and all other federal action, and shall reject them outright if it is deemed by the state legislature to be unconstitutional federal encroachment on state power. This right is reserved to the states and the people, and is protected by the 9th and 10th amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

This broader language makes it clear that the federal government cannot sneak something through, in between the specifics, since the broader language covers everything making it up to the federal government to prove constitutionality of any mandate, whatsoever.

By too narrowly defining the limits of the 10th Amendment in the body of legislation you leave it open for misconstruction and re-definition... Believe me, I used to write this stuff...

 

JTCoyoté

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be
in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
~James Madison

[donnay]

Friday, Alex said he is having two New Hampshire reps--I am not sure which ones yet.  However, it would be great to call in and mention this--when are you going to be a guest? 

I am going to write the state reps with this information with hopes they will tighten it all up succinctly.

Do you mind me cutting a pasting your words in my letters?  I would love to refer them to you, here.

[JTCoyoté]

Donnay,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I have been busy rifling through reams of old documents from my days in the state capital here, looking for 10th amendment sovereignty resolution bill numbers. As you can see in the "...move quickly" thread, I have found some of them, but I will not put them up until I can find something on the web to link to that supports my hardcopy.  I have found seven of the 15 adopted resolutions so far, but can only find web links supporting my evidence for 4 of them.

I seem to recall today Alex mentioned the fact that he would have either one or two of the New Hampshire legislators responsible for the sovereignty resolution, on later this week or at the very latest next week... since he is going to continue this well into next week.

I sent Joey V. a brief biographical summary... I haven't heard back from him so I'm not sure if or when I will be a guest on the show.

As to cutting and pasting any of my work to the legislators, all I ask is that you credit me... I was involved, hands on, with the first of these ever passed...HJR-94-1035 Colorado.

Now back to rifling through things I haven't even thought about it almost 15 years... what a wild time it was... I'm remembering the amount of labor that was involved doing this kind of thing back then... because we didn't have the Internet... (chuckle)...

JTCoyoté

"It will be of little avail to the people that
the laws are made by men of their own
choice if the laws be so voluminous that
they cannot be read, or so incoherent
that they cannot be understood."
~James Madison

[Elvis]

J.T. - seriously; thanks for what you are doing. You're waking me up even further.

[Freeski]

J.T., or whoever (and please don't beat me up ), but I still don't understand one aspect of this.

The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Movement, as it is originally designed, is to rein in the federal government, pulling it back into its constitutionally circumscribed mode of operation, and allows the states to do what ever is necessary within the bounds of the Constitution, to accomplish this task.

With that statement, taken with the idea of State reaffirmation (esp. the Colorado initiatve which I have read up on), I still don't understand why the original law isn't good enough to get the Feds to cease and desist in their unconstitutional activities. Is it just because "that ain't working", or because of corruption? I mean the law is the law is it not?

Is it that much different from proposing that we reaffirm that murder is a bad thing to do?

Admittedly, it can take me a while to "get" some things, but personal roadblocks like this cause me great grief and I can't seem to move beyond this one.

[donnay]

Donnay,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I have been busy rifling through reams of old documents from my days in the state capital here, looking for 10th amendment sovereignty resolution bill numbers. As you can see in the "...move quickly" thread, I have found some of them, but I will not put them up until I can find something on the web to link to that supports my hardcopy.  I have found seven of the 15 adopted resolutions so far, but can only find web links supporting my evidence for 4 of them.

I seem to recall today Alex mentioned the fact that he would have either one or two of the New Hampshire legislators responsible for the sovereignty resolution, on later this week or at the very latest next week... since he is going to continue this well into next week.

I sent Joey V. a brief biographical summary... I haven't heard back from him so I'm not sure if or when I will be a guest on the show.

As to cutting and pasting any of my work to the legislators, all I ask is that you credit me... I was involved, hands on, with the first of these ever passed...HJR-94-1035 Colorado.

Now back to rifling through things I haven't even thought about it almost 15 years... what a wild time it was... I'm remembering the amount of labor that was involved doing this kind of thing back then... because we didn't have the Internet... (chuckle)...

JTCoyoté

"It will be of little avail to the people that
the laws are made by men of their own
choice if the laws be so voluminous that
they cannot be read, or so incoherent
that they cannot be understood."
~James Madison

JT,

I would never cut and paste anyone's work without giving them full credit for their works.  I do know firsthand how hard research was without the internet.  I appreciate you allowing me to do so, thank you, sir.

I am off to write letters to my state reps with the broader language you suggested.

[JTCoyoté]

J.T. - seriously; thanks for what you are doing. You're waking me up even further.

You are welcome... and thanks for the kind words...

Now we need to get folks acting on their knowledge, since awakening is only the beginning.

--Oldyoti

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance;
and a people who mean to be their own
governors must arm themselves with the
power which knowledge gives."
~James Madison

[JTCoyoté]

J.T., or whoever (and please don't beat me up ), but I still don't understand one aspect of this.

The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Movement, as it is originally designed, is to rein in the federal government, pulling it back into its constitutionally circumscribed mode of operation, and allows the states to do what ever is necessary within the bounds of the Constitution, to accomplish this task.

With that statement, taken with the idea of State reaffirmation (esp. the Colorado initiatve which I have read up on), I still don't understand why the original law isn't good enough to get the Feds to cease and desist in their unconstitutional activities. Is it just because "that ain't working", or because of corruption? I mean the law is the law is it not?

Is it that much different from proposing that we reaffirm that murder is a bad thing to do?

Admittedly, it can take me a while to "get" some things, but personal roadblocks like this cause me great grief and I can't seem to move beyond this one.

The reason for the affirmation is to raise awareness, to get the word out that the federal government is overstepping its bounds... and to put the federal government on guard. To let them know that the states are about to lawfully put them back into their place or throw them offshore.

The 10th amendment to the Constitution for the average person means very little, when this kind of movement develops more people gain access to the understanding as well as the means. So it is very much like a firearm in your closet. With the reaffirmation, we are taking the firearm out of the closet, putting it into the holster, and buckling it to our waist. In other words we are no longer going to talk,  we are ready to do something about it. And the more states we have working in concert, the less likely the rogue federal government is to take action other than to stop what it's doing.

The federal government, the last time we moved with the 10th, provocateured Oklahoma City to demonize the patriots and the lawful state militias who were pushing the movement... The feds may do something similar this time in order to stop our lawful use of state government to keep the federal government in its constitutional place. They would be working at a handicap this time though, since the term "false-flag" has entered the lexicon in a big way.

Once you understand this, if you can convey it to your friends and neighbors, so they understand the reason for the reaffirmation, that it does not alter the power of the law, it just increases the awareness of the lawful nature of what is being done, which will hopefully entice individuals to stand up and be counted among the good and righteous people of this movement. And not among the genocidal elitist bastards who are causing the need for this kind of thing in the first place.

JTCoyoté

"Philosophy is common sense with big words."
~James Madison

[JTCoyoté]

JT,

I would never cut and paste anyone's work without giving them full credit for their works.  I do know firsthand how hard research was without the internet.  I appreciate you allowing me to do so, thank you, sir.

I am off to write letters to my state reps with the broader language you suggested.

I knew that, heck... and you are welcome... The hard ones to take credit for are the "bungles"... but I accept those too... 

We will win, Donnay.

--Oldyoti

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge
is the only guardian of true liberty. "
~James Madison

[Jackson Holly]

JT:

You lay this all out beautifully, with style and grace ... and guts.

You have convinced me, for one, that this 10th Amendment reaffirmation movement is indeed the next logical step, to put the usurpers in DC on notice.

And thanks for all you have already done for us.

[JTCoyoté]

JT:

You lay this all out beautifully, with style and grace ... and guts.

You have convinced me, for one, that this 10th Amendment reaffirmation movement is indeed the next logical step, to put the usurpers in DC on notice.

And thanks for all you have already done for us.

Thanks Jack,

I was doing the right thing at the right time when this all began, and I have the gift of gab, as well as an intimate understanding of the Constitution and the federal -- state -- people relationship it represents.

I began recording all of the talk radio programs from AM-710 KNUS radio in November of 1993, which became the flagship voice of the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution movement in those days, and spread the tapes around as much as I could. There were many people involved, many organizations, all of them grassroots Constitutional patriot groups, totally nonpartisan since we all understood that Republican/Democrat was all part of the smokescreen.

A lot of the people are still around, as are some of the organizations, the hardest hit after the Oklahoma City bombing were the lawful constitutional state militias... they were demonized down from 48 then, to about a dozen today. A lot of the folks that I worked with have moved on into the next world, and others were set up and brought down by globalists shenanigans, some financially, some politically, and others psychologically... the pressure to get our lawful effort stopped culminated in the provocateured globalist false flag, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City... the demonization in the media quickly followed. So your thanks is spread to all of these folks as well.

Like I told Charlie the first time I talked with him about the resolution ... "I will fight forever if need be, using the Constitution, and will help however I can to remove this cleverly disguised foreign enemy from our lands..."

Something to that effect anyway... I was new to calling talk radio so I was a bit nervous... but what Charlie was suggesting stirred my constitutional patriotic blood to the marrow. 

--Oldyoti

"The circulation of confidence is better
than the circulation of money. "
~James Madison

[mr anderson]

What happens when civil unrest does occur? Some people will beg for martial law.

[Freeski]

The reason for the affirmation is to raise awareness, to get the word out that the federal government is overstepping its bounds... and to put the federal government on guard. To let them know that the states are about to lawfully put them back into their place or throw them offshore.

The 10th amendment to the Constitution for the average person means very little, when this kind of movement develops more people gain access to the understanding as well as the means. So it is very much like a firearm in your closet. With the reaffirmation, we are taking the firearm out of the closet, putting it into the holster, and buckling it to our waist. In other words we are no longer going to talk,  we are ready to do something about it. And the more states we have working in concert, the less likely the rogue federal government is to take action other than to stop what it's doing.

The federal government, the last time we moved with the 10th, provocateured Oklahoma City to demonize the patriots and the lawful state militias who were pushing the movement... The feds may do something similar this time in order to stop our lawful use of state government to keep the federal government in its constitutional place. They would be working at a handicap this time though, since the term "false-flag" has entered the lexicon in a big way.

Once you understand this, if you can convey it to your friends and neighbors, so they understand the reason for the reaffirmation, that it does not alter the power of the law, it just increases the awareness of the lawful nature of what is being done, which will hopefully entice individuals to stand up and be counted among the good and righteous people of this movement. And not among the genocidal elitist bastards who are causing the need for this kind of thing in the first place.

JTCoyoté

"Philosophy is common sense with big words."
~James Madison

That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[donnay]

We will win, Donnay.

--Oldyoti

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge
is the only guardian of true liberty. "
~James Madison

There is no doubt in my mind. *two thumbs up!*